Floating wind farm proposed south of Martha's Vineyard

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.dailynewstribune.com/state/x1775727811

Floating wind farm proposed south of Martha's Vineyard

Dutch company plans first floating energy project in the U.S.

By The Patriot Ledger
GateHouse News Service
Posted Mar 11, 2008 @ 02:22 PM

A Dutch wind farm developer said it wants to build a 120-turbine wind farm that could generate up to 420 megawatts of power in deep ocean waters south of Martha’s Vineyard.

Blue H Technologies BV announced on Monday that it has submitted a preliminary lease request to the U.S. Minerals Management Service to build what it says would be the first floating, deepwater wind energy project in the United States.

The announcement took place on the same day that the Minerals Management Service started four days of public hearings about Cape Wind Associates’ controversial plan to build a 130-turbine wind farm in Nantucket Sound’s relatively shallow waters. Locally, one of the four hearings will take place at 6 p.m. Thursday at UMass-Boston’s campus center.

Blue H, which is based in the Netherlands, is eyeing a site that’s 23 miles from Martha’s Vineyard where the waters are deeper than 160 feet. Blue H said it wants to have a test tower in the water by mid-2009.

...

[RainDog]

1. didn't teddy get rid of a windfarm earlier?

because of the nimbys with beachfront property? or maybe that was hyannisport.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. You're thinking of "Cape Wind" which is not dead yet

http://news.google.com/news?q=%22cape+wind%22

[cloudythescribbler]

3. Why're all these turkeys (including Cape Wind) trying to build OFFSHORE,when onshore wind energy ...

... is about HALF the cost per unit of electricity to generate, and there aren't the same order of magnitude of environmental (NIMBY or otherwise) problems? And as for disturbing people on land (in TX the windmills are no less attractive than the oil wells), there is lots of land far from where anyone is that isn't deep in the ocean -- like in the desert of Northern Maine.

The whole thing stinks of the kind of nonsense we had concerning a satellite that would beam solar energy down to earth....

[skids]

4. There's a good reason for that actually...

Wind offshore is faster and more importantly, less intermittent.

The turbines can also be bigger when there's less potential for danger to surrounding areas by ice throw/etc.

Also the NIMBY problems diminish when you get a certain distance off. Cape Wind is actually an exception, generally NIMBY problems are less for offshore developments.

A floating system might be extremely expensive at least for the first several. But it's also a technology that could be made mobile, other than the delivery uplink. And heck if they managed to store the power instead of directly transmit it (for once, H2 might be a good solution and not just a diversion from better technology) they could potentially move around seasonally or even by forecast to chase the wind and shuttle fuel to shore.

But the primary reason is you get more electricity out of an offshore turbine than the same turbine on land. Just you have to make up the cost of the float.

The only "turkey" thing I find about the wind technologists is neglecting the VAWT, and in the micro-wind area failing to formulate mass production engineering solutions/supply lines to drive the price down.

[cloudythescribbler]

5. offshore advantages aside, it's my understanding that per KWH produced, on land's MUCH cheaper

this was one point that RFK Jr made specifically. If you are talking about open land, far from any urban or suburban development, I DON'T think NIMBYism has to be such a problem. And though as an experiment, I can see oceanic energy, this is a proposed 120-130 turbine project. Cape Wind is for hundreds of turbines, with serious ecological implications MUCH MORE than onland wind energy generally is.

I would really like to see links to comparing KwH costs of production for various kinds of wind energy.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. One difference you're not taking into account

is the depth of the water at a particular location.

Cape Wind for example:
http://www.capewind.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=7

The wind park will be sited o­n Horseshoe Shoal off the coast of Cape Cod. Hyannis will be over five miles away—and most of the Cape beaches will be further away. The slender supporting towers will be painted to blend in with the horizon, making them visible one half-inch above the horizon o­n clear days. Click here for a computer simulation of the view from points around Cape Cod and the Islands.

Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound is an ideal site for a wind park. The Shoal has strong, consistent winds; is located in protected shallow water; has close proximity to landfall and electrical interconnections; and is out of way of shipping lanes and commercial boating traffic.

...



...

The reason for locating it in (relatively) shallow water is that it's easier/cheaper to build there, although not as easy as on dry land. On the other hand, have you priced land on Cape Cod or "the Islands" lately? (It ain't cheap.)

[cloudythescribbler]

9. That's why I recommended some of the more desolate areas of northern Maine

there might be trees in some areas while others are more desolate ...

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. As for ecological concerns...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/29/audubon_review_supports_wind_farm/

Audubon review supports wind farm

Threat to birds is less than feared, group finds

By Beth Daley, Globe Staff | March 29, 2006

The Massachusetts Audubon Society gave its preliminary blessing yesterday to a large-scale wind power project off Cape Cod, saying its studies show that turbine blades are not likely to cause significant harm to birds, as the group had once feared.

Support from the environmental group, one of the most respected in the state, is important because the threat to birds has emerged as a controversial aspect of the five-year-old proposal to turn stiff sea breezes into a source of electricity.

The group had previously raised questions about potential bird deaths, but Jack Clarke, advocacy director of Mass Audubon, said extensive studies it conducted in the last four years showed that endangered roseate terns and piping plovers, the group's main concerns, and other sensitive species generally avoid the 24-square-mile footprint of the proposed wind farm in Nantucket Sound.

''Our preliminary conclusion is that the project would not pose a threat to avian species," he said.

...

[kristopher]

10. There is no wind power on land in the east

The resource size and its proximity to load are the most important points in this discussion.
ine
Find a wind resource map (you can try Truwind) and select the one that shows both the mountains and ocean of the east coast. Look at the color of the best resource offshore, then look for that color on the land. You'll not see it at first, but as you look closer you'll see some tiny sprinkles on the crests of a few mountains.

As for costs, that is a false argument when you are looking to a future of carbon constraints and the resulting competition for the scant terrestrial resource. The move is to a mandated level of renewables in the energy portfolio of most states. There isn't enough terrestrial wind to meet that need.

[JohnWxy]

8. very interesting. thanks for the post.