SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!

Another Wind Farm Proposal

5K views 52 replies 25 participants last post by  Parley 
#1 ·
I wasn't aware of this one, 14 mile south of Martha's Vineyard:

Feds Clear Path for Huge Wind Farm off Martha's Vineyard

Federal officials today designated a large swath of ocean about 14 miles south of Martha's Vineyard where they hope to see a massive wind farm built that could dwarf the size of Cape Wind, the long-stalled wind project planned for Nantucket Sound.

After 2 years of meetings with local and state officials, environmental groups, Native Americans, and others, officials at the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management said they are launching an environmental assessment of about 1,300 square miles that could give rise within several years to hundreds of towering wind turbines.


Feds Clear Path for Huge Wind Farm off Martha

Federal officials designate area for wind farm off Martha's Vineyard; area could someday sprout with hundreds of turbines - Metro Desk - Local news updates from The Boston Globe
 
#6 ·
This wind farm idea has been proven to be a real waste of taxpayer dollars across the globe. The cost of construction, continual maintenance, lack of storage capability, and unreliable, sometimes destructive weather dooms these efforts from the start. They don't seem to be the answer but keep being touted by environmentalists who refuse to recognize the facts.
 
#8 ·
Well all of those wind turbines will change the currents in that area. Slowing the currents, causing eddies, and that change will cause a change of the fish in that area.
 
#14 · (Edited)
Structures out offshore near NJ would probably attract Menhaden (bunker) for the bunker boats in NJ. That's completely different from plopping these things in the paths of small, local draggers in Buzzards Bay and Nantucket Shoals. These fishermen are hanging on by their fingernails already. No one KNOWS what this might do to groundfish, and, as mentioned above, to thousands of gulls and migratory birds, being directly in the NE migratory flyway.

In any case, without huge subsidies (tax dollars from you and me) no company in their right mind would invest in offshore wind turbines as a sound business decision.
 
#12 ·
Most of the folks in the fishing industry that think the wind farms are a good thing look at them as artificial reefs--not a great way to generate clean energy. There's a real good book by a fellow named Steve Millroy called Green Hell, a book that should be mandatory reading for everyone that sincerely believes he or she is an environmentalist.



Millroy puts much of this into a plain-language perspective that is easy to understand. Of course, you must have an open mind. Those with a mindset that Al Gore is the guru of ecology should probably not bother with this book.

If you don't want to shell out the cost of the book, but wish to read some well documented information online, go to Climate Depot . This is among the most informative sites on the subject I've ever come across with lots of documentation.

Cheers,

Gary :cool:
 
#15 ·
Offshore wind turbine projects offer the potential to produce very large quantities of renewable energy. I'm surprised to see people on these forums opposed to these - especially because sailors know best of the incredible amount of wind power that is present offshore. Yes, there will be drawbacks, as there is with all forms of power generation. While the exact number of birds killed every year by wind turbines is not known, we do know that the number is much lower than certain interest groups want you to believe. The effects the turbines will have on your sailing will be minimal, and their effects on groundfisherman is overblown.
If we don't get some of our power from wind, then it is going to be coming from coal (CO2 emissions), oil (exporting $ to Middle East), or natural gas (Fracking).
 
#17 ·
+1 ABSOLUTELY! The bases of these things will be fish and shellfish magnets, and anyone that has spent time diving near oil platforms, offshore lights and lighthouse towers will attest to the amount of marine life that congregates around these structures.

I suspect that those windmills proposed for the New Jersey coast will create homes for huge schools of sea bass, scup, tautog, mussels and more. In Maryland's portion of Chesapeake Bay prior to 9-11 the Gas Docks was THE place to be when it came to sinking your hooks into some monster striped bass while live-lining spot. Since 9-11 the feds created a zone around the structure where no boats are permitted.

The main problem with offshore windmills is they're not cost effective. Sure, they produce clean electricity when the wind's blowing, but when it's not, they just sit there doing nothing at all. The initial cost of the windmill is ridiculously high, installation can be a nightmarish expense, and maintenance is nearly constant. There have been lots of cost effectiveness studies done on them and the bang for the buck ratio is lousy at best.

