NASA satellites show offshore wind potential, 10-15% of world electric needs

[kristopher]

NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory released images on Wednesday depicting offshore wind energy potential around the world.

Gathered from almost 10 years of satellite data, the wind maps can be used by offshore wind energy developers to measure which sites have the best resource.

The best sites, depicted in red, have a steady and high wind speed for most of the year. Offshore wind turbines have the advantage of not having wind blocked by buildings or land formations.

Wind energy could supply 10 percent to 15 percent of the world's electricity needs, said Paul Dimotakis, chief technologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Dimotakis said offshore wind turbines could produce electricity cheaper than solar energy could.

There are no offshore wind farms in the United States, but many expect that it's a matter of time before one will be built. New types of turbines are being developed so that they can be anchored farther offshore, but there are a number of technical challenges and the cost burden of building electricity transmission lines back to where it can be used.

The Cape Wind project, though highly criticized, is moving forward in its approval process. And a project led by Bluewater Wind off the coast of Delaware was recently approved by the state legislature.

Earlier this week, oil prospector T. Boone Pickens announced the Pickens Plan, which set the goal of getting 20 percent of U.S. electricity in 10 years from land-based wind turbines in the middle of the country.

http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2008/07/11/nasa-shows-where-the-wind-blows-best-for?blog=109

[JDPriestly]

1. Thanks. We need not fear or succomb to high gas prices.

We just need to elect people who will support the new technologies that can make us energy independent. It's all a matter of political will.

We need to approach this year's election with the positive attitude that we Democrats have the answers, and the Republicans are the problem. It happens to be true, so this should be pretty easy. We just have to believe in our own ability as a party.

[kgrandia]

4. New technologies?

You are dead on in your comments, but they got me thinking about the term new technologies" when it comes to solar, wind and other renewables. These technologies are far from new anymore. To push US politicians to invest in "new technologies" makes it sound like a risky venture for taxpayers dollars and also gives the impression that renewable energy is something still yet to be developed, which is far from the case - countries all over the world are using massive amounts of solar and wind already to produce clean, cheap power.

The US is just lagging very far behind. Calling wind and solar new technologies is kind of like calling a Commadore 64 "new technology."

[MannyGoldstein]

2. But...

Power must be produced near where it's being used, or else most of it is lost in distribution (going through the wires - the further it goes, the more we lose). So coastal areas could benefit, but inland areas could not. And we could not site windmills very far off the coast.

That being said, it's definitely worth doing.

[kristopher]

5. Population is concentrated in coastal areas.

So offshore wind is a terrific asset, particularly in the NE and midAtlantic areas where onshore resources are extremely scarce. the SE has both decent solar and offshore wind, but the offshore development is currently slowed by the insurance ratings on survivability of wind turbines during hurricanes. It isn't so much that they can't build them to take the winds as it is that most of them are designed for a European market that didn't anticipate a need for the ability to withstand a cat 5.

The midwest, west and southwest have excellent wind resources. So much so that, combined with the offshore resource, there is more than enough technically exploitable wind to provide our power needs many times over. No one expects that to be the approach pursued, however. A combination of wind, solar, geothermal, wave/tidal/current and biofuels are available and expected to be used. Add in conservation and improvements in efficiency that we know are easily achievable and a picture begins to emerge of a very doable transition.
A good example of an unrecognized resource is the Gulf Stream as it flows between Florida and Bermuda. Using technology that is based on wind turbines they expect that in about ten years they will be able to cheaply harvest a massive amount of power from that location. So while the SE seems to be rather neglected, there are very realistic technologies just over the horizon that can change the energy landscape there quickly.

It is difficult to stress strongly enough how important storage technologies like Compressed Air Energy Storage, battery electric autos (V2G) and the possibility of 'ultra-capacitors' are going to be in this build out. They are the elements that make renewables more than a pipe dream.

[tom_paine]

3. That is certainly a start, a hopeful sign.

I mean, it misses a lot of the rest of the problems we face. How to replace petroleum in plastics and fertilizer. Where is the other 90-95% coming from? What about the global warming already set in motion that continues to be pushed by emissions? Etc.

But it's a start, if it is possible, and if the technology can be scaled up and if there are no enivronmental side effects of placing so many windmills in the 100 miles or so offshore, then it most certainly is a part of the way forward for the human species, the way out of this mess, or should I say the "least painful" way out of it.

If there still is a way out of it that doesn't include the extinction of the human species and a few million years of ecological and environmental recovery or restabilization, if you will.