Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power

New York's First Offshore Wind Farms To Launch This Year 80

Posted by BeauHD from the ambitious-goals dept.
New York will launch the nation's first major offshore wind farms later this year off of Long Island. CBS News reports: Long Island winds, strong and consistent, will power New York's first offshore wind farm, and its first power cable has made landfall. Snaking 60 miles, by year's end it will connect 12 wind turbines being built 35 miles east of Montauk, ushering in clean energy to 70,000 homes. It's the biggest dive into offshore wind in the nation -- a first of many. It's named South Fork. It will be the first of five wind farms in the works, with four to five more to come. [...] New York's first five wind farms will power 2.5 million homes within five years. Its goal is to produce all electricity with zero emissions by 2040.

"Right now, Long Island is powered about 80% by fossil fuels. And when we go to 2040 it will be 0% for New York. Off shore wind will probably provide 25% of the state's electricity within the next 10 to 15 years. So it's a massive, renewable clean source of energy at affordable prices. And it's located right near where all the electricity demand is," CEO of LIPA Tom Falcone said. "We need to transition downstate from fossil fuels to renewables. And that's a great challenge for New York, because we can't really build anything on the land because there isn't land. So we have to share the ocean," said Adrienne Esposito from Citizens Campaign for the Environment.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New York's First Offshore Wind Farms To Launch This Year More

New York's First Offshore Wind Farms To Launch This Year

Comments Filter:

  • inb4 nimbyism (Score:3)

    by peterww ( 6558522 ) on Thursday April 20, 2023 @08:35PM (#63466112)

    "A wind turbine? In my view?? Not in my backyard!!!"

  • Yes, I followed the link, and no it doesn't say how much power they will generate. Well, I guess they could spec'd it in how many jumbo jets they could push a football field in distance but personally I wanted to know how many MWh.

    • The South Fork Wind Farm is the smallest of five offshore wind projects [ny.gov] off the coast of Long Island/NYC. It's 130MW.

      =Smidge=

      • That's puny, and my problem with all the east coast projects including Biden's. At least California is talking GW, that's the range that'll make a dent in emissions. The east coast stuff is just virtue signalling that amounts to nothing.

        • Ask me how I know you didn't read the link...

          There will be a total of 4.23GW of offshore wind online by 2028, and that's just for New York.
          =Smidge=

          • doesn't exist

            • New York's 4.2GW by 2028 which is already in construction is more real than California's 5GW goal by 2030 which hasn't started yet AFAIK.

              California has a problem developing offshore wind since their waters are a lot deeper. the northeast coast has a large continental shelf which provides a foundation to build on, with a nearly flat ocean depth less than 100m deep out to 160km offshore. The west coast has a similar patch up near Oregon/Washington but California has to deal with 200+m depths. It's been a vexi

    • Long Island winds, strong and consistent, will power New York's first offshore wind farm, and its first power cable has made landfall. Snaking 60 miles, by year's end it will connect 12 wind turbines being built 35 miles east of Montauk, ushering in clean energy to 70,000 homes.

      How many 'homes' in a MW/hr?

  • "We need to transition downstate from fossil fuels to renewables"

    Why do we need to do that? Will it make any difference to the climate, and if so how much?

    State the amount of the direct reduction due to lowered global emissions, and state separately the amount of the indirect reduction by country in those countries which will be moved by the NY State example to make further reductions than they already would have made.

    • What is the point you're trying to make? That nobody should do anything because no singe action on its own can stop climate change?

      • I think the (stupid) point he is trying to make is that he doesn't want to change his way of life, and expect others to adapt that that he can continue emitting as much CO2 as he wants.

        This is a form of modern slavery. But with a few intermediaries between master and slaves, so that it is cognitively acceptable.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Budenny ( 888916 )

        No, I am making a much more serious point than that.

        My point is, no-one outside the West, and more particularly the English speaking countries in the West, has any intention of reducing their emissions. In fact, if you look at the countries which are currently doing around 75% of global emissions, their policy is to grow as fast as possible, and to emit whatever follows from that policy.

        That is just a fact. My point is that the development of policy in the US or the UK or Australia or Canada must take acc

        • Sir, this is an Arby's.

          Take an analogy. We know that over-use of antibiotics is a problem, it is producing antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria and varieties of known diseases which are increasingly no longer treatable by the antibiotics we now have.

          A relative for whom I am responsible is taken into care and I am told they require antibiotics. Should I refuse 'because resistance'? When I know that whether I refuse or not will make no difference to the problem of resistance, which is a global problem, and I also know that the main source of that problem is other countries, and is agriculture, none of which are going to change, and which will not be affected by my decision. And when the cost to my relative of refusal is potentially high to the point of being fatal?

          This is a bad analogy because nobody wants to completely phase out antibiotics. They key word is "over-use". If the illness can be treated without antibiotics, don't use take them. If it's necessary, take them as prescribed, finish the course, and dispose of the rest properly. This is really a very basic thing. Like saying that voting doesn't matter because your 1 vote has 0% chance of changing anything. Collectively, it makes a difference.