Some nations, particularly those in northern Europe, has began relying on tidal currents and underwater turbines, which have proven extremely effective. Keep in mind the power of the wind is nothing in comparison to the power of the ocean's waters. And, unlike unpredictable wind, oceanic tidal currents are very predictable and can easily be harnessed. The only drawback I read about is fish entrapment, which is now being addressed with small-mesh housings to keep the critters out of the turbines.

Gary :cool:
 
#18 ·
I hate the very sight of those infernal wind generators. They are not even close to being the answer to our energy problems and are I suspect, only the means for some people including our illustrious politicians to make a lot of money. Driving West on I-90 in the State of Washington, when you came to the Columbia River Valley, the view to the West was really beautiful. Now the horizon is cluttered with a forest of wind generators. Now I feel a kinship with Don Quixote. America is changing right before our eyes. Changing to what, I can't say. But I know this; we are not concerned with "quality" of life. Rather we prefer "quantity" of "things". People seem to prefer "Cradle to Grave" government protection rather than freedom to live life on their own terms. I can't imagine sailing along and seeing a so-called "wind farm" around me.
 
#19 ·
WOW! When I lived in Spokane and drove to Seattle many years ago I took that same I-90 route--it was truly a breathtaking view that is etched in my mind forever. I would hate to think what it looks like now with the windmill farms. I guess the next step will be to strip all the trees from the Cascades and Rockies and cover the slopes with solar panels.

Gary :cool:
 
#20 ·
Climate Depot? REALLY?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_Depot

Run by an ex-employee of James Inhofe, the most serious science-denier in our government. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in financing by ExxonMobile and similar industrial corporations. Now, whatever your personal beliefs, I think any rational person can agree that an organization this biased from the get-go doesn't deal in science. What they're peddling is.. Something else. ;-)

I'd try realclimate.org. A blog run by climate scientists for climate scientists.
 
#21 ·
Have you visited Climate Depot and actually read the information? Or, are you saying because they've been partially funded by Exxon/Mobil they must be the bad guys, and the only good guys are those that believe in Global Warming? I guess the 30,000 climatologist that said, in print, that there was NO general consensus in the scientific community that global warming existed and that man had virtually no impact whatsoever on climatic conditions, are all idiots. And, of course, Al Gore, the guy who is laughing all the way to the bank, and owns the company that trades energy credits for a huge commission, he wouldn't lie--he's a politician. And, we know they all tell the truth. ;)

Don't condemn Climate Depot because of their financial supporters. If I recall correctly, that same group at RealClimate.org was the organization that claimed we were headed into another Ice Age back in the 1970s, and for the same reasons. Hmmmmm!

Cheers,

Gary :cool:
 
#24 ·
Have you visited Climate Depot and actually read the information? Or, are you saying because they've been partially funded by Exxon/Mobil they must be the bad guys, and the only good guys are those that believe in Global Warming? I guess the 30,000 climatologist that said, in print, that there was NO general consensus in the scientific community that global warming existed and that man had virtually no impact whatsoever on climatic conditions, are all idiots. And, of course, Al Gore, the guy who is laughing all the way to the bank, and owns the company that trades energy credits for a huge commission, he wouldn't lie--he's a politician. And, we know they all tell the truth. ;)

Don't condemn Climate Depot because of their financial supporters. If I recall correctly, that same group at RealClimate.org was the organization that claimed we were headed into another Ice Age back in the 1970s, and for the same reasons. Hmmmmm!

Cheers,

Gary :cool:
Gary... I've had this debate so many times, in so many different venues, that I'm just not gonna do it again. I'll skip my background, and most other talking points, and just address all the things that are wrong with your above post. ;)

1. Yes, I've visited climatedepot, and pretty much every other dedicated site, many times. Yes, I've read what they post - enough to know that it's the same cherry-picked pseudoscience (and sometime outright silliness) that Inhofe et al have been pushing for years. None of it holds up to a true review process. Most of their favorite points (the earth cooled mid-century! So warming can't be anthropogenic!) have been explained ad nauseam using real science.

There's a reason that the folks who post at, say, Realclimate publish their work in peer-review journals (where it contributes to the ongoing scientific process) and the folks who support orgs like ClimateDepot and the Heartland Institute publish THEIR thoughts as op-eds. It's not science. It doesn't stand the very basics of peer review.

2. I didn't say anyone was the "bad guys" or the "good guys". Simply that some of them are actual scientists working with the latest data and models in preeminent research institutions... and some of them are bought-and-paid-for politicians like Inhofe, with a seeming lack of understanding of even very basic atmospheric science. I know who I, personally, would choose to get my science from.

3.The 30,000 "scientists" you refer to published that paper a decade ago - I put "scientist" in quotes and didn't even use your word, "climatologist", because almost none of those people were climatologists and many had no science credentials to speak of. The few who might have had a modicum of knowledge of atmospheric science were not actively publishing in the field, and therefore probably not up to date. That paper was an outright joke to the research community but of course certain media outlets loved it and didn't do their due-diligence in source-checking. And again, it's a decade old. Data-driven consensus has become stronger since then.

Interestingly, Inhofe spearheaded another press release in I think 2007 claiming 400 scientists oppose AGW theory. That number has since been revised upward to around 650 in 2009 I think. Quite a drop from 30,000 in less than a decade, no? And again, the large majority were not qualified to engage in debate on climate science. The way they managed to skew the numbers (and include some actual climate scientists) is by revising the press release title to something like (... scientists disputed man-made global warming claims) and including every scientific challenge to any precept of the latest IPCC report. It's science. There are always challenges. That is as it should be, and in no way indicates that the challenging individuals actually believe there's data to indicate the whole concept of AGW is false (which, of course, is what the press release wants to lead you to believe).

4. I never referenced Al Gore, or his trustworthiness or lack thereof. He is not a scientist, he is a politician.

5. I'm not sure what "group" at RealClimate you reference. It's just a hang-out for publishing atmospheric and climate scientists. Since the internet didn't exist in the '70s, I'm not sure how they could have constituted a "group". But since you've mentioned one of the golden nuggets of the deniers, I'll explain it (this was shown around 10 years ago, but people still hold on to it). Global average temps have been trending upwards since near the beginning of the industrial revolution, with one exception in the mid-20th century. (Note that I'm referring to long term trends, not any one year being warmer or cooler than any other. That is meaningless. There will always be variations.) This was correctly raised as a challenge to the theory of long-term temps trending upwards. The problem was, the models - which had gotten pretty good by the late 90s at modeling global climate (MUCH different than a short term wx forecast) - didn't replicate this temp trend, with or without anthropogenic CO2. Someone finally thought to add another anthropogenic emission to the models - sulfur dioxide. Then the models snapped into agreement with actual data. Sulfur dioxide is an aerosol emission from coal power plants that causes climate cooling. Its forcing ability is much greater than GHGs, so it overcame their influence and actually caused some cooling. It also causes acid rain, and so scrubbers to remove it from emissions were mandated in the 70s. Being an aerosol, sulfur dioxide is quite short-lived in the atmosphere compared to GHGs (it only lasts around 8 mos).

So... the very next year after scrubbers became mandated in many parts of the developed world... temp trends reversed and headed upwards again.

The consensus at the time of most atmospheric scientists wasn't that "we were headed into another ice age". That's more media paraphrasing. They believed it was a normal variation of the earth being in a stable interglacial period according to the Milankovitch cycles, and some cooling being due given the recent trend of warming.

Believe the theory or don't, but know whether you're basing your position on actual science or propaganda. Don't get your information from press releases and industry-funded groups. Get it from the source. Get it from the journals, from the research institutions. Google Scholar is your friend.

Just sayin'. :D
 
#22 ·
I like the current/tide turbine ideas. Cruisers have used them for decades to charge batteries on board. Con Ed was setting some up in New York City's East River to check out the practicability last I heard. Because the flow is relatively slow (compare it to how fast water would be going after a drop of perhaps 50' or more at a dam) the tide-turbines would need a big diameter in order to generate enough power to be really useful.
 
