New York Approves Largest US Offshore Wind Farm Off Long Island (computerworld.com) 119
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has approved what will be the longest U.S. offshore wind farm when it's built off the east end of Long Island. When it's all said and done, it will generate enough electricity to power more than 50,000 homes on Long Island's South Fork. Computerworld reports: The South Fork Wind Farm will consist of 15 wind turbines with 90 megawatts (MW) of capacity. While the project still needs to complete its permitting process, construction could start as early as 2019 and it may be operational as early as 2022. The approval of the South Fork Wind Farm, to be located 30 miles southeast of Montauk, is the first step toward developing 1,000 megawatts (1 gigawatt) of offshore wind power, Cuomo said in a statement. The wind farm approval comes two weeks after Cuomo's State of the State Address, during which he called for the development of 2.4 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030. The 2.4 gigawatt target, which is enough power generation for 1.25 million homes, is the largest commitment to offshore wind energy in U.S. history, Cuomo said. Cuomo wants New York state to get 50% of its energy from renewable sources by 2030. The nation's first offshore wind farm, the Block Island Wind Farm, went live last month. Both the Block Island and South Fork wind farms are owned by Deepwater Wind, a company based in Providence, R.I.
the project still needs to complete (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It will also be the quickest sued into oblivion. Lots of expensive houses up near Montauk point, lots of expensive views ruined for well paid Wall Street execs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Times also noted that the project is expected to cost $740 million, down from an earlier projection of $1 billion, which Deepwater Wind will finance with loans and equity investments. The Long Island Power Authority said it would purchase all of South Fork Wind’s output for 20 years—the renewable electricity is expected to cost rate payers an extra $1.19 a month on average.
Re: (Score:3)
Evidence or stop talking out of your ass.
Re: (Score:1)
its permitting process, because the all bribes haven't been paid.
No, the bribes are for the New Jersey wind project
Who's Going to Break This To All The Rich People? (Score:1)
>>the project still needs to complete its permitting process...
Yes, well, good luck with that...
Re:Who's Going to Break This To All The Rich Peopl (Score:4)
Make America great again. As in like the 1950's. Let's go back to things that once were the economic engines of growth during the Dear Leader's youth. That would be Cars. Steel. Oil. Coal. It's not that we don't need all those things to some extent. But in the 21st century they are not the economic engines of growth, IMO. The things that are now the economic engines of growth are The Internet. Robots. AI. Nanotech. Biotech. Etc.
The dear leader wants to build a pipeline because he has a completely out of touch view of the future. Just like in the 1950's, we can pollute the world forever with no consequences! Yea!
Re: (Score:2)
Creating value is the only path to economic prosperity. Like it or not, extracting oil from the ground and refining it creates value. Making iron ore into steel and then turning that steel into an automobile creates value. We definitely need to do things better and smarter and with fewer consequences than we did in the 1950s(protecting our water resources is critical), but it's also imperative that we(USAians) transition our economy toward value-add production.
Our smoke and mirrors "consumer spending" an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Who's Going to Break This To All The Rich Peop (Score:1)
Let's hope it does better than Shoreham Nuclear (Score:2)
Back in the 70's and 80's, Long Island Lighting Company built a complete 820 MW nuclear plant that never operated beyond some initial low-power testing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Let's hope it does better than Shoreham Nuclear (Score:5, Informative)
"It's doubtful they understood the risks of nuclear back in the 70s"
I am pretty sure they started learning about the dangers of nuclear processes starting back in the 1940's.
"It took a Fukushima accident... "
Have you ever heard about the 3 Mile Island incident back in 1979? The Chernobyl accident was in 1986. The Fukushima accident didn't happen until 2011.
Re:Let's hope it does better than Shoreham Nuclear (Score:5, Informative)
"It took a Fukushima accident... "
Have you ever heard about the 3 Mile Island incident back in 1979? The Chernobyl accident was in 1986. The Fukushima accident didn't happen until 2011.