          Secondly, antibiotics are sometimes absolutel

    • do your own homework, kid

  • ten times more material than nuclear fission (Score:3)

    by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Friday April 21, 2023 @10:20AM (#63467098)

    Wind power takes ten times more material than nuclear fission for the same energy output. While the build up of wind power is on a small scale this material cost is negligible. Now consider how much more material would have to be mined out of the ground to replace all the nuclear power plants currently operating in the USA. We get about 20% of our electricity from nuclear power today, and those nuclear power plants are getting old.

    What is going to replace all these nuclear power plants as they reach the end of their operational life? Windmills? Not likely. Solar power? Solar power also requires considerable amounts of materials for the same energy output, more that wind power takes.

    If people want to avoid environmental damage then they should be begging for more nuclear power. With nuclear power we get the most energy for the least material mined from the Earth. Where do people think the concrete anchors that hold up these windmills come from? It is mined rock that has to be processed with considerable investment in energy, and then more energy expended to move it into place. The greatest return on energy invested comes from nuclear fission, with a possible exception for hydroelectric dams.

    If we leave out fossil fuels the best energy return on energy invested comes from (in no particular order) onshore wind, hydroelectric dams, with geothermal energy included as well. There's too much noise in the signal in differentiating geothermal as an energy source to that of geothermal heat pumps as a heating source that getting good information on the internet is difficult. Either way the options for lowering CO2 emissions, lowering energy costs while sustaining our standard of living must include onshore wind, hydroelectric dams, and nuclear fission. Failing to include them all means energy costs rise, CO2 emissions rise, and people will find life more difficult.

    The usual response to warnings like this is "citation needed", but then if I provide any citations then I'm accused of cherry picking sources. So, I suggest interested people look up things like material needs, energy returns on energy invested, land area use, CO2 emissions, safety of the different energy sources, and whatever metric you believe important in deciding how to produce energy in the future. Offshore windmills will not perform well on these metrics. Solar power will not do well either. What will do well is onshore wind, hydro, and nuclear fission.

    • You keep pushing the same string here. Since when is materials-per-megawatts a valid metric? There is no lack of concrete, aluminum, and glass. Some wind turbines are now made of wood.
      https://electrek.co/2022/11/16... [electrek.co]

      Nuclear takes a ridiculously long time to build and is hugely expensive, as demonstrated by multiple projects recently completed or underway. Let us know when the small modular reactors come online. You know, the ones that have received more than $400 million in funding by the U.S. Department o

      • You keep pushing the same string here. Since when is materials-per-megawatts a valid metric?

        Materials per megawatt started to be an issue once Russia started shelling cities in Ukraine. There's going to be a need for concrete and steel to rebuild destroyed apartments and factories.

        There is no lack of concrete, aluminum, and glass. Some wind turbines are now made of wood.

        There's going to be a shortage of wood too, both as a building material and as a fuel.

        Nuclear takes a ridiculously long time to build and is hugely expensive, as demonstrated by multiple projects recently completed or underway. Let us know when the small modular reactors come online. You know, the ones that have received more than $400 million in funding by the U.S. Department of Energy since 2014.

        Nobody is claiming we build only nuclear power plants. We need to see onshore windmills, hydroelectric dams, nuclear fission power plants. likely many natural gas power plants. and much more. There will not be energy independence in

        • Let us know when Hinckley Point C is generating electricity. Now expected in 2027 at a cost of GBP 26 billion, original budget was 18 billion.

          • Right, because we base the success of an industry based on a single project. Do we base the safety and/or success of the airline industry on that of the Boeing 737 MAX? I'm pretty sure we don't.

            I expect Hinkley Point C to be successfully completed and be the first of many new nuclear power plants in the United Kingdom. Lessons learned from that project will guide following projects on what not to do.

            If the answer does not include nuclear power then what does the answer look like? More windmills? More s

            • Single project? Vogtle units 3 & 4 are at least 5 years behind schedule and still not online. The original budget was $12 billion, now projected to be at least $34 billion. The V.C. Summer plant was a complete failure, abandoned at a cost of $9 billion. The TVA gave up on the Bellefonte nuke plant after 47 years. Since the 1970s, a total of 95 nuclear reactors proposed to be built by U.S. utilities have been canceled

  • Russian ships have been cruising the offshore wind farms in the North Sea, alllegedly (almost certainly!) carrying out preparations for disabling them all in a conflict. That kind of thing is nearly impossible to defend against, really. So from the standpoint of national security, while offshore power is attractive and efficient, it's also not reliable in the face of competent adversaries.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rbrander ( 73222 )

      Whereas those ships could not possibly launch missiles that blow up nuclear plants, also disabling power, not to mention causing a bit of a mess? At least the windfarm takes one missile per 15MW, not one missile shutting down 1.5GW.

      • What would be easier to defend in a time of war? Hundreds of windmills that must be exposed to the wind to produce power? Or, a nuclear power plant that can be put underground? If things get bad then expect to see submerged nuclear power plants to be constructed, placed in rivers and harbors, quite possibly moved occasionally to prevent being targeted by missiles, artillery, or sabotage. Alternatively a nuclear power plant could be built under a mountain, or some other large natural barrier to protect i

        • Power plants are resistant to terrorists hijacking planes with box cutters. I'd rather go after a power plant with a bunker penetrating bomb than hundreds of windmills.

Slashdot Top Deals

Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too." -- Dave Haynie

Close