The Asbury Park Press reported on "New Jersey Offshore Wind Energy: Feasibility Study" written by Atlantic Renewable Energy Corp of Richmond, Va. Wind Energy ... a topic near and dear to a sailors heart! The study area extends from Raritan Bay to Delaware Bay in waters 8 to 10 miles off the New Jersey shore where it is only up to 100 feet deep. The turbines would be more than 400 feet high! In Europe and Costa Rica, offshore windfarm areas are in waters up to 65' deep but the technology to move them into deeper water is expected to evolve. Maintenance is a problem because even in the summer, with good weather, the turbines are accessible only about 80% of the time. Accessibility is far more difficult during other seasons, and downtime can be prolonged. A few environmental groups seem to be a little cool to the idea. American Littoral Society (Sandy Hook based) and Clean Ocean Action are happy that the New Jersey Governor put a 15-month moratorium on any approvals for such projects. Winergy LLC of Shirley, NY has proposed 98 turbines in the waters off Monmouth County and 921 turbines off Cape May County. It's unclear if New Jersey can block projects in federal waters, outside the 3-mile State limitation. Under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, permit activities have to be consistent with "enforceable policies" of a state's coastal zone management plan (according to NOAA); but, the Federal Commerce Secretary can override a state's objection in some cases. The New Jersey Audubon Society opposed the moratorium. I wondor how coastal sailors feel about windfarms scattered along the Atlantic Coast? Are they a nuisance or a beacon of light in the struggle for renewable energy?
- Status
i am for them
On Cape Cod, Massachusetts they are also purposing a Wind Farm in between Nantucket and the Cape on Horseshoe Sholes. This has been a HEATED topic, almost a battle, for the entire cape population. I, as a sailor and a resident, completely support the idea and think we should be looking for other sources of energy to lessen our dependence on oil. Many groups on the cape are opposed to it because they think it would create an unsightly and ugly structure with all the fog horns and blinking lights. I believe that the plans have been presented to the Army Corp. of Engineers and that the third and final meeting is coming up soon on it (i have not been following as closely as i should be in these last few months.) I know the idea was proposed close to 2 years ago and the SOS (save our sound) organization has been working to block it. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in our part of the world, but i am in support of it.
On Cape Cod, Massachusetts they are also purposing a Wind Farm in between Nantucket and the Cape on Horseshoe Sholes. This has been a HEATED topic, almost a battle, for the entire cape population. I, as a sailor and a resident, completely support the idea and think we should be looking for other sources of energy to lessen our dependence on oil. Many groups on the cape are opposed to it because they think it would create an unsightly and ugly structure with all the fog horns and blinking lights. I believe that the plans have been presented to the Army Corp. of Engineers and that the third and final meeting is coming up soon on it (i have not been following as closely as i should be in these last few months.) I know the idea was proposed close to 2 years ago and the SOS (save our sound) organization has been working to block it. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in our part of the world, but i am in support of it.
Candle snuffing
While windfarms may be an up-and-coming idea, imagine how much fun it would be to have to sail around them, miles and miles out of one's way, in order to get anywhere. Generating fields of this type would need to be built near the population centers that need the electricity. That means near the cities and towns that most of us sail from. No non-official boats could be permitted anywhere in the area, for fear of disruptions (read: attacks) on the power grid. Imagine running into one of the pylons on a dark, rainswept night, then being charged with a crime and charged a fine, plus damages incurred by the power utility. In light of the maintenance difficulties mentioned in the originating post, it becomes obvious that the only reason any utility would consider "sea farms" is that they think the free "real estate" provided by the Federal Government will offset the really expensive use of helicopters to fix things that break. One hurricane hit might make them change their minds, but then we'll be left to look at --and try to avoid - abandoned towers rusting,unlit, for the next forty or fifty years. Is this an up and coming idea, or one whose time has not yet come?
