HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Study: 144,000 wind turbi...

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 12:16 PM

Study: 144,000 wind turbines at sea could power East Coast

Power East Coast via wind? Doable with 144,000 offshore turbines, study says

Placing wind turbines off the East Coast could meet the entire demand for electricity from Florida to Maine, according to engineering experts at Stanford University.

It would require 144,000 offshore turbines standing 270 feet tall — not one of which exists since proposals have stalled due to controversy and costs. But the analysis shows its doable and where the best locations are, says study co-author Mark Jacobson, a Stanford professor of civil and environmental engineering.



The first large-scale offshore wind farm was proposed in 2001 off Massachusetts' Nantucket Island. But vocal opposition, including from political heavyweights like the Kennedy family, are seeking to block the $2.6 billion Cape Wind project, arguing the 130 massive turbines would mar views and endanger boat and air traffic.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The question that I would first ask" critics, Jacobson told NBC News, "is would they rather have a coal or natural power gas plant in their neighborhood, which affects their health and that of their children as well as their quality of life and property values, or an innocuous turbine that they could barely see during those times when they were actually looking offshore."




http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/15/13864179-power-east-coast-via-wind-doable-with-144000-offshore-turbines-study-says?lite
There is a poll at the bottom of the page: Q: Should the U.S. encourage offshore wind power?


84 replies, 13309 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 84 replies Author Time Post
Reply Study: 144,000 wind turbines at sea could power East Coast (Original post)
liberal N proud Sep 2012 OP
Hangingon Sep 2012 #1
TheKentuckian Sep 2012 #3
Hangingon Sep 2012 #7
SidDithers Sep 2012 #8
Hangingon Sep 2012 #11
pokerfan Sep 2012 #22
Scootaloo Sep 2012 #28
eppur_se_muova Sep 2012 #57
Magoo48 Sep 2012 #81
NightWatcher Sep 2012 #41
Ikonoklast Sep 2012 #64
nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #2
Sirveri Sep 2012 #75
porphyrian Sep 2012 #4
Brother Buzz Sep 2012 #5
Posteritatis Sep 2012 #29
SidDithers Sep 2012 #6
Hangingon Sep 2012 #9
TheKentuckian Sep 2012 #16
GliderGuider Sep 2012 #18
Brother Buzz Sep 2012 #10
SidDithers Sep 2012 #13
GliderGuider Sep 2012 #15
The Midway Rebel Sep 2012 #40
SidDithers Sep 2012 #44
The Midway Rebel Sep 2012 #45
malaise Sep 2012 #12
Hangingon Sep 2012 #38
malaise Sep 2012 #70
DonRedwood Sep 2012 #14
GliderGuider Sep 2012 #17
XemaSab Sep 2012 #19
GliderGuider Sep 2012 #21
ProSense Sep 2012 #20
liberal N proud Sep 2012 #23
piratefish08 Sep 2012 #24
SilveryMoon Sep 2012 #31
joshcryer Sep 2012 #37
Bluefin Tuna Sep 2012 #25
GliderGuider Sep 2012 #30
2on2u Sep 2012 #26
eqfan592 Sep 2012 #27
hunter Sep 2012 #32
Bluefin Tuna Sep 2012 #33
liberal N proud Sep 2012 #35
Confusious Sep 2012 #55
liberal N proud Sep 2012 #58
Confusious Sep 2012 #68
DainBramaged Sep 2012 #49
Confusious Sep 2012 #54
theKed Sep 2012 #61
abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #62
NightWatcher Sep 2012 #34
liberal N proud Sep 2012 #36
joshcryer Sep 2012 #39
XemaSab Sep 2012 #42
liberal N proud Sep 2012 #43
The Midway Rebel Sep 2012 #46
DainBramaged Sep 2012 #47
Zorra Sep 2012 #48
abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #50
Bluefin Tuna Sep 2012 #53
abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #59
Bluefin Tuna Sep 2012 #66
abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #67
RandiFan1290 Sep 2012 #60
Auntie Bush Sep 2012 #63
backscatter712 Sep 2012 #69
Auntie Bush Sep 2012 #73
Occulus Sep 2012 #65
drm604 Sep 2012 #51
Confusious Sep 2012 #56
Deep13 Sep 2012 #52
pediatricmedic Sep 2012 #71
liberal N proud Sep 2012 #72
XemaSab Sep 2012 #74
liberal N proud Sep 2012 #76
XemaSab Sep 2012 #82
liberal N proud Sep 2012 #83
TheManInTheMac Sep 2012 #78
B Calm Sep 2012 #77
sarcasmo Sep 2012 #79
bighart Sep 2012 #80
badtoworse Sep 2012 #84

Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 12:50 PM

1. What would 144,000 wind turbines look like?

Are we talking a 270' wind turbine every 150 yards?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:02 PM

3. Doubtful considering the really huge space but

Let's say it did, considering the percentage of the population that would be provided for, wouldn't it be worth it compared to any other plausible alternative?

If you are more concerned about an eye sore than the alternative carbon footprint, I don't think heads are screwed on right and priorities are FUBAR.

Think about all the coal, nukes, gas, and oil it takes to power the east coast now.

If the study is true, we should make it so within five years and do a truly monumental thing for our energy independence and in making a bigger dent in reducing damage to our global environment than has been ever seriously proposed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #3)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:10 PM

7. I didn't waste much time, but Google gave me a East Coast length of 19,924 KM.

Seemed long, but it is a long way from tip of Florida to top of Maine. That is 21,789, 150 yards. Divide that by 144,000 turbines and you get 151.3 yards. Lots of wind turbines. Where are they made? I see a lot of them in the port area of Corpus Christi. I'll bet you can buy some used turbines cheap down here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #7)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:13 PM

8. 19000 km is the total US coastline...

the eastern coastline is 2,069 miles.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001801.html

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #8)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 02:00 PM

11. Thanks. I just grabbed a number and, of course, it was wrong.

Using your number, the density of windmills is out of site. There is a turbine farm 15 miles from me. The windmills are very closely spaced. They are getting a lot of complaints because of bird kills. I notice they are still uch of the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 06:08 PM

22. One every 50 feet would do it

The length of the eastern seaboard from Florida to Maine is 1342 mi.

1324 * 5280 / 144,000 = 48.5 feet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 07:02 PM

28. Here's what it WOULDN'T look like...











Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #28)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:35 AM

57. Thank you ! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eppur_se_muova (Reply #57)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 08:27 AM

81. Yes, thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:25 PM

41. They are miles off shore. They also look better than this



Sailing just inside Mobile Bay, Al you see dozens of oil rigs and natural gas rigs spewing fire into the night sky and polluting the peaceful night with flashing yellow lights

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #1)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:14 AM

64. Don't think in linear terms, think echelon.

This: * * * * * *

. * * * * * *



Not this: * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 12:57 PM

2. Bright side fire risk is minimal if one caught on fire

But they are not as green as people think...the more I mean of them, the more I realize they will be a Faustian choice...in the case of these, for sea birds...need to go to get my research done on the court case, speaking off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #2)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 02:56 AM

75. Not to mention manufacturing costs and materials.

Piles of rare earth metals, steel, copper, aluminum, nickel, etc etc etc... How do we get all these, well right now we use oil and coal because that's what our energy infrastructure is based on. But that might be worth it, ramp up your carbon footprint for 5-10 years, then drop it considerably once the system goes fully online. Other issue is maintenance costs, I'd imagine they'd be fairly costly to service. Might be better to install tidal power generators, though we might be able to do a side by side mix (likely stabilizing power outputs).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:02 PM

4. I'd rather have that than oil rigs. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:02 PM

5. I believe this fine west coast institution of higher education is really saying:

NIMBY

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brother Buzz (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 07:02 PM

29. That and most of the responses in the thread. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:10 PM

6. US Atlantic coastline is 2,069 miles long...

from Maine to tip of Florida.

144,000 turbines over 2,069 miles is 70 turbines per mile.

Blades are generally ~ 50 feet long, call it 120ft diameter, with that much spacing again between turbines ~ 250 ft.

Basically, you'll end up with turbines every 250 feet, 3 layers deep, down the entire Eastern coastline of the US.