Why can you Yanks never admit the Brits beat you to anything? The Brits had a nuclear accident way back in 1957 (Windscale), long before 3 Mile Island was even in the planning stage.
Re: Let's hope it does better than Shoreham Nuclea (Score:2)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
We were damn lucky with Windscale. They were not going to bother fitting filters to the chimneys, but someone insisted and it prevented a large amount of dangerous material being released into the atmosphere.
It's one of those odd quirks of history that if it had been a major accident then it might have meant fewer accidents and less proliferation in the future.
Re: (Score:1)
Just as a FYI, Canada did it first.
NRX partial meltdown accident - December 12, 1952
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRX#Accident [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
The problem with nuclear isn't nuclear, it's that all it takes is one Homer Simpson in the right place to turn a nuclear plant into a disaster. And Homer doesn't even need to work in the plant. Just getting sloppy with the manufacture or inspection of some components can provide the fatal flaw.
Homer Simpsons work in coal, oil, solar, and windfarm facilities, too, but none of those have the ability to leak toxic chemicals with long lives over the surrounding neighbourhood. The site itself can be contaminated
Re: (Score:2)
Fukushima has a watershed. 3 Mile Island ultimately wasn't too bad or expensive, relatively speaking. Chernobyl was in a backwards Communist state and could never happen in the west.
Fukushima was in a modern country with a developed regulatory system. It exposed problems that were deemed too unlikely to be concerned with. It showed that we were overly optimistic and that severe accidents, capable of ruining lives and costing hundreds of billions of dollars to fix could happen.
That's why it's had such a big
Re: (Score:1)
That is, except for the current Conservative government in the UK. They seem keen on taking risks, spending (wasting) lots of taxpayer money and all so that some Chinese investors and a French company can make an easy buck.
Re: Let's hope it does better than Shoreham Nuclea (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The barley mutated? ;^D
Re: (Score:2)
In one of the greatest instances of marketing serendipity ever, a popular film called The China Syndrome depicting a nuclear meltdown opened two weeks before the TMI incident. So the potential for nuclear meltdown had filtered into the popular consciousness enough to catch the attention of a screenwriter.
But that said, I think it is doubtful that even today we really "understand the risks." I think the public tends to have a simplistic view of the risks, and that's true for the pro- and anti-nuclear camps
Re: (Score:1)
Calm down sonny boy; grab your blanky and crayons, and head for your safe space. Tune in to that rockin' New Age music vibe.
Re: (Score:1)
Chernobyl was never certified as safe by the greater world community. It had no containment and that was always considered a major flaw. Also, its protective safety features were deliberately disabled. Three Mile Island worked out perfectly fine from a safety perspective. TMI had zero radiological impact on health.
Fukushima was placed in the wrong location, where it was hit by a tsunami. They made the same mistakes with villages, it was not a nuclear specific problem. That is easily rectified, but even Fuku
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Dems have fissures as well. Have you noticed? Let's see the construction, blue-collar labor unions on one side and the environmental lobby on the other. Hmmm. How did that fissure work out for the Democrats in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania?
Re global warming - if people who stop with the hysterics and stop saying "warmest in history" when it's really warmest in 100 years you may get furth
Re: (Score:3)
Then consider this logical inconsistency.
* Corporations are Persons
* Personal Responsibility
* Corporations should never have any responsibility for what they do, thus no regulations ever
Ted Kennedy (Score:1)
Since the old codger croaked, we can finally have windmills in New England.
Re: (Score:1)
So do actually know what a thing called a "shipping lane" is?
Hint - Ships cant cruise just anywhere already
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a photographer and actually notice things around me.
I don't like all those fucking power poles and lines but did you ever think of that?
No.
You only think about yourself.
Re:lets destroy the view (Score:4, Informative)
In a generation, different people will look out on the ocean and think: how beautiful the graceful windmills are compared to coal power plants belching out pollution.