While windfarms may be an up-and-coming idea, imagine how much fun it would be to have to sail around them, miles and miles out of one's way, in order to get anywhere. Generating fields of this type would need to be built near the population centers that need the electricity. That means near the cities and towns that most of us sail from. No non-official boats could be permitted anywhere in the area, for fear of disruptions (read: attacks) on the power grid. Imagine running into one of the pylons on a dark, rainswept night, then being charged with a crime and charged a fine, plus damages incurred by the power utility. In light of the maintenance difficulties mentioned in the originating post, it becomes obvious that the only reason any utility would consider "sea farms" is that they think the free "real estate" provided by the Federal Government will offset the really expensive use of helicopters to fix things that break. One hurricane hit might make them change their minds, but then we'll be left to look at --and try to avoid - abandoned towers rusting,unlit, for the next forty or fifty years. Is this an up and coming idea, or one whose time has not yet come?
well....
Well in our case it won't be a problem because they are proposing to put them on sholes that people can't sail over anyways. When I was over in Enlgand they were all over the country side and looked fine to me. Yes you might have to give up some of sailing space to have these, but some other forms of energy need to start being used before we completely deplete our fossil fuel supply. I'm surprised more sailors aren't in favor of this seeing as how alot of the responses in "is a powerboat in your future" cited powerboats large fuel consumption.
Well in our case it won't be a problem because they are proposing to put them on sholes that people can't sail over anyways. When I was over in Enlgand they were all over the country side and looked fine to me. Yes you might have to give up some of sailing space to have these, but some other forms of energy need to start being used before we completely deplete our fossil fuel supply. I'm surprised more sailors aren't in favor of this seeing as how alot of the responses in "is a powerboat in your future" cited powerboats large fuel consumption.
An ugly site
8 to 10 miles out + 400' high x (921+98)towers = 1 ugly site The New Jersey shore depends on tourism as a major source of income. Yes, we need more power with less dependecy on oil, but at what cost? Do we, the people, need a view similar to the oil platforms off of Texas? Paul makes a valid point about storm damage and navigational hazards. Perhaps the floatsom from these towers will generate more income in the off season. Once agin, New Jersey will become the joke of the land.
8 to 10 miles out + 400' high x (921+98)towers = 1 ugly site The New Jersey shore depends on tourism as a major source of income. Yes, we need more power with less dependecy on oil, but at what cost? Do we, the people, need a view similar to the oil platforms off of Texas? Paul makes a valid point about storm damage and navigational hazards. Perhaps the floatsom from these towers will generate more income in the off season. Once agin, New Jersey will become the joke of the land.
Economic Growth
Economic growth, which most everyone is favorable towards requires ENERGY. If we do not supply energy to the demands of our population our standard of living will decline. Another option is Reduce the population. How? Birth control? Many obstacles to that. People complain all the time about alternative energy...too ugly, too hazardous. What is the alternative? Complaining is easy. Please provide a solution to the problem of how to provide energy to an increasing demand and a growing population in the world. We love building offshore drilling platforms off Africa but don't put a windmill in our backyard. I think the answer lies in hooking up the bicycles at the workout centers to alternators and making people generate electricity, kind of like mice in a cage. Regards, Dave
Economic growth, which most everyone is favorable towards requires ENERGY. If we do not supply energy to the demands of our population our standard of living will decline. Another option is Reduce the population. How? Birth control? Many obstacles to that. People complain all the time about alternative energy...too ugly, too hazardous. What is the alternative? Complaining is easy. Please provide a solution to the problem of how to provide energy to an increasing demand and a growing population in the world. We love building offshore drilling platforms off Africa but don't put a windmill in our backyard. I think the answer lies in hooking up the bicycles at the workout centers to alternators and making people generate electricity, kind of like mice in a cage. Regards, Dave
Air power in the water?
Why build eyesoars when you can build a low-lying gyroscopic wave-propagated generator? They'd want to be closer to the shore, past the beachgoers but before the sailboats. Oh, yeah, the wind turbine folks have themselves some lobbyists. Sorry, I forgot. The best government money can buy. . .
