Uh...
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49229.pdf
QuoteThe gross resource has been quantified by state, water depth, distance from shore, and wind class throughout a band extending out to 50 nautical miles from the U.S. coastline.
This total gross wind resource is estimated at more than 4,000 GW, or roughly four times the generating capacity currently carried on the U.S. electric grid.
Now, obviously, not all of this is going to be harvested efficiently (http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2010/10/08/americas_mighty_offshore_wind_potential), it may be the case that
only 60% of this energy is available.
Which is why Google is trying to get in on the ground level of this project
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/science/earth/12wind.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
QuoteGoogle and a New York financial firm have each agreed to invest heavily in a proposed $5 billion transmission backbone for future offshore wind farms along the Atlantic Seaboard that could ultimately transform the region's electrical map. The 350-mile underwater spine, which could remove some critical obstacles to wind power development, has stirred excitement among investors, government officials and environmentalists who have been briefed on it.
All in all, awesome news.
Until you google "Cape Wind Project" and read how some rich NIMBY fucks have delayed getting this started for a decade.
Cant we pay Obama to hire the New Black Panthers to go round and rough them up a bit?
Holy shit, has it finally become viable and cost effective?
Quote from: Cain on October 28, 2010, 03:27:45 PM
Cant we pay Obama to hire the New Black Panthers to go round and rough them up a bit?
I'm not sure you understand how happy I would be if that really was the kind of president I helped elect.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on October 28, 2010, 03:23:12 PM
Until you google "Cape Wind Project" and read how some rich NIMBY fucks have delayed getting this started for a decade.
CoughCAPECODELITISSTFUCKERScough.
Ah Cape Cod, the part of Massachusetts that is virtually dead after October....
Which reminds me, I'm off to Spooky Bear weekend tomorrow!
Quote from: Cain on October 28, 2010, 02:50:56 PM
Uh...
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49229.pdf
QuoteThe gross resource has been quantified by state, water depth, distance from shore, and wind class throughout a band extending out to 50 nautical miles from the U.S. coastline.
This total gross wind resource is estimated at more than 4,000 GW, or roughly four times the generating capacity currently carried on the U.S. electric grid.
Now, obviously, not all of this is going to be harvested efficiently (http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2010/10/08/americas_mighty_offshore_wind_potential), it may be the case that only 60% of this energy is available.
Which is why Google is trying to get in on the ground level of this project
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/science/earth/12wind.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
QuoteGoogle and a New York financial firm have each agreed to invest heavily in a proposed $5 billion transmission backbone for future offshore wind farms along the Atlantic Seaboard that could ultimately transform the region's electrical map. The 350-mile underwater spine, which could remove some critical obstacles to wind power development, has stirred excitement among investors, government officials and environmentalists who have been briefed on it.
All in all, awesome news.
Dude...
If this works out, we not only won't need any new coal, hydroelectric or nuclear plants, we'll be able to REMOVE some. :fap:
on the NIMBY thing, I've been to the wind farms in Wyoming, and they are very noisy, even when the nearest windmill is a mile away (Or maybe I'm misunderstanding how close to residential areas they want to install the things).
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 28, 2010, 09:18:22 PM(Or maybe I'm misunderstanding how close to residential areas they want to install the things).
You are, and its good news: They are at sea.
I can see that being horribly unreliable in the long run but will be a huge boost when the weather suits.
NIMBY aside, lets hope that this is one of those beginnings of "Let's pull ourselves out of this pile of shit at the last possible moment sort of things.
Blight,
-Fingers are slightly crossed.
Prediction: The government will declare this "money in the bank" and immediately take out loans against it.
Windmills kill migrating birds.
Just assume that whenever something sounds good it will be worse than you can imagine.
Quote from: Regret on October 31, 2010, 11:51:05 PM
Windmills kill migrating birds.
Just assume that whenever something sounds good it will be worse than you can imagine.
I know this is a problem for land based wind farms. Do offshore farms have the same effect, with migrating birds sticking closer to shore?
From what I heard wind farms pose a much greater problem for bats than birds, and I don't think bats fly out to sea.
ETA:
On wikipedia:
QuoteDanger to birds is often the main complaint against the installation of a wind turbine. However, a study[estimates that wind farms are responsible for 0.3 to 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. The author's study therefore claims that fossil fuel based electricity causes about 10 times more fatalities than wind farm based electricity, primarily due to habitat alteration from pollution and mountain-top removal. The number of birds killed by wind turbines is also negligible when compared to the number that die as a result of other human activities such as traffic, hunting, electric power transmission and high-rise buildings, and the introduction of feral and roaming domestic cats. For example, in the UK, where there are several hundred turbines, about one bird is killed per turbine per year; 10 million per year are killed by cars alone. In the United States, turbines kill 70,000 birds per year, compared to 80,000 killed by aircraft, 57 million killed by cars, 97.5 million killed by collisions with plate glass, and hundreds of millions killed by cats. An article in Nature stated that each wind turbine kills an average of 4.27 birds per year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_wind_power
Actually I recently read an article that they might have found a promising solution to keep bats and certain other birds from getting killed by windmills.
