Offshore Wind Farm Could Power Entire East Coast
A new study funded by the University of Delaware and Stanford University reports that offshore wind power could supply almost all of the East Coast’s energy needs. This is the first time a study has looked at just how much wind energy offshore farms could produce in this area of the country.
Wind power has had to fight some battles out East, most notably on Cape Cod, MA. There, some residents argue that the proposed offshore wind turbines would be visible from shore and ruin the area’s pristine view. I think global warming may take care of that job, anyway…
The study found that the most efficient area for offshore wind is a region called the Middle Atlantic Bight, which runs from Cape Cod, MA to Cape Hatteras, NC. The shallow water along this area would make it possible to put up a large amount of turbines. Current technology only allows turbines to be erected in water about 60 – 90 feet deep, although Scotland is experimenting with turbines in 150 feet of water. The study’s author, Willet Kempton, believes that some day soon wind power could pop up in as deep of water as 300 feet.
And that’s the depth the East Coast turbines would need in order to generate power efficiently. The study suggests that the installation of 160,000 turbines spread along the Bight area out to a depth of 300 feet would be more than enough power for the whole East Coast. Even better, this clean electricity would cut global warming pollution by 57 percent. Sound far fetched? Not to Kempton: “I think it’s a 100 percent probability [that this project will be built].”
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:04 pm
It's obvious to this observer of alternative energy technologies
why wind power has been sucking up the majority of funding : it's available,and it sounds really great - clean energy and free wind.
The reality is quite different - wind power is not free it is about the most expensive energy out there, although not by the grossly underestimated estimated by wind advocates. Offshore wind is even more costly than that onshore, much more costly. The idea of errecting 160,000 turbines offshore is a pipe dream and a really foolish way to attempt to produce green energy. There is also the issue of whether these calculations are bogus - wind advocates continually misrepresent wind turbine outputs, usually characterizing windfarms by megawatt claims that are 3 to 4 times the actual outputs of these facilities. The is also the extremely important matter of the non-baseload characteristic of wind power. Anyone
who has ever been outdoors can tell you, the wind doesn't blow all of the time. Texas reports that during peak demand periods during 2006, their wind power was producing a paltry 2.5% of capacity, a
totally insignificant amount. If those 160,000 let's assume 5 MW offshore turbines, are projected to produce 2 MW each at 40% capacity, guess what happens when the wind dies? There would be an absolutely gigantic gap between demand and supply, requiring virtually ever turbine's output be duplicated by controllable, reliable power generators. That increases the costs of this fallacious idea
astronomically. What's surprising is how ignorant many are as to what superior alternatives exist or shortly will exist to wind power.
Wave power such as Seadog systems, that produce CONTROLLABLE, and reliable power require far less geographical areas to equal wind, which is an ephemeral and non-sdense energy source. Recent tests indicate tht 1 square mile of Seadog devices can produce utputs the equivalent of 3020 1.5 MW wind turbines.
And this power is available 24/7 and highly valued, unlike wind generated electricity, which nobody wants and always commands the very lowest prices. These devices are also very simple and cost effective, unlike the ultra complicated monster wind turbines, whose maitenance requirements are tey unproven , but likely to be many times those of devices such as the Seadog. Wind is an ultra expensive bad decision to make when there are so many much more promising alternatives, such as geothermal hot rock and geothermal heat pumps, Enviromision type solar towers, nuclear energy, and the very promising wave energy just mentioned.
Wind is a clean technology that is a foolish choice as of right now.
Wave does not require, like wind, that fuel burning power plants remain in service , polluting the air. Wind may be clean, but all of the auxillary power sources that are needed to make up for its unreliability are not. Thinking of wind as clean, therefore, is mostly
an example of ignorance of the technology, which hasn'rt advanced since it was first used 2500 years ago.
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Wind energy really requires storage facilities to even out the peaks and lulls of wind supply. The need for such storage facilities is usually not accounted for in cost estimates by wind advocates. I have no idea how much extra such storage facilities would cost (i.e. giant batteries or water pumped up towers or reservoirs to be released at peak times and re-generate electricty, all with losses in efficiencies), but I could easily see it in the range of at least doubling or tripling the cost of the wind turbines alone. I agree with the comments above that wind power is over-rated and there are far better methods being largely ignored.