Why build eyesoars when you can build a low-lying gyroscopic wave-propagated generator? They'd want to be closer to the shore, past the beachgoers but before the sailboats. Oh, yeah, the wind turbine folks have themselves some lobbyists. Sorry, I forgot. The best government money can buy. . .
The Netherlands seem to be able to do it
They have about 1500mW being generated offshore. Any dutch sailors on the forum have anything they can add? I would propose that the benefits far outweigh any deficits.
They have about 1500mW being generated offshore. Any dutch sailors on the forum have anything they can add? I would propose that the benefits far outweigh any deficits.
Wind energy is not free
Putting structures on the Federal OCS has its costs. The operators of these "towers" would have to pay rent to the Government. Moreover, they would be required to maintain them according to FAA, EPA, DOI, Coast Guard regs, and any other Federal regs that apply. They would also have to secure a bond for ultimate disposal. From shore, a structure the size mentioned 8 miles from shore would look smaller than a dime held at arms length, if it can be seen at all. The base of these structures would be reinforced concrete with a landing and appropriate bumpers for service boats. Their placements would be far enough apart for even the largest vessel to pass between them with plenty of room (miles) to spare. Operators will try to minimize the cost to build them by placing them in the shallowest parts of the OCS. As with any structure that protrudes from the seafloor, fish and crustaceans will congregate about them or attach themselves to them. (I suspect the powerboat/fishing folks will be in favor of them.) The downsides are: There may not be enough wind for enough time to justify their costs. They pose a hazard to migrating birds. The transmission cables will be designated "no anchorage or mooring areas". I've seen the windmills (old and new) in the Netherlands. They are very imposing structures, but (IMO) they are not "ugly". However, they are a bit noisy. Lastly, as you'd expect, the wind speed is slightly reduced on their lee side. Not enough is known about their long-term impact on the local weather, let along the global weather. ~ Happy sails to you ~ _/) ~
Putting structures on the Federal OCS has its costs. The operators of these "towers" would have to pay rent to the Government. Moreover, they would be required to maintain them according to FAA, EPA, DOI, Coast Guard regs, and any other Federal regs that apply. They would also have to secure a bond for ultimate disposal. From shore, a structure the size mentioned 8 miles from shore would look smaller than a dime held at arms length, if it can be seen at all. The base of these structures would be reinforced concrete with a landing and appropriate bumpers for service boats. Their placements would be far enough apart for even the largest vessel to pass between them with plenty of room (miles) to spare. Operators will try to minimize the cost to build them by placing them in the shallowest parts of the OCS. As with any structure that protrudes from the seafloor, fish and crustaceans will congregate about them or attach themselves to them. (I suspect the powerboat/fishing folks will be in favor of them.) The downsides are: There may not be enough wind for enough time to justify their costs. They pose a hazard to migrating birds. The transmission cables will be designated "no anchorage or mooring areas". I've seen the windmills (old and new) in the Netherlands. They are very imposing structures, but (IMO) they are not "ugly". However, they are a bit noisy. Lastly, as you'd expect, the wind speed is slightly reduced on their lee side. Not enough is known about their long-term impact on the local weather, let along the global weather. ~ Happy sails to you ~ _/) ~
I'm for them.