Apparently, the problem is that the windmills are white, and sometimes partly green.
These happen to be the two worst colours.
Because they attract insects. Which then attract the birds. And at night, the bats.
Turns out purple windmills would attract the least amount of insects.
... is that awesome or what? :lol:
article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9067000/9067721.stm
That and rich people who live in beach resort towns for 2/12ths of the year don't want their views obstructed, even though I personally find wind turbines to be aesthetically pleasing.
Birds are more of an excuse than anything, but, if you change the color, then I guess they lose the fake reason, especially when the fossil fuel data is taken into perspective.
Cars also kill numerous squirrels in a year, but no one wants to prevent people from driving.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 01, 2010, 11:44:16 AM
Actually I recently read an article that they might have found a promising solution to keep bats and certain other birds from getting killed by windmills.
Apparently, the problem is that the windmills are white, and sometimes partly green.
These happen to be the two worst colours.
Because they attract insects. Which then attract the birds. And at night, the bats.
Turns out purple windmills would attract the least amount of insects.
... is that awesome or what? :lol:
article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9067000/9067721.stm
:lol:
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 01, 2010, 06:08:56 PM
I personally find wind turbines to be aesthetically pleasing.
I agree completely.
Quote from: Rumckle on November 01, 2010, 12:17:09 AM
From what I heard wind farms pose a much greater problem for bats than birds, and I don't think bats fly out to sea.
ETA:
On wikipedia:
QuoteDanger to birds is often the main complaint against the installation of a wind turbine. However, a study[estimates that wind farms are responsible for 0.3 to 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. The author's study therefore claims that fossil fuel based electricity causes about 10 times more fatalities than wind farm based electricity, primarily due to habitat alteration from pollution and mountain-top removal. The number of birds killed by wind turbines is also negligible when compared to the number that die as a result of other human activities such as traffic, hunting, electric power transmission and high-rise buildings, and the introduction of feral and roaming domestic cats. For example, in the UK, where there are several hundred turbines, about one bird is killed per turbine per year; 10 million per year are killed by cars alone. In the United States, turbines kill 70,000 birds per year, compared to 80,000 killed by aircraft, 57 million killed by cars, 97.5 million killed by collisions with plate glass, and hundreds of millions killed by cats. An article in Nature stated that each wind turbine kills an average of 4.27 birds per year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_wind_power
You know what poses a bigger danger to migrating birds?
Tall buildings and city lights.
Yet no one is suggesting we do anything about THAT, yeah.
Hey, Kai...Guess who spreads that shit (inre: windmills killing birds) around?
Ho ho ho!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 01, 2010, 06:19:00 PM
Hey, Kai...Guess who spreads that shit (inre: windmills killing birds) around?
Ho ho ho!
Gonna take a wild guess here, but big oil?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 01, 2010, 06:19:00 PM
Hey, Kai...Guess who spreads that shit (inre: windmills killing birds) around?
Ho ho ho!
For 1 million internets, is it:
A. Big Daddy Coal
B. Big Daddy Nuke
C. Big Daddy Hydro
or
D. All of the Above
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 01, 2010, 06:22:07 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 01, 2010, 06:19:00 PM
Hey, Kai...Guess who spreads that shit (inre: windmills killing birds) around?
Ho ho ho!
Gonna take a wild guess here, but big oil?
Yep. One of their more recent acquisitions (ie, the 1970s) was the hippies.
I mean, come on, when court cases involving new refineries occur, for example, do you REALLY think a pack of hippies are going to beat Big Oil if Big Oil doesn't
wantp to be beaten? Fuck no...In fact, most of the hippie/NIMBY groups are FUNDED by big oil (they may or may not know this).
Big Oil can respond with the demand for more gasoline by building a new refinery with all the associated costs, and sell oil cheaper...Or they can "lose" in court, maintain the same level of refining capability, and sell at a higher price. More income for less outlay = happy stockholders.
And they use the same hippies to protest the fact that bird get minced by windmills, etc.
Quote from: Kai on November 01, 2010, 06:22:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 01, 2010, 06:19:00 PM
Hey, Kai...Guess who spreads that shit (inre: windmills killing birds) around?
Ho ho ho!
For 1 million internets, is it:
A. Big Daddy Coal
B. Big Daddy Nuke
C. Big Daddy Hydro
or
D. All of the Above
Big Daddy Nuke is a 90 pound weakling. Big Daddy Hydro is old, with cracked bones, and Big Daddy Coal has shacked up with his new woman, Big Mother Petroleum.