#25 ·
Btw I have no knowledge of the problems inherent to building an offshore wind farm... and I wouldn't want to sail around them either! ;-) But I WILL say that I remember reading about those windmills on the east side of the Cascades on the I90 corridor when the state was deciding whether or not to invest more heavily in biofuel burning. Apparently that wind farm acutally often produces a SURPLUS of power, to the extent that many of them have to be feathered and shut down so they don't overload the grid. So I guess they can be effective in certain places...
 
#27 ·
Smurf,

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't wish to debate whether global warming exists--some folks sincerely believe it does, and some folks sincerely believe it does not. My main purpose for posting a link to Green Hell and Climate Depot is both have excellent information about the cost effectiveness of wind generators. Every source I've found during the past decade about wind power revealed that it's extremely expensive, not at all reliable, the generators require constant maintenance, and they are heavily subsidized with taxpayer dollars. Kinda' like paying twice for the same electricity--it just doesn't make good sense at all. IMHO, when it comes to wind farms, the bang for the buck just isn't there. But, you can bet your bottom dollar that someone well connected to the political machine is going to make a lot of money on this one.

Cheers,

Gary :cool:
 
#44 ·
Gary

I don't disagree that wind is subsidized, perhaps too much. So is oil and coal, no?
Putting aside the billions of $ that big oil/coal gets from a different levels of government, what about the health care/environment cleanup costs associated with the bi-products of said industries. They aren't paying for that are they? Seems to me that if an industry wants to produce a product and sell it freely on an open market they ought to pay all of the coats associated with the production of their product, including cleanup.
I'm not for or against wind as a general rule but I am all for forcing any industry to pay, up front, for the true cost of producing their product. Weither that be oil, coal or some gawd awful apple designed cell phone device.

John
 
#30 ·
When the NJ, DE and VA offshore wind looked more feasible, there was a proposal for an offshore grid link for all three states.

The DE offshore wind proposal collapsed with lose of private funding and did not have much if any DE funding.

The Brits have proposed an underwater grid link between Ireland and Wales to take advantage of the projected excess energy from West Coast wind farms.

Most technological development needs a leap of imagination before financial viability, think what would have happened if computers, aircraft or medical advancements did not move forward because the short term financial viability was questionable.
 
#31 ·
Most technological development needs a leap of imagination before financial viability, think what would have happened if computers, aircraft or medical advancements did not move forward because the short term financial viability was questionable.
A degree of state control, and a healthy dose of government assistance, doesn't hurt, either... That's why America will ultimately wind up buying most of our green technology from China...

Or, in the case of wind power, perhaps from a little pissant country like Denmark... (grin)

Pretty impressive what a people can do, simply by heeding the lessons we all should have learned from back in '73, having the Leadership - both in the public and private sectors - to coalesce the political and public will to do something about it, and the farsightedness to stick with a policy beyond a 4 year election cycle, or a corporate quarterly report...

Denmark's Wind of Change - TIME
 
#32 ·
Of course you realize that Conowingo Dam, which is relatively small when it comes to hydro-electric generating capacity, produces nearly half the megawatts of all of Denmark's windmills at a tiny fraction of the cost per kilowatt hour.

"Eleven turbine sites were constructed but only seven turbines were initially installed, driving generators each rated for 36 megawatts. A turbine house, on the southwestern end of the dam, encloses these seven units. One additional "house" unit provides 25 Hz power for the dam's electric railroad system (identical to that used by the Pennsylvania Railroad, who had an electrified line [now under Norfolk Southern ownership] running on the eastern shore). In 1978, four higher capacity turbines were added. Each drives a 65 megawatt generator, increasing the dam's electrical output capacity from 252 to 548 megawatts. The four newer turbines are in the open air section at the northeast end of the power house. The generators produce power at 13,800 volts. This is stepped up to 220,000 volts for transmission, primarily to the Philadelphia area. The dam currently contributes an average of 1.6 billion kilowatt hours annually to the electric grid."

And, nowhere in the article from Time did it mention the cost of producing one of those mammoth wind generators, or the cost of annual maintenance, which according to the Discover Channel feature is constant, and very expensive.