Windmills are about the lowest possible impact to replace the fossil plants that will eventually retire, or to supply moderate growth. Some noise and slight moderation of the wind that is easy to avoid. The "flotsam" concern is just not on! I sailed on the Swedish West Coast last summer. They won't let you build much of anything in sight of the water. But they have allowed windmills. At a distance, they are pleasant curiosities - I can't imagine an impact from the sight. They might even draw attention. It's a little known fact that we have chewed up most of the regional generation safety margins across the US, with no capacity additions other than a some combined cycle gas plants over the past 20 years. New England is in a real bind, while the middle atlantic states are more well connected, especially to coal rich Pennsylvania. But grid stability is a real issue for our economic development. We have done nothing basic to address the recent collapse around the Great Lakes, and generator capacity is a real issue. Conservation is the first and best source. But then comes wind, followed by solar (only when the oil price gets even higher) and then nuclear. Wind sounds like a good first choice to me. David Lady Lillie
Windmills are about the lowest possible impact to replace the fossil plants that will eventually retire, or to supply moderate growth. Some noise and slight moderation of the wind that is easy to avoid. The "flotsam" concern is just not on! I sailed on the Swedish West Coast last summer. They won't let you build much of anything in sight of the water. But they have allowed windmills. At a distance, they are pleasant curiosities - I can't imagine an impact from the sight. They might even draw attention. It's a little known fact that we have chewed up most of the regional generation safety margins across the US, with no capacity additions other than a some combined cycle gas plants over the past 20 years. New England is in a real bind, while the middle atlantic states are more well connected, especially to coal rich Pennsylvania. But grid stability is a real issue for our economic development. We have done nothing basic to address the recent collapse around the Great Lakes, and generator capacity is a real issue. Conservation is the first and best source. But then comes wind, followed by solar (only when the oil price gets even higher) and then nuclear. Wind sounds like a good first choice to me. David Lady Lillie
Nothing is Free
First let it be known. I am very much in favor of alternative energy. The "however" is big. As eds928gt mentioned, they have a cost. At the present time it costs more to build and operate these wind mills than the savings. The costs include fabrication which probably requires fossil energy and the energy to operate them which also includes fossil energy. We must continue to pursue these alternate energy sources, but the savings will be long run savings, not an immediate solution to energy shortages. They are not a short time substitute for new oil sources.
First let it be known. I am very much in favor of alternative energy. The "however" is big. As eds928gt mentioned, they have a cost. At the present time it costs more to build and operate these wind mills than the savings. The costs include fabrication which probably requires fossil energy and the energy to operate them which also includes fossil energy. We must continue to pursue these alternate energy sources, but the savings will be long run savings, not an immediate solution to energy shortages. They are not a short time substitute for new oil sources.
A lot of windmills in Texas
Driving down I10 towards San Antonio I was surprised by the number of windmills. They must kill some birds but they aren't ugly. Bird strikes are probably the biggest downside to windmills. Off of Texas the old oil rigs are very popular with fishermen. Divers like them too. A bunch of towers will probably act like a large reef and improve fishing for some types of fish. We have sailed around a few oil rigs off of Alabama. They are pretty easy to avoid during the day. Overall windmills are a good idea, there are no free lunches. Solar collectors placed upon residential and commercial roofs would seem to be the most environmentally friendly alternative energy. Looking off of a hotel or mountain down on a city like las vegas it appears that there are hundreds of square miles of roofs. Solar makes less sense in parts of the country with a lot of clouds and rain. But look at the roof of a super Wal-mart. About an acre of space that isn't used for anything. Placing solar there seems like a win win win solution. Taking empty useless space and making it productive is just good sense. Tom
Driving down I10 towards San Antonio I was surprised by the number of windmills. They must kill some birds but they aren't ugly. Bird strikes are probably the biggest downside to windmills. Off of Texas the old oil rigs are very popular with fishermen. Divers like them too. A bunch of towers will probably act like a large reef and improve fishing for some types of fish. We have sailed around a few oil rigs off of Alabama. They are pretty easy to avoid during the day. Overall windmills are a good idea, there are no free lunches. Solar collectors placed upon residential and commercial roofs would seem to be the most environmentally friendly alternative energy. Looking off of a hotel or mountain down on a city like las vegas it appears that there are hundreds of square miles of roofs. Solar makes less sense in parts of the country with a lot of clouds and rain. But look at the roof of a super Wal-mart. About an acre of space that isn't used for anything. Placing solar there seems like a win win win solution. Taking empty useless space and making it productive is just good sense. Tom
What is the alternative???
Hey Guys, Love the debate, keep it up. I saw on the Discovery channel a few weeks ago a story about the future of fossil fuels and how long our current supplies are going to last. It's pretty frightening. Anybody want to take a guess at how long?? There are 2 recognized experts on the subject. One is considered very optimistic, the other very pessimistic. The pessimistic guy says we have about 35 years left before our oil supplies are depleted. The OPTIMISTIC guy says we have about 65 years left. The bottom line is that fossil fuels are GOING AWAY. Indsutry is planning for it. The development of hydro-electric cars that get energy from fuel cells that run on hydrogen derived from water is a good example. The question shouldn't be "should be go with wind power or stick with fossil fuels?". The real question is "What are we going to replace fossil fuels with??" I'm for wind energy and I haven't heard a compelling reason why we shouldn't strongly consider it. People who say that it's "ugly" enrage me. The people I've come across never have an alternative to suggest, they're just there to rubber stamp their vote of "no". If you're going to participate in the debate, then try to solve the problem. If you're willing to put off deciding how you're going to heat your house in 35 to 65 years because of vanity, I think you're making a mistake. People who say it's "too expensive" or "unfeasible" aren't much better. I have a house that uses about 1300 gallons of heating oil per year. Here's what we currently do to get that oil: 1. Do geological surveys across the entire earth (often off shore) to find spots that are likely to have oil. 2. Build an oil rig, ship it to location, set it up & begin drilling. For an offshore rig, it costs about $200 to $300 million to do that. Only 33% of drill sites produce oil, so it costs about $600 to $900 million to find an oil-rich reserve. 3. Pump the crude out, ship it across the world to a refinery & make oil products (heating oil, gasoline, tar, distillates, etc.). 4. Now that you have finished product, you need to get it to the consumer so trucks & tankers are sent out to bring the energy to where it's needed. I'm sorry, but if you think that's cheaper or more efficient than harnessing wind that comes from local sources, you're crazy. An eyesore you say?? What about trans-continental pipelines? What about harbors & shorelines that are ruined when an oil tanker breaks open & spills?? What about the environment??? My argument is that, when you look at the whole picture, "eyesore", "too expensive", "tourism dollars" and "I don't want the inconvenience of having to sail around those things" really don't hold up. Oil is GOING AWAY and many of us will still be here when it does. The real question is: "What are we going to do about it??" Check out the "related link" for more information if you don't think my facts are true. Allen Schweitzer s/v Falstaff C-30 Hull #632
Hey Guys, Love the debate, keep it up. I saw on the Discovery channel a few weeks ago a story about the future of fossil fuels and how long our current supplies are going to last. It's pretty frightening. Anybody want to take a guess at how long?? There are 2 recognized experts on the subject. One is considered very optimistic, the other very pessimistic. The pessimistic guy says we have about 35 years left before our oil supplies are depleted. The OPTIMISTIC guy says we have about 65 years left. The bottom line is that fossil fuels are GOING AWAY. Indsutry is planning for it. The development of hydro-electric cars that get energy from fuel cells that run on hydrogen derived from water is a good example. The question shouldn't be "should be go with wind power or stick with fossil fuels?". The real question is "What are we going to replace fossil fuels with??" I'm for wind energy and I haven't heard a compelling reason why we shouldn't strongly consider it. People who say that it's "ugly" enrage me. The people I've come across never have an alternative to suggest, they're just there to rubber stamp their vote of "no". If you're going to participate in the debate, then try to solve the problem. If you're willing to put off deciding how you're going to heat your house in 35 to 65 years because of vanity, I think you're making a mistake. People who say it's "too expensive" or "unfeasible" aren't much better. I have a house that uses about 1300 gallons of heating oil per year. Here's what we currently do to get that oil: 1. Do geological surveys across the entire earth (often off shore) to find spots that are likely to have oil. 2. Build an oil rig, ship it to location, set it up & begin drilling. For an offshore rig, it costs about $200 to $300 million to do that. Only 33% of drill sites produce oil, so it costs about $600 to $900 million to find an oil-rich reserve. 3. Pump the crude out, ship it across the world to a refinery & make oil products (heating oil, gasoline, tar, distillates, etc.). 4. Now that you have finished product, you need to get it to the consumer so trucks & tankers are sent out to bring the energy to where it's needed. I'm sorry, but if you think that's cheaper or more efficient than harnessing wind that comes from local sources, you're crazy. An eyesore you say?? What about trans-continental pipelines? What about harbors & shorelines that are ruined when an oil tanker breaks open & spills?? What about the environment??? My argument is that, when you look at the whole picture, "eyesore", "too expensive", "tourism dollars" and "I don't want the inconvenience of having to sail around those things" really don't hold up. Oil is GOING AWAY and many of us will still be here when it does. The real question is: "What are we going to do about it??" Check out the "related link" for more information if you don't think my facts are true. Allen Schweitzer s/v Falstaff C-30 Hull #632
Well, it's not that bad.
