Google bets on Offshore Wind Projects (Energy)

2010-11-27 19:58:49

#1

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6877|132 and Bush

_{Photo credit http://www.flickr.com/photos/wessexarch … 125528248/
Kent, England: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanet_Wind_Farm}

The transmission company Trans-Elect plans to build a $5 billion power-transmission backbone with the help of a major investment by Google. This ambitious project, called the Atlantic Wind Connection, will stretch 350 miles from Virginia to New Jersey, and can carry up to 6000 megawatts of power from ocean breezes to 1.9 million homes on the East Coast.

A this point, however, there is no power to carry. The U.S. has yet to coax a single watt from offshore wind turbines. But there are projects in the works, and with good reason—there's a lot of power offshore. According to a 2008 Department of Energy report, by 2030 gusts from the sea could provide 60,000 megawatts of power to Americans. That's almost double what all the land-based wind farms currently provide. The race is on to secure a position in the offshore wind market.

Click here for the full article and to see where each company is trying to secure their position/foothold.

I think this is very encouraging news. This could be a major part of a comprehensive approach to clean energy. According to the Department of Energy, wind power could supply 20 percent of America's electricity by 2030. The United States is clearly behind here. Europe already has two dozen operating offshore wind farms. It is anticipated that by 2020 around a third of all UK energy will be produced from offshore renewables. Hopefully investments from the private sector will speed up the progress here, in the States.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2010-11-27 20:18:04

#2

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6681|North Carolina

Awesome

2010-11-27 20:24:37

#3

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5634|London, England

The cost is still prohibitively higher than the alternatives. We don't need to be pushing wind power, we need more nuclear.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-11-27 20:34:11

#4

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6877|132 and Bush

JohnG@lt wrote:
The cost is still prohibitively higher than the alternatives. We don't need to be pushing wind power, we need more nuclear.

Long term it is not. Getting over the initial investment hurdle is the biggest challenge. That is why I am encouraged when I see major private sector investments like this. For them it is about profits, so you know they are doing feasibility studies to determine the (economic) sustainability of the project. The government rarely considers this, for they only care about immediate votes. We've got plenty of coastline that is ripe for the picking. I think we need a comprehensive approach that includes solar, nuclear, and wind. Different scenarios may require a different fit, locally.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2010-11-27 20:36:29

#5

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6681|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:
The cost is still prohibitively higher than the alternatives. We don't need to be pushing wind power, we need more nuclear.

Nuclear is currently our best bet, but yeah, wind has a lot of long term potential.

2010-11-27 20:41:15

#6

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6877|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
The cost is still prohibitively higher than the alternatives. We don't need to be pushing wind power, we need more nuclear.
Nuclear is currently our best bet, but yeah, wind has a lot of long term potential.

Mostly because of the considerable lower overhead. I wouldn't call wind energy a job creator though.