That's a lot of turbines, really close together.

Edit: That would be a pretty effective picket fence to block off all shipping from the east coast too.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:16 PM

9. Your shoreline length is better than mine

It would be a real windmill curtain. I don't see this getting much traction along the coast or with the birders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 03:20 PM

16. Then they are little different than coal and oil barons, nukers, and frackers to me.

Really worse, we know we cannot satisfy those folks and they do not claim a common goal.

Better the coast be under water and great devastation to many kinds of life than to actually do something workable.

The only valuable question is if the math on production is true or not. Other concerns are secondary and mostly can be dealt with if planned for.

The questions should be how to do this and minimize other impacts not whether we should or not. No brainer considering the energy consumed by the east coast of the US. More off the west coast should do more. A massive solar farm in the desert another huge chunk, windmills and solar panels on individual dwelling another piece, some efficiency, creative use of waste, using hemp, and add in some geothermal to our hydro and we go a long way in meeting demand, if not exceed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #16)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:48 PM

18. The military and national security types will object too.

A turbine blanket like this along the East coast would seriously screw with defense and vessel traffic management radars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:35 PM

10. Typical blades I see passing my home are closer to 50 meters, not feet

I've watched hundreds and hundreds of trucks passing at night loaded with the components for each turbine (three trucks for blades, two for the base). The trucks are so wicked long, the back end has it's own steering station controlled by radio. Private pilot vehicles are doing the steering with a CHP escort front and back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brother Buzz (Reply #10)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 02:14 PM

13. Yeah, you're right...

I didn't dig too deeply to find actual rotor dimensions. I was just guessing based on pictures.

The Toronto urban wind turbine has 25m blades so diameter is more like 200 ft.

If we had one turbine every 400 feet, than we're stacking em up 6 deep to get 70 per mile.

If the blades are 50m, then diameter is ~500 ft. and now there's 14 or 15 layers to get 70 per mile.

I wonder how much of the coastline would have to be opened up for shipping lanes.

Anyway, that's a great lot of wind turbines.

Edit: But it might be tough for a turbine that's 270 ft tall, as described in the OP, to have a blade diameter of 500 ft

Sid



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 02:38 PM

15. The spacing would be more like 2500 feet (5 to 8 rotor diameters)

So a single rank of turbines would contain 4,000 units. That means about 40 ranks of turbines, with the ranks also separated by 2500 feet. That results in an offshore "wind farm" 2000 miles long by at least 20 miles deep, with the blade tips reaching over 500 feet in the air.

Even if there is that much suitable offshore shelf, I'm quite sure the USAF and NORAD would have something to say about this because of radar interference.

It ain't happening.

Large Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States - an Assessment of Opportunities and Barriers (PDF)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:24 PM

40. Why do they have to be in a line?

Why not put them in blocks and or stagger them?

You know;


xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx

or




x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x


Instead of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

?????

Nah, that would make too much sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Midway Rebel (Reply #40)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 11:14 PM

44. I didn't say they'd go in a single line...

So I don't know where you got that from.




I said there would be multiple lines, anywhere from 3 to 15 layers deep, depending on the size of the turbines and how much room is needed between them.

Doesn't matter how you think they should be spaced, anyway. It ain't never gonna happen.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #44)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:34 AM

45. You described it as a picket fence which is in a line, that is where I got it from.

I think it will happen. Maybe not the whole project to that scale, probably not in our life time but it will happen.

The need grows greater everyday and the technology keeps improving and their is a demand for it.


Perhaps vertical windmills would be a partial solution to the space problem.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 02:14 PM

12. I have one serious question re wind turbines

Can they survive hurricanes or they be taken down easily before a hurricane?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #12)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:21 PM

38. The turbines near me are on shore. They do not run during hurricanes.

There bis no easy take down These things are seriously big.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #38)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:07 PM

70. Thanks

Can they withstand hurricanes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 02:16 PM

14. NOW!

We may find they become obsolete quickly but the investment of moving away from coal and oil is worth it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:46 PM

17. It would be a $2+ Trillion project - just to re-power the East coast.

Without a carbon tax the economics won't make sense to anybody.