Part of my job deals with estimating oil and gas resources. Worst case scenarios suggest reserves would run out in the time-frame mentioned. However, there are still undiscovered resources that will likely be found and produced. That will probably extend the time-frame another 50 years or so. Another potential resource are "Calthrates or Hydrates" (natural gas in a solid or semi-solid state). Studies are currently underway to determine the feasability of locating these resources and how to develope them. If development methods become successful, these resources could provide natural gas supplies for hundreds of years. Lastly, although not popular, there are known coal reserves and resources that can provide energy for hundreds of years. Bottom line, the sky isn't falling anytime soon. ~ Happy sails to you ~ _/) ~
Part of my job deals with estimating oil and gas resources. Worst case scenarios suggest reserves would run out in the time-frame mentioned. However, there are still undiscovered resources that will likely be found and produced. That will probably extend the time-frame another 50 years or so. Another potential resource are "Calthrates or Hydrates" (natural gas in a solid or semi-solid state). Studies are currently underway to determine the feasability of locating these resources and how to develope them. If development methods become successful, these resources could provide natural gas supplies for hundreds of years. Lastly, although not popular, there are known coal reserves and resources that can provide energy for hundreds of years. Bottom line, the sky isn't falling anytime soon. ~ Happy sails to you ~ _/) ~
Canadian Invents New Solar Cell
There is a really interesting news item about a solar cell that works off the infra-red spectrum. See related link. As for offshore windmills and windmills covering the landscape: Arrrrgh! The big boys in the energy industries are at it again. What ever happened to "America the Beautiful"?
There is a really interesting news item about a solar cell that works off the infra-red spectrum. See related link. As for offshore windmills and windmills covering the landscape: Arrrrgh! The big boys in the energy industries are at it again. What ever happened to "America the Beautiful"?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I'll probably get flamed for this, but to me -offshore drilling and production platforms are not ugly. Neither are windmills. I don't even mind looking at nuclear power plants. To me, the aesthetics of man-made industrial structures is not of great importance. What matters to me is their: efficiency, short and long term environmental impact, and safety. ~ Happy sails to you ~ _/) ~
I'll probably get flamed for this, but to me -offshore drilling and production platforms are not ugly. Neither are windmills. I don't even mind looking at nuclear power plants. To me, the aesthetics of man-made industrial structures is not of great importance. What matters to me is their: efficiency, short and long term environmental impact, and safety. ~ Happy sails to you ~ _/) ~
jr, speaking of Nantucket
I was thinking about the heated debate in Massachusetts when I was reading this article. I have heard it alledged that prominent politicians and politically connected people who profess to be on the side of the environment and lead the call for alternative energy sources are basically against the proposed locations along the Cape. It just so happens that their expensive vacation retreats might be impacted by the site of the structures. Is this a classic NIMBY response and is it possible that these people could be so blatently hypocritical? In this case, I was surprised by the cool reaction that seemed to be coming from groups that you would think to be in support. To be fair, they were simply applauding the Governors moratorium because they think that more comprehensive study needs to be conducted. A careful, thoughtful approach is always best. However, (I know this may be inflammatory) my general impression of environmental groups is that, rather than being in favor of alternative energy sources, they will not be satisfied until the economy, development and population of, first the US, and ultimately the whole world is in full retreat. I think that if they had their way, even sailing would not be acceptable because it can't be done without some adverse impact to the Earth no matter how minimal.
