Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

liberal N proud

(60,289 posts)
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 12:16 PM Sep 2012

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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Study: 144,000 wind turbines at sea could power East Coast (Original Post) liberal N proud Sep 2012 OP
What would 144,000 wind turbines look like? Hangingon Sep 2012 #1
Doubtful considering the really huge space but TheKentuckian Sep 2012 #3
I didn't waste much time, but Google gave me a East Coast length of 19,924 KM. Hangingon Sep 2012 #7
19000 km is the total US coastline... SidDithers Sep 2012 #8
Thanks. I just grabbed a number and, of course, it was wrong. Hangingon Sep 2012 #11
One every 50 feet would do it pokerfan Sep 2012 #22
Here's what it WOULDN'T look like... Scootaloo Sep 2012 #28
Thank you ! nt eppur_se_muova Sep 2012 #57
Yes, thank you! Magoo48 Sep 2012 #81
They are miles off shore. They also look better than this NightWatcher Sep 2012 #41
Don't think in linear terms, think echelon. Ikonoklast Sep 2012 #64
Bright side fire risk is minimal if one caught on fire nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #2
Not to mention manufacturing costs and materials. Sirveri Sep 2012 #75
I'd rather have that than oil rigs. n/t porphyrian Sep 2012 #4
I believe this fine west coast institution of higher education is really saying: Brother Buzz Sep 2012 #5
That and most of the responses in the thread. (nt) Posteritatis Sep 2012 #29
US Atlantic coastline is 2,069 miles long... SidDithers Sep 2012 #6
Your shoreline length is better than mine Hangingon Sep 2012 #9
Then they are little different than coal and oil barons, nukers, and frackers to me. TheKentuckian Sep 2012 #16
The military and national security types will object too. GliderGuider Sep 2012 #18
Typical blades I see passing my home are closer to 50 meters, not feet Brother Buzz Sep 2012 #10
Yeah, you're right... SidDithers Sep 2012 #13
The spacing would be more like 2500 feet (5 to 8 rotor diameters) GliderGuider Sep 2012 #15
Why do they have to be in a line? The Midway Rebel Sep 2012 #40
I didn't say they'd go in a single line... SidDithers Sep 2012 #44
You described it as a picket fence which is in a line, that is where I got it from. The Midway Rebel Sep 2012 #45
I have one serious question re wind turbines malaise Sep 2012 #12
The turbines near me are on shore. They do not run during hurricanes. Hangingon Sep 2012 #38
Thanks malaise Sep 2012 #70
NOW! DonRedwood Sep 2012 #14
It would be a $2+ Trillion project - just to re-power the East coast. GliderGuider Sep 2012 #17
Such pessimism! XemaSab Sep 2012 #19
Aw, you noticed! GliderGuider Sep 2012 #21
Cool, the cost of wars! ProSense Sep 2012 #20
We waste that kind money blowing up other nations liberal N proud Sep 2012 #23
they should just carbon tax the fuck out of a war or two..... problem solved. piratefish08 Sep 2012 #24
We could have afforded the 2 Trillion Dollars easily SilveryMoon Sep 2012 #31
Yeah, give me $100 trillion (Jacobson's estimate for the world)... joshcryer Sep 2012 #37