Speed of deployment is also an issue. In order to hold the global average temperature rise down to 2 degrees Celsius (which is now thought to be dangerously high rather than a safe upper bound), we need to reduce global carbon emissions by 80% or so, within the next decade or two. Unfortunately, the loss of Arctic sea ice, the droughts in the US and Russia, the destabilization of the Indian monsoon, and the wettest summer on record in the UK combine to tell us that we don't have a decade or two. The crisis is here now.

Jacobsen is notorious for producing these pie-in-the-sky reports that don't take any of the major real-world factors (politics, economics and climate realities) into account.

This is not going to happen. We had better get thinking about how we deal with a hot world, because that's the reality that's on the way - not 2,000-mile rows and rows of offshore turbines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #17)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:49 PM

19. Such pessimism!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XemaSab (Reply #19)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:54 PM

21. Aw, you noticed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #17)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:51 PM

20. Cool, the cost of wars!

Get it done!

Power the rest of the country with the Fed bailout of the banks, and for that money, throw in high speed rail!

Forward!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #17)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 06:20 PM

23. We waste that kind money blowing up other nations

Maybe we could stop pissing off other people and do some good for mother earth.

And if only part of it gets done, that is that much less coal, oil or nuclear power needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #17)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 06:51 PM

24. they should just carbon tax the fuck out of a war or two..... problem solved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #17)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:54 PM

31. We could have afforded the 2 Trillion Dollars easily

Last edited Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:38 AM - Edit history (1)

IF our politicians did not insist on spending more on our military than half the world combined, did not lower taxes for the wealthy and give almost countless loopholes to exploit, if they did waste money on tax credits to the Oil Industry, giving tax deferments to mega corporations making billions in profits, actually giving money to corporations (corporate welfare), did not stand by and ask for a handout so people like Mitt Romney can take advantage of off shore tax havens, did not stand by while businesses outsourced well paying jobs to China, did not insist on wasteful wars like Iraq, did not insist on nation building in Afghanistan, all over a few decades.

We could have afforded the 2 trillion easily and still had money left over for high speed rail and quality education.

If our politicians actually cared for the environment and not just how much money can the wealthy or a business give to their campaign, they would have done something about this decades ago instead of being concerned over homosexuality and abortion.

And if half the country actually had two brain cells to rub together and stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh or other equally crazy people and actually used some critical thinking skills and not just look at a candidate and think whether or not they could have a beer with, we could have voted for politicians that might have done something and not just the bat shit crazy ones always talking about family values, religion, guns, gays, abortion, and non-white people.

Not only could we have afforded it, but this could already be done or well underway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GliderGuider (Reply #17)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:20 PM

37. Yeah, give me $100 trillion (Jacobson's estimate for the world)...

...and I'll build moon colonies and ferry people to fucking Mars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 06:53 PM

25. That's incredible, but how much does each turbine cost?

 

If a turbine = $10 million apiece, then that's $1.44 trillion, not to mention the other associated costs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluefin Tuna (Reply #25)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:08 PM

30. $15 million each. Total cost $2 trillion. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 06:58 PM

26. But but but when the sun starts rising in the west won't there be a problem?? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 07:00 PM

27. Could they maybe mount the turbines on tidal generators and cut the number down??

I've heard those tidal generators are supposed to be pretty darn effective. Maybe putting turbines on top of them would cut the overall number of platforms down significantly.

Either way, I think a multifaceted approach is what we should be going for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:04 PM

32. Why? Because we haven't put enough crap in the oceans already?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:06 PM

33. I wonder if, for $1 trillion.......

 

How many solar panels could you lay down in the sunny, hot Southwestern United States?


Seems like there would be much less risk of natural disasters (as others mentioned, turbines on the Eastern seaboard would be at risk from hurricanes,) that these panels wouldn't pose the radar obstacle that turbines do, and wouldn't harm natural life as much as turbines might affect the marine ecosystem.