I was thinking about the heated debate in Massachusetts when I was reading this article. I have heard it alledged that prominent politicians and politically connected people who profess to be on the side of the environment and lead the call for alternative energy sources are basically against the proposed locations along the Cape. It just so happens that their expensive vacation retreats might be impacted by the site of the structures. Is this a classic NIMBY response and is it possible that these people could be so blatently hypocritical? In this case, I was surprised by the cool reaction that seemed to be coming from groups that you would think to be in support. To be fair, they were simply applauding the Governors moratorium because they think that more comprehensive study needs to be conducted. A careful, thoughtful approach is always best. However, (I know this may be inflammatory) my general impression of environmental groups is that, rather than being in favor of alternative energy sources, they will not be satisfied until the economy, development and population of, first the US, and ultimately the whole world is in full retreat. I think that if they had their way, even sailing would not be acceptable because it can't be done without some adverse impact to the Earth no matter how minimal.
I'll be the first to agree with you, eds928gt
I am in support of preserving wilderness areas that remain largely untouched my man, but man is a natural component of the environment, not an intruder. That said, our own extinction has to be a certainty so ... don't worry, Mon ... Be Happy!
I am in support of preserving wilderness areas that remain largely untouched my man, but man is a natural component of the environment, not an intruder. That said, our own extinction has to be a certainty so ... don't worry, Mon ... Be Happy!
i do agree with you scott
Yes, Scott I do agree with some of your statements. There is a huge political movement against the windfarm mainly with the Kennedy's and the Romney who oppose it basically becasue of NIMBYism when you really boil it down. They are all in favor of alternative engery but only when it's "not in my back yard". I do also agree with you that most envrionmentalist groups act in the way you describe. There is no balance between the extremes, especially with the groups that I am aware of in my area.
Yes, Scott I do agree with some of your statements. There is a huge political movement against the windfarm mainly with the Kennedy's and the Romney who oppose it basically becasue of NIMBYism when you really boil it down. They are all in favor of alternative engery but only when it's "not in my back yard". I do also agree with you that most envrionmentalist groups act in the way you describe. There is no balance between the extremes, especially with the groups that I am aware of in my area.
Power from the Oceans in The Furturist
January-February 2005 - http://www.wfs.org/ By Anthony T. Jones and Adam Westwood "Wind energy industries are growing, and as we look for alternative power sources, the growth potential is through the roof. Two industry watchers take a look at generating energy from wind and wave action and the potential to alter the energy landscape." The United Kingdom seems to be on the leading edge of ocean energy. They have a wind farm off Blyth with thirty generators that produce 1.5 megawatts "enough to supply the annual electricty needs of 41,000 households." US is lagging about 5 years behind in off shore wind technology. The authors cited the Massachusetts project as critical from the social and technology stand point. The article also discusses various tidal and ocean current projects. I like the one where they drop an array of turbines "basically underwater windmills" in the ocean in 60 meters of water. The changing tidal flow produces the current to power the turbines. As with wind, the good old USA is lagging behind and "will play only a minor role." Mark
January-February 2005 - http://www.wfs.org/ By Anthony T. Jones and Adam Westwood "Wind energy industries are growing, and as we look for alternative power sources, the growth potential is through the roof. Two industry watchers take a look at generating energy from wind and wave action and the potential to alter the energy landscape." The United Kingdom seems to be on the leading edge of ocean energy. They have a wind farm off Blyth with thirty generators that produce 1.5 megawatts "enough to supply the annual electricty needs of 41,000 households." US is lagging about 5 years behind in off shore wind technology. The authors cited the Massachusetts project as critical from the social and technology stand point. The article also discusses various tidal and ocean current projects. I like the one where they drop an array of turbines "basically underwater windmills" in the ocean in 60 meters of water. The changing tidal flow produces the current to power the turbines. As with wind, the good old USA is lagging behind and "will play only a minor role." Mark
- Status