That's incredible, but how much does each turbine cost? Bluefin Tuna Sep 2012 #25
$15 million each. Total cost $2 trillion. nt GliderGuider Sep 2012 #30
But but but when the sun starts rising in the west won't there be a problem?? n/t 2on2u Sep 2012 #26
Could they maybe mount the turbines on tidal generators and cut the number down?? eqfan592 Sep 2012 #27
Why? Because we haven't put enough crap in the oceans already? hunter Sep 2012 #32
I wonder if, for $1 trillion....... Bluefin Tuna Sep 2012 #33
Biggest bang for the buck... liberal N proud Sep 2012 #35
So will you have us all move then? nt Confusious Sep 2012 #55
That's the thing about wind turbines, you can build them nearly anywhere. liberal N proud Sep 2012 #58
I guess I misunderstood. Confusious Sep 2012 #68
Every TD bank has solar panels covring the roof of the drive in DainBramaged Sep 2012 #49
Yes, thank you Confusious Sep 2012 #54
on sustainable energy theKed Sep 2012 #61
Energy descent is coming. abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #62
it's already started. There's a wind power conference next month to discuss next phases NightWatcher Sep 2012 #34
Fantastic. liberal N proud Sep 2012 #36
Natural gas is expanding faster than wind. joshcryer Sep 2012 #39
I wonder how that would affect the currents? XemaSab Sep 2012 #42
Ocean or air? liberal N proud Sep 2012 #43
The UK is already working on a carbon fiber vertical windmill. Half the weight, twice the power. The Midway Rebel Sep 2012 #46
The day will come when we have no choice DainBramaged Sep 2012 #47
Seems like a realy great idea to me. nt Zorra Sep 2012 #48
Ain't gonna work. abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #50
The use of lots of powerful nuclear energy (if SAFE) Bluefin Tuna Sep 2012 #53
People will eventually consume less abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #59
Sounds like Malthus. Bluefin Tuna Sep 2012 #66
Sigh. abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #67
Once dinosaurs like you get out of the way RandiFan1290 Sep 2012 #60
NIMBY Auntie Bush Sep 2012 #63
BANANA backscatter712 Sep 2012 #69
I like that much better! Auntie Bush Sep 2012 #73
Of course, if we develop fusion power, we won't need to consume less Occulus Sep 2012 #65
"Power the east coast" drm604 Sep 2012 #51
What about the midwest? is it included? nt Confusious Sep 2012 #56
The same number as those who will be "saved" according to Revelation. nt Deep13 Sep 2012 #52
Would be hell on the bird populations pediatricmedic Sep 2012 #71
Communication towers kill more birds - Cars kill more birds... liberal N proud Sep 2012 #72
There's a difference between 40,000 house sparrows XemaSab Sep 2012 #74
Compared to global warming? liberal N proud Sep 2012 #76
That ship has sailed XemaSab Sep 2012 #82
BURN MORE COAL! liberal N proud Sep 2012 #83
Add 144,000 wind turbines, I think that number might just go up. TheManInTheMac Sep 2012 #78
Power from Indiana wind turbines B Calm Sep 2012 #77
The poll is 90% for and 10% against. sarcasmo Sep 2012 #79
From the NY Times bighart Sep 2012 #80
Offshore wind is 4 or 5 times as expensive as natural gas fired combined cycle badtoworse Sep 2012 #84