Yes, modern life has some curses associated with it, such as FaceTwit. But still I wouldn't live in any other past time.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree and, I would point out that I am 71 years old, which gives me some experience regarding views.
I remember staying outside as long as I could see. I remember how the sky looked before light pollution set in. I remember the concept of "public lands," where a guy could pull off the side of near any road and shoot a gun at some bottles and cans.
The landscape, compared to now, was photogenic.
Now, it's almost impossible to capture old theaters, tall hotels, barns, pasture, without trespassing on private pr
Re: (Score:3)
Just like all those windmills in the Øresund have brought all shipping into and out of the Baltic to a screeching halt, right?
Re: (Score:1)
Sussex UK is about to get 116 wind turbines about 8 miles off shore, and people are going to be really pissed off when they see them.
http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Rampion-foundations-complete-1.jpg
These really need to go further off shore where they're out of sight, like the floating wind farm being constructed off Aberdeen Scotland
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/16/worlds-first-floating-wind-farm-gets-go-ahead-off-scottish-coast/
More wind, more power, less pissed off
Re: (Score:3)
Sensible people realise that a few windmills out in the sea is infinitely preferable to a coal / oil / gas plant with all the infrastructure that goes with it - railway lines, slag heaps, ash ponds, oil / gas holders, deep dredged docks, traffic, tanker / colliers sounding horns etc.
Re: (Score:2)
He's the governor and has been for the last 6 years. He should've signed and paid for it, then started the construction of it. To this point there's only been prototypes though, lots of them have been constructed for millions of euros only to be decommissioned a few months or years later. From what I can find, there's only a company with some ideas which has now been funded for millions by tax payers without any scientific or technical demonstrations, prototypes or results.
I'll believe it when I see it (Score:5, Informative)
So far, NIMBYs have been very effective at killing offshore wind farms. Waterfront property is typically owned by "special" people, and they don't like the noise of wind turbines. http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo... [go.com]
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:4, Informative)
DIrect quote from the article:
But Cape Cod is a region famous for its pastoral ocean views, including the one visible from the Kennedy compound at Hyannisport. Once built, the wind-power plant would be faintly visible on the skyline of this tourist-dependent community, particularly during clear days.
"We wouldn't build a wind farm in the middle of Yosemite," Robert Kennedy Jr., son of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, has argued. "People want to look out and see the same sight the Pilgrims saw."
I mentioned it because there have been numerous wind farm proposals near Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard, and ALL of them have been defeated. The excuses change every so often, as the NIMBYs align themselves with whatever allies they can find.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all part of the Kennedy creed: "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask for special treatment and privileges."
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:4, Insightful)
It's selfishness. Don't want an offshore wind farm near my property, faintly visible on clear days and not exactly ugly. No, someone else can have a fossil fuel or nuclear plant near them, and I'll happily consume that energy at subsidised prices, thank you very much.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly that. To see the view like the pilgrims did is the lamest excuse I've seen in a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's what they want, I'll gladly demolish their compound, and replant native forest plants.
Re: (Score:2)
They they do not want a wind farm to be visible from their property, then they can buy the property that the wind farm would be located on.
Re: (Score:1)
That example was 5 miles off shore. This project is 30 miles away, so they have a fighting chance at least.
Re: (Score:1)
Not just NIMBYs, Trump could kill this entire project with one stroke of the pen:
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/290093-trump-wind-power-kills-all-your-birds
Re: (Score:1)
I'm surprised Trump even allowed this to be announced. What's good for the EPA should be good for the state governors too.
But hey, we haven't gotten to the point of State Run Media or Ministry of Information... yet.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
...we haven't gotten to the point of State Run Media or Ministry of Information...
CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg, and nearly everyone came awfully close for the Obama Administration.
Media bias (on some spectrum between real and perceived) is an entirely different thing than placing gag orders on in-the-public-interest government agencies and publicy-funded scientific work. But go ahead, keep treating this as a game show, because obviously this is just politics-as-usual and nothing could possibly go wrong in such an exceptional place as the US... (/sarcasm)
Re: (Score:1)
I'd have chosen Voice of America as the foil there, given how Trump just turned it over to some breitbartish characters.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have chosen Voice of America as the foil there, given how Trump just turned it over to some breitbartish characters.
Wouldn't argue with that. The difficulty is that there are so many jaw-droppers to choose from you may as well just throw a dart at the wall. Which should be another clue that this isn't politics-as-usual.
If Obama was performing hostile takeover of this scope and magnitude in the first seven days of office, not only would conservatives be calling for blood, I truly believe that people who supported him would be having their share of WTF? moments.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
A rational NIMBY argument would be a bit difficult to come by.
Not a problem, as we have ready access to a generous supply of irrational NIMBY arguments as well :)
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:4, Insightful)
"A rational NIMBY argument would be a bit difficult to come by."
Unfortunately, NIMBYs are just as good at fabricating irrational arguments. Just you watch: the continental shelf 30 miles offshore will turn out to be sacred ground to someone.
Re: (Score:2)
"A rational NIMBY argument would be a bit difficult to come by."
I worked as a planner in a community that was developing a bylaw to permit (land-based) large-scale wind turbines. I heard every reason under the sun for why we shouldn't have them, but the one that really took the cake was one of the main opponents standing up and screaming, "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WHALES!!!" (keep in mind that this was for land-based turbines).
It took all my strength in the world to not blurt out, "Lady, you don't give a flying F**K about the whales!"
Re: (Score:3)
"BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WHALES!!!"
That's simply good planning. Those land-based turbines will be underwater soon, causing mayhem when whales crash into their spinning blades. You think it makes a mess when a large bird hits a blade? Try a frickin sperm whale!
Re: (Score:2)
Although we might point out that there if every single piece of natural ice on the planet were to melt, the oceans would rise 261 feet. Not enough for the whales to even reach the blades of today's turbines.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:4, Insightful)
All we can do is read Don Quixote and laugh at how apt it is so many centuries later. People hate change and cling to a golden age that never happened - by charging at windmills!
Re: (Score:2)
All we can do is read Don Quixote and laugh at how apt it is so many centuries later. People hate change and cling to a golden age that never happened - by charging at windmills!
If I ran a wind power company, it would be named Quixote Enterprises. And taking a page from the Mafia, the CEO's official title would be Don.
Re: (Score:2)
But I'll see it every time I chopper in and out of my seafront villa.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ha Ha (Score:1)
30 miles offshore. Pirate territory. Whole new set of people gonna need regular bribes. Good luck mossbacks.
The motherload!!!!! (Score:1)
windmills on top of skyscrapers (Score:1)
Put windmills on top of skyscrapers, so you don't need all the power lines. You have consumer right below the producer.
Maybe not the big Wopper mills, but a quieter type.
Change the skyline and give the finger to oil.
Re: (Score:2)
Give the finger to oil? Describe how to use a wind turbine to power an 18 wheeler down the road, or a ship across the ocean. You might, with a massive effort, hang enough catenary wire to power locomotives with grid electricity, but by and large, the transportation industry is unable to use wind and solar until someone invents a MUCH better battery. They're trying like hell to do that, and they're not getting much of anywhere, at least not with anything remotely affordable. We may never get that batte
Niagara (Score:2)
Interesting that the main US Falls plant delivers 2.5GW today The Lewiston "peaker" plant adds another 240MW. Amazing the amount of power from this very old power source from the falls. And that is just the US production.
Re: (Score:1)
You'd think the Canadian side would produce more power, but with the current exchange rate there's not much difference.
Re: (Score:2)
I have had it in for the seagulls since one stole a french fry from me.
Does the RNC know about this? (Score:2)
Excellent choice (Score:1)
Makes far more sense than importing liquefied dead dinosaurs for energy.
Plus, bonus, no long supply chain to defend and make up excuses to invade other countries to get it!