I like the SeaGen tidal energy farm concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeaGen
that shit's just cool, and the second gen ideas are going to blow that one out of the water.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 01, 2010, 11:44:16 AM
Actually I recently read an article that they might have found a promising solution to keep bats and certain other birds from getting killed by windmills.
Apparently, the problem is that the windmills are white, and sometimes partly green.
These happen to be the two worst colours.
Because they attract insects. Which then attract the birds. And at night, the bats.
Turns out purple windmills would attract the least amount of insects.
... is that awesome or what? :lol:
article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9067000/9067721.stm
Purple windmills would be *awesome*.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 01, 2010, 06:45:48 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 01, 2010, 11:44:16 AM
Actually I recently read an article that they might have found a promising solution to keep bats and certain other birds from getting killed by windmills.
Apparently, the problem is that the windmills are white, and sometimes partly green.
These happen to be the two worst colours.
Because they attract insects. Which then attract the birds. And at night, the bats.
Turns out purple windmills would attract the least amount of insects.
... is that awesome or what? :lol:
article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9067000/9067721.stm
Purple windmills would be *awesome*.
IT'S SCIENCE!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 01, 2010, 06:27:53 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 01, 2010, 06:22:51 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 01, 2010, 06:19:00 PM
Hey, Kai...Guess who spreads that shit (inre: windmills killing birds) around?
Ho ho ho!
For 1 million internets, is it:
A. Big Daddy Coal
B. Big Daddy Nuke
C. Big Daddy Hydro
or
D. All of the Above
Big Daddy Nuke is a 90 pound weakling. Big Daddy Hydro is old, with cracked bones, and Big Daddy Coal has shacked up with his new woman, Big Mother Petroleum.
Well that would make sense. Massive power is needed to refine oil, and Daddy Coal doesn't have the protection it used to, so together it makes a mutualism. Ah, business ecology. :horrormirth:
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 01, 2010, 06:08:56 PM
That and rich people who live in beach resort towns for 2/12ths of the year don't want their views obstructed, even though I personally find wind turbines to be aesthetically pleasing.
I don't really understand that, I mean the beach is nice and all, but there is nothing to see out there, just more water. I much prefer some turbines to break up the monotony, especially if they were purple.
id much prefer a big windmill in my back garden than uranium.
Quote from: slothrop23 on November 02, 2010, 01:24:27 AM
id much prefer a big windmill in my back garden than uranium.
And I prefer both to burning hydrocarbons.
What about maglev wind turbines? How come those don't get talked about?
The problem I have with nuclear is storage of the waste, I'm not saying that it is impossible to store safely, but it is pretty damn expensive (according to Wikipedia the life cycle cost of Yucca mountain is $90 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository)).
Also, nuclear power isn't renewable (at least not until/if fusion becomes available) so we'd have to replace it with something else eventually.
Also, to note nuclear power seems to be working pretty well in Finland (although it only provides about 25% of the power).
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 02, 2010, 01:38:47 AM
Quote from: slothrop23 on November 02, 2010, 01:24:27 AM
id much prefer a big windmill in my back garden than uranium.
And I prefer both to burning hydrocarbons.
with you on that. I'd be more than happy to replace oil and coal with traffic wardens and solicitors
Quote from: Liam on November 02, 2010, 10:56:21 AM
Are solicitors not too slippery to catch fire?
This is true! but we could trick them into it by saying we are not sure about the legalities of our new windmill, they'd be there in a shot. thats at least 9 letters and 14 phonecalls. and then. the napalm.
Would those be the same French nuclear scientists who, when Chernobyl happened, lied about the fallout from it possibly effecting France and, as that lie was discovered and subsequent investigations proved, also lied about numerous other incidents, leaks and near misses in the nuclear industry?
Don't get me wrong, the likes of Greenpeace lying about nuclear power and it's downsides pisses me off as well. Radiation is, in most cases, not very dangerous at all, except in very large doses or from sources which are rarely used when making nuclear power, and the effects of fallout from Chernobyl have been grossly overestimated. But the nuclear industry has a major tendency to hide it's dirty laundry while hiding behind the veneer of scientific neutrality, and that should be taken into account.
also. chenobyl was the setting for modern warfare, which is the best first person shooter ever imo, so, every cloud...although in this case, more of a yellowey green.
we have a recently abandonded nuclear power station not far from us, apart from looking awesome its in an area of outstanding natural beauty. strangely no one has died from the impact of it, and no flora or fauna has been affected by its use. the main problem is that it costs 1bn to put up and 1.2bn to shut down. small fry compared to a planet i guess.