TheKentuckian

(24,904 posts)
3. Doubtful considering the really huge space but
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:02 PM
Sep 2012

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)
7. I didn't waste much time, but Google gave me a East Coast length of 19,924 KM.
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:10 PM
Sep 2012

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.

Hangingon

(3,071 posts)
11. Thanks. I just grabbed a number and, of course, it was wrong.
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 02:00 PM
Sep 2012

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.

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)
41. They are miles off shore. They also look better than this
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:25 PM
Sep 2012


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)
64. Don't think in linear terms, think echelon.
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:14 AM
Sep 2012

This: * * * * * *

. * * * * * *



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

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
2. Bright side fire risk is minimal if one caught on fire
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 12:57 PM
Sep 2012

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)
75. Not to mention manufacturing costs and materials.
Mon Sep 17, 2012, 02:56 AM
Sep 2012

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).

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
6. US Atlantic coastline is 2,069 miles long...
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:10 PM
Sep 2012

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)
9. Your shoreline length is better than mine
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:16 PM
Sep 2012

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)
16. Then they are little different than coal and oil barons, nukers, and frackers to me.
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 03:20 PM
Sep 2012

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)
18. The military and national security types will object too.
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:48 PM
Sep 2012

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

Brother Buzz

(36,126 posts)
10. Typical blades I see passing my home are closer to 50 meters, not feet
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:35 PM
Sep 2012

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)
13. Yeah, you're right...
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 02:14 PM
Sep 2012

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)
15. The spacing would be more like 2500 feet (5 to 8 rotor diameters)
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 02:38 PM
Sep 2012

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)
40. Why do they have to be in a line?
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:24 PM
Sep 2012

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)
44. I didn't say they'd go in a single line...
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 11:14 PM
Sep 2012

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)
45. You described it as a picket fence which is in a line, that is where I got it from.
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:34 AM
Sep 2012

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)
12. I have one serious question re wind turbines
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 02:14 PM
Sep 2012

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

Hangingon

(3,071 posts)
38. The turbines near me are on shore. They do not run during hurricanes.
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:21 PM
Sep 2012

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

DonRedwood

(4,359 posts)
14. NOW!
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 02:16 PM
Sep 2012

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

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
17. It would be a $2+ Trillion project - just to re-power the East coast.
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:46 PM
Sep 2012

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.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
20. Cool, the cost of wars!
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 05:51 PM
Sep 2012

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)
23. We waste that kind money blowing up other nations
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 06:20 PM
Sep 2012

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.

SilveryMoon

(121 posts)
31. We could have afforded the 2 Trillion Dollars easily
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:54 PM
Sep 2012

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)
37. Yeah, give me $100 trillion (Jacobson's estimate for the world)...
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:20 PM
Sep 2012

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

 

Bluefin Tuna

(54 posts)
25. That's incredible, but how much does each turbine cost?
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 06:53 PM
Sep 2012

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

eqfan592

(5,963 posts)
27. Could they maybe mount the turbines on tidal generators and cut the number down??
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 07:00 PM
Sep 2012

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.

 

Bluefin Tuna

(54 posts)
33. I wonder if, for $1 trillion.......
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:06 PM
Sep 2012

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?

DainBramaged

(39,191 posts)
49. Every TD bank has solar panels covring the roof of the drive in
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:03 AM
Sep 2012

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

Confusious

(8,317 posts)
54. Yes, thank you
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:26 AM
Sep 2012

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)
61. on sustainable energy
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:36 AM
Sep 2012

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)
62. Energy descent is coming.
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 10:39 AM
Sep 2012

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)
34. it's already started. There's a wind power conference next month to discuss next phases
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:09 PM
Sep 2012

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)
43. Ocean or air?
Sat Sep 15, 2012, 09:50 PM
Sep 2012

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)
46. The UK is already working on a carbon fiber vertical windmill. Half the weight, twice the power.
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:53 AM
Sep 2012

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)
47. The day will come when we have no choice
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 01:57 AM
Sep 2012

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.

abumbyanyothername

(2,711 posts)
50. Ain't gonna work.
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:04 AM
Sep 2012

The only real solution is less consumption.

Which will happen. With or without our cooperation.

 

Bluefin Tuna

(54 posts)
53. The use of lots of powerful nuclear energy (if SAFE)
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:00 AM
Sep 2012

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)
59. People will eventually consume less
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:36 AM
Sep 2012

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)
66. Sounds like Malthus.
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:03 PM
Sep 2012

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)
67. Sigh.
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 12:40 PM
Sep 2012

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.

Occulus

(20,599 posts)
65. Of course, if we develop fusion power, we won't need to consume less
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 11:55 AM
Sep 2012

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)
51. "Power the east coast"
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 02:36 AM
Sep 2012

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

pediatricmedic

(397 posts)
71. Would be hell on the bird populations
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:38 PM
Sep 2012

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)
72. Communication towers kill more birds - Cars kill more birds...
Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:51 PM
Sep 2012

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



bighart

(1,565 posts)
80. From the NY Times
Mon Sep 17, 2012, 07:17 AM
Sep 2012

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.

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
84. Offshore wind is 4 or 5 times as expensive as natural gas fired combined cycle
Mon Sep 17, 2012, 01:08 PM
Sep 2012

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

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Study: 144,000 wind turbi...