February 23rd, 2007 at 8:37 pm
We in Ontario are closely watching the wind debate south of the border. 60% of our air pollution comes from the US.
The Ontario government has procured ~400 MWs of wind generation at a cost of $2.5 billion. The wind farms need to be backed up for 75% of wind's rated energy. The plan is to build natural gas power plants. While gas is cleaner than coal, the gas fuel cycle still emits 50% of GHGs of coal, 25% of NOxs and 35% of particulates.Had Ontario installed $1.8 billion in up-to-date emission controls on its coal units, we would have prevented $12.5 billion in health and environmental damages including 3850 premature deaths between 2000 and 2006. The emission controls would have paid for themselves in NINE MONTHS.
On August 1, 2006, Ontario set a new record for power consumption, smashing the previous year’s record by almost 1,000 megawatts. The dollars would be better spent on conserving energy instead of inefficient wind farms, polluting gas plants and trading pollution credits. Help us shame Ontario’s government by cleaning up your coal plants.
Ron M
Owen Sound
Ontario
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:43 pm
If it were true that the entire East Coast could be powered by industrial wind plants, why is it that the developers of Cape Wind in MA state their chosen location in the Nantucket Sound is the only viable location for such a project? According to them there is one place and one place only that could possibly be economically feasible. Any answers to that?
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:05 pm
According to comments at another blog, 'the study acknowledges that it is speculative supply a long way from practicality. From the U. Delaware press release: "To make wind power more uniform, the study shows that multiple sites could be connected through power lines to reduce the number of times of both maximum and minimum power. Changes in new and replacement energy-using devices, including automobiles, also could provide for greater power storage."'
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:07 pm
I really think windmills are architecturally beautiful. I'm not so sure of their total practicality compared to other technologies but it's true that man has been using wind power for centuries and there's no reason to abandon this idea now.
Earlier this month I ran across this article that seems to have much merit. They are using cold-stores as ‘batteries’ to store wind energy. They simply take the temp down a few extra degrees when the wind kicks up and turn off the grid-consuming refrigeration compressors until they’re needed again. This supplemental use of wind energy does seem to have a good capacity to pay for itself.
http://rationalenvironmentalist.com
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:03 pm
I wrote about that on Treehugger, too, Jimmy — it's a pretty innovative idea…
As far as some of the criticisms of wind power, I'd direct folks to this page in the Green Life Guide, courtesy of the American Wind Energy Association. Obviously, they're supporters of wind power, but we want everyone to get both sides of this debate.
_______________________________________
Jeff McIntire-Strasburg
Senior Editor
Green Options
jeff@greenoptions.com
February 24th, 2007 at 5:59 am
Why not generate electricity right on your own home from solar? Can you imagine the size of the cables and the expense of running thousandas of amps thru the water. If you look at the losses of a regular land based power generatin system, they lose about 1% per 5 miles. Has anyone heard of this new company called CitizenRe? I have been investigating them for the last three months. Have a look and comment back here what you think:
http://www.jointhesolution.com/yorkville
http://www.powur.com/yorkville
February 24th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Please direct your solicitations to the Spam folder of the Discussion Forums. This message will self-destruct… well, never, to let other people know not to do it. Off-topic even… how rude!
-David
Founder and CEO
Green Options, LLC
February 24th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Funny you should say that since the debate is pretty much one-sided in terms of wind power. The industry coupled with uninformed media and politicians frames it all as anti-environment and anti-alternative energy to oppose it and thus the other side receives little or no attention other than as NIMBYism, which it is not. Industrial wind power has become the poster child for alternative energy usurping all other forms, that could provide a permanent long term answer without further harm to our already struggling environment in terms of research and development, publicity etc. Wind is intermittent, expensive and destructive to open space and wildlife habitat. These are the facts. Opposition to wind power by no means should be considered opposition to alternative energy and yet it is framed as such.