$1 trillion dollars' worth of solar panels = who knows how much power that would generate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluefin Tuna (Reply #33)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:13 PM

35. Biggest bang for the buck...



As you can see there are more lights in the east than the west.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #35)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:27 AM

55. So will you have us all move then? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #55)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 08:12 AM

58. That's the thing about wind turbines, you can build them nearly anywhere.

It's about proliferation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #58)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:34 PM

68. I guess I misunderstood.

I thought you were talking about solar cells in the southwest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluefin Tuna (Reply #33)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:03 AM

49. Every TD bank has solar panels covring the roof of the drive in

The manager at mine says they use minimal power from the grid most of the year due to the powr generated by the cells.

https://mediaroom.tdbank.com/green

In 2010, TD Bank became the largest U.S.-based bank to be carbon neutral by constructing energy-efficient buildings according to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards, lowering its energy consumption, and purchasing enough renewable energy credits – from sources like wind, solar and low-impact hydro power – to offset 100 percent of the bank’s annual electricity needs for its Maine to Florida footprint. Other highlights include:


•Opening more than 70 stores and corporate offices that are targeting LEED certification; To date, 41 have been officially designated LEED certified and of those approximately 93 percent are at a Gold or Platinum level
•In 2011, TD opened the first net-zero energy bank in the U.S. in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.; A LEED Platinum-certified building with 400 solar panels that will produce 100 percent of the building’s annual energy needs
•Solar panel installations at more than 35 stores throughout the footprint generate between 12 to 18 percent of a store's annual energy needs
•In 2010, TD opened Maine’s first LEED-CI Platinum certified building; A 60,000 square-foot contact center in Auburn, Maine
•Receiving a 2010 Green Power Partner Leadership Award from the U.S Environmental Protection Agency for TD Bank’s purchase of enough renewable energy credits to offset 100 percent of the bank’s annual energy use

As of 2011 and moving forward, all new TD Bank stores are designed and constructed to achieve LEED certification. On average, TD opens about 30 new stores a year.


http://certifiedsolar.ca/td-bank-backs-solar-panel-roof-installs-for-ontario-residents

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluefin Tuna (Reply #33)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:26 AM

54. Yes, thank you

The southwest isn't unpopulated nor is it devoid of life.

To power the entire united states it would require 1/4 of Arizona. Probably more, due to inefficiencies.

Usually when I say that, I get a "that's OK, we didn't like the southwest anyways."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluefin Tuna (Reply #33)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:36 AM

61. on sustainable energy

One of the concerns with any of the environment-powered sources (wind, solar, tidal) is the after-effects of sucking that energy out of the system.

Like if, as someone mentioned, we blanket 1/4 of arizona with solar. That will i) create a lot of power and ii) create a major cold spot, which will fuck up the natural ecosystem there and surrounding, and probably the weather patterns of the continent. What happens to the oceans ecosystem when you put down a wall drawing a big chunk of tidal force out, or the weather across the atlantic and in europe from a wall of wind mills?

Large dispersal area with a broad range of gathering types is key to using environment energy reliably and sustainably, not trading one crisis for another

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #61)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:39 AM

62. Energy descent is coming.

Regardless of what we do.

We must prepare for less energy intensive lives.

And a side-effect is that we will be the happier for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:09 PM

34. it's already started. There's a wind power conference next month to discuss next phases

but surveys have already started and turbines will be going up offshore starting next year in several spots that I cant talk about yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #34)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:13 PM

36. Fantastic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #34)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:23 PM

39. Natural gas is expanding faster than wind.

Faster than any other alternatives really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:45 PM

42. I wonder how that would affect the currents?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XemaSab (Reply #42)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:50 PM

43. Ocean or air?

I was in Iowa last month and overheard a lady procliam they never had any wind until they put up those windmills.

Iowa is covered with thousands of wind turbines.

Forgot this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:53 AM

46. The UK is already working on a carbon fiber vertical windmill. Half the weight, twice the power.

Check out Project NOVA. Goal for energy dependence for UK. They are experimenting with a 10 MW version.

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/03/aerogenerator-x-10-mw-vawt-upgrade-in-the-works/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:57 AM

47. The day will come when we have no choice

time for debate will be over. But by then, some giant conglomerate will control the power and still charge the world ridiculous prices for 'free' energy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:01 AM

48. Seems like a realy great idea to me. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:04 AM

50. Ain't gonna work.

The only real solution is less consumption.

