General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsStudy: 144,000 wind turbines at sea could power East Coast
Power East Coast via wind? Doable with 144,000 offshore turbines, study says
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 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?
Hangingon
(3,071 posts)Are we talking a 270' wind turbine every 150 yards?
TheKentuckian
(24,904 posts)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.
Hangingon
(3,071 posts)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.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)the eastern coastline is 2,069 miles.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001801.html
Sid
Hangingon
(3,071 posts)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.
pokerfan
(27,677 posts)The length of the eastern seaboard from Florida to Maine is 1342 mi.
1324 * 5280 / 144,000 = 48.5 feet
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)eppur_se_muova
(36,222 posts)Magoo48
(4,652 posts)NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)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
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)This: * * * * * *
. * * * * * *
Not this: * * * * * * * * * * * *
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)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.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)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).
porphyrian
(18,530 posts)Brother Buzz
(36,126 posts)NIMBY
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)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
Hangingon
(3,071 posts)It would be a real windmill curtain. I don't see this getting much traction along the coast or with the birders
TheKentuckian
(24,904 posts)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.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)A turbine blanket like this along the East coast would seriously screw with defense and vessel traffic management radars.
Brother Buzz
(36,126 posts)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.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)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
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)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)
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)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.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)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
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)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.
malaise
(267,455 posts)Can they survive hurricanes or they be taken down easily before a hurricane?
Hangingon
(3,071 posts)There bis no easy take down These things are seriously big.
malaise
(267,455 posts)Can they withstand hurricanes?
DonRedwood
(4,359 posts)We may find they become obsolete quickly but the investment of moving away from coal and oil is worth it.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)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.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)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!
liberal N proud
(60,289 posts)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.
piratefish08
(3,133 posts)SilveryMoon
(121 posts)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.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)...and I'll build moon colonies and ferry people to fucking Mars.
Bluefin Tuna
(54 posts)If a turbine = $10 million apiece, then that's $1.44 trillion, not to mention the other associated costs.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)2on2u
(1,843 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)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.
hunter
(38,240 posts)Bluefin Tuna
(54 posts)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?
liberal N proud
(60,289 posts)As you can see there are more lights in the east than the west.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)liberal N proud
(60,289 posts)It's about proliferation.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)I thought you were talking about solar cells in the southwest.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)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 banks 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 buildings 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 Maines 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 Banks purchase of enough renewable energy credits to offset 100 percent of the banks 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
Confusious
(8,317 posts)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."
theKed
(1,235 posts)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
abumbyanyothername
(2,711 posts)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.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)but surveys have already started and turbines will be going up offshore starting next year in several spots that I cant talk about yet.
liberal N proud
(60,289 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Faster than any other alternatives really.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)liberal N proud
(60,289 posts)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.
The Midway Rebel
(2,191 posts)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/
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)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.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)abumbyanyothername
(2,711 posts)The only real solution is less consumption.
Which will happen. With or without our cooperation.
Bluefin Tuna
(54 posts)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.
abumbyanyothername
(2,711 posts)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.
Bluefin Tuna
(54 posts)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.
abumbyanyothername
(2,711 posts)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.
RandiFan1290
(6,204 posts)We will be just fine.
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything!
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)Occulus
(20,599 posts)because fusion would allow us access to more resources than the Earth can provide, mainly via Belt mining and extraplanetary colonization.
drm604
(16,230 posts)That's not a very scientific phrase. What does it mean? What is "the east coast"? How far inland are they talking about powering?
Confusious
(8,317 posts)Deep13
(39,154 posts)pediatricmedic
(397 posts)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.
liberal N proud
(60,289 posts)Man-made structure/technology
Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)
Feral and domestic cats
Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]
Power lines
130 million -- 174 million [source: AWEA]
Windows (residential and commercial)
100 million -- 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]
Pesticides
70 million [source: AWEA]
Automobiles
60 million -- 80 million [source: AWEA]
Lighted communication towers
40 million -- 50 million [source: AWEA]
Wind turbines
10,000 -- 40,000 [source: ABC]
Forgot the link: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)and 40,000 albatrosses.
liberal N proud
(60,289 posts)XemaSab
(60,212 posts)n/t
liberal N proud
(60,289 posts)This is a sunny day in China:
Tienanmen Square
TheManInTheMac
(985 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)is going to the east coast right now.
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)bighart
(1,565 posts)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 administrations side in advancing the project. "
Not everyone is in support of projects like this.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)That's way too expensive for me - I'm not interested.