Cheers,

Gary :cool:
 
#33 · (Edited)
Of course you realize that Conowingo Dam, which is relatively small when it comes to hydro-electric generating capacity, produces nearly half the megawatts of all of Denmark's windmills at a tiny fraction of the cost per kilowatt hour.
And, of course you realize that in a tiny country as flat as Denmark, the viability of large scale hydroelectric schemes make that somewhat of an apples to oranges comparison?

And, nowhere in the article from Time did it mention the cost of producing one of those mammoth wind generators, or the cost of annual maintenance, which according to the Discover Channel feature is constant, and very expensive.
Yeah, those costs are probably WAY more expensive than if Denmark were still supplying 90% of it's energy needs with imported petroleum, right?

Seriously? Hell, that's like arguing "Well, I hear that sails can be very expensive, and they don't last forever, and that those sailboat rigs require constant inspection and maintenance, so... I think I'll just stick with my trusty ol' powerboat, and keep buying fuel a $4/gallon or more, forever..." (grin)

Finally, have you not considered the positive peripheral economic implications of what Denmark has achieved? We're talking about a country of 6 million people having positioned themselves as the world's leader in an emerging technology in the energy field. Billions of dollars annually in exports, tens of thousands of jobs created, are you really ready to be so dismissive of such an added economic value?

As a nation, America will ignore the importance of the investment in emerging energy technologies at her peril... We've already pretty much ceded the future generation advances in battery technology to the Chinese, and they're poised to become the most likely developers of economically viable fuel cells, as well... How many more of these emerging energy paradigms are we willing to watch the rest of the world develop, simply because they might not prove self-sustaining/economically viable immediately upon implementation, or quickly enough to satisfy the boys on Wall Street lusting only for the quick score?

For anyone interested in these issues, I'd highly recommend Tom Friedman's book HOT, FLAT, AND CROWDED... Guaranteed, 30 years from now, people will be pointing to such a work, and wishing "Damn, I wish something like this had gotten a wider audience, we'd paid a bit more attention, and our Political and Business Leaders had stepped up to the plate, back when we had the chance..."
 
#37 ·
In Geneva NY. Zotos Int. just put up 2 giant wind mills to power ther new expanded manufacturing facility. They make hair care products and employ alot of people, now more in the expanded facility. The put up the wind mills on there own and at there own cost I believe. The factory reps. say it will pay for itself.
I use solar on the boat and it works great. Friends (fellow cruisers) use wind generators and have given favorable reviews. minimal issues for operation/maint. only reported problems were secure mounting.
I plan on adding a wind generator. For $6-800 I can get a new one and I'm sure it will work better at night than the solar !
I think that both the solar and the wind power are good power sources. And as they are put into use more they will improve in efficiency and reduce in cost.
Only issue I see with either power source is the political influence and graft surrounding the implimentation of these power sources.
The question I have pondered is who was the person who convinced everyone to abandon self sufficiency and instead opt to hook up to a public power/water/waste system that they could niether control or maintain leaving themselves at the mercy of the controlling agency or company??
I would prefer to completey disconect and address my own power/water/waste treatment issues as I have done on the boat.
I like being self sufficient.
 
#38 ·
I am all for renewable power- House is net zero (have solar hot water and a 2KW photvoltaic system- do net metering with utility)- not to hard to do in Hawaii with no heat or air conditioning required. Boat is also powered by two 80 watt panels- never connect to shore power.

However I question wind power. There is a big system located 3 miles from my house- see pic. How many birds (or bats) do these things kill. And the eastern sea board is a huge migratory path- installing these in there path seems to be a death trap. I have heard the question raised on these off shore wind farms: If the company goes out of buisness (say the mills fall apart or too expensive too maintain) who will pay to remove the concrete foundations and wind mills? Will these companies post a bond and maintain it for the life of the project? Or will the tax payer pay the bill?

The other thing, the speed in which these things turn really get on my nerves. If you have never seen a large one rotating slowly maybe you do not understand, but the mountain or the ocean will never look the same. If they did not rotate, it would not be so bad, but that rotation for some reason raises my stress level.

I think we should invest in photo voltaic system, cost is going way down, efficiency up, 30 year plus life for the panel, and we just install them on an existing roof.
 

Attachments

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top