Which will happen. With or without our cooperation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abumbyanyothername (Reply #50)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:00 AM

53. The use of lots of powerful nuclear energy (if SAFE)

 

I think that nuclear energy - if done in an extremely safe manner - is akin to flying on an airplane. People tend to be more afraid of flying in airplanes, than of riding in cars, despite the fact that flying is much safer.


At some point, the world will reach a point where it will need more power - and I don't think people will react by consuming less. A widespread expansion of SAFE civilian nuclear power could do a massive amount of good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluefin Tuna (Reply #53)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:36 AM

59. People will eventually consume less

It's just a question of how they get there.

Sensibly, rationally, controlling their own descent. Or violently, abruptly and in a chaotic descent.

In our lifetimes it is like we have been at a wild, drunken energy orgy. We have done very little to use the precious gift of fossil fuels to prepare for a long future without them. And as a result, that future is currently bleaker than it needed to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abumbyanyothername (Reply #59)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:03 PM

66. Sounds like Malthus.

 

Instead of starving because of lack of food, humans invented improvements in agricultural methods that allowed more food to be produced, thus being able to support a much larger population.


I'm pretty sure the energy situation will be the same, humans will invent ways to generate significantly more power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluefin Tuna (Reply #66)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:40 PM

67. Sigh.

Google peak oil. And then google peak everything. And maybe then google transition towns.

Far from Malthus who basically was an apologist for keeping the poor poor because otherwise they would reproduce to unsustainable levels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluefin Tuna (Reply #53)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:41 AM

60. Once dinosaurs like you get out of the way

We will be just fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluefin Tuna (Reply #53)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:53 AM

63. NIMBY

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auntie Bush (Reply #63)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 07:40 PM

69. BANANA

Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #69)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:31 PM

73. I like that much better!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abumbyanyothername (Reply #50)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:55 AM

65. Of course, if we develop fusion power, we won't need to consume less

because fusion would allow us access to more resources than the Earth can provide, mainly via Belt mining and extraplanetary colonization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:36 AM

51. "Power the east coast"

That's not a very scientific phrase. What does it mean? What is "the east coast"? How far inland are they talking about powering?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drm604 (Reply #51)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:28 AM

56. What about the midwest? is it included? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:57 AM

52. The same number as those who will be "saved" according to Revelation. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:38 PM

71. Would be hell on the bird populations

If you ever need to collect feathers, go out to any turbine farm. Lot's of nice feathers to be had on the ground and lot's of skelatons.

I also saw the costs caculated by other members, about $ 2 trillion, wonder if that includes the transmission lines that have to be built.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pediatricmedic (Reply #71)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:51 PM

72. Communication towers kill more birds - Cars kill more birds...

Man-made structure/technology
Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)

Feral and domestic cats
Hundreds of millions

Power lines
130 million -- 174 million

Windows (residential and commercial)
100 million -- 1 billion

Pesticides
70 million

Automobiles
60 million -- 80 million

Lighted communication towers
40 million -- 50 million

Wind turbines
10,000 -- 40,000


Forgot the link: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #72)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 12:47 AM

74. There's a difference between 40,000 house sparrows

and 40,000 albatrosses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XemaSab (Reply #74)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 06:03 AM

76. Compared to global warming?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #76)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 01:00 PM

82. That ship has sailed

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XemaSab (Reply #82)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 01:04 PM

83. BURN MORE COAL!




This is a sunny day in China:

Tienanmen Square

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #72)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 07:04 AM

78. Add 144,000 wind turbines, I think that number might just go up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 06:26 AM

77. Power from Indiana wind turbines

is going to the east coast right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 07:08 AM

79. The poll is 90% for and 10% against.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 07:17 AM

80. From the NY Times

Concerning the Cape wind project from April 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/science/earth/29wind.html?pagewanted=all

"Opposition to the proposal from Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who died in August, had been a major thorn in the Obama administration’s side in advancing the project. "

Not everyone is in support of projects like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 01:08 PM

84. Offshore wind is 4 or 5 times as expensive as natural gas fired combined cycle

 

That's way too expensive for me - I'm not interested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread