Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The next wave in wind power (supersized offshore turbines)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 05:52 PM
Original message
The next wave in wind power (supersized offshore turbines)
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=...

NISKAYUNA -- General Electric Co. and the U.S. Department of Energy plan to spend $27 million over the next four years to develop the next generation of offshore wind turbines.

The project, which would develop a turbine that could generate between five and seven megawatts of electricity -- enough to power nearly 3,000 homes -- is seen as a major boost to the nation's drive to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal.

<snip>

Lyons said the company hopes to build a 10-megawatt prototype, which he said could be completed by 2013. GE entered the wind energy business in 2002. In 2005, the company's revenue from its wind business was $2 billion; this year it is expected to top $3.5 billion.

<snip>

Stan Calvert, acting program manager for wind and hydro technology for the Department of Energy, said the development of offshore wind turbines is key to the United States' renewable energy policy because many of the nation's highly populated areas don't have the available land that large wind farms require. He estimates there are 1,000 gigawatts of wind energy potential within 50 miles of the nation's coasts. He says that Europe has already invested heavily in the technology.

<more>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. And what happens when they discover that
the wind quits blowing if enough of these wind turbines are put up that they suck all the energy out of the wind? :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
megatherium Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Environmental crisis of the future: wind depletion. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. I'm waiting to see who puts the first ownership on wind. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueJazz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well..Shoot..All we need to do is place a few Wind Turbines..
..on the floor of the Republican Congress and we'd have enough wind power to
light up half of the USA... :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
3. One advantage to larger turbines is...
decreased deployment-time per megawatt. At least, I assume that it doesn't take twice as long to install a 7 megawatt turbine as it does a 3 megawatt turbine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wheres The Beef Donating Member (64 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
5. And we don't get any help from the home team
http://www.capecodtoday.com/modules.php?op=modload&name...

Bunch of NIMBY'S! Maybe everybody's ox needs a little GOREing. How do the elites get away with this crap?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
6. Wouldn't these be practical in the higher wind potential states like

the Dokatas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Montana and Colorado?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-11-06 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
7. MUch better return on investment than Nuclear. the proponents of
Nuclear consistently use wildly optimistic estimates of costs of decommissioning plants (which exceeds the cost to build them!) and cost of containment of radioactive sludge (a task that will continue virtually in perpetuity - how do you estimate the costs of that!).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 22nd 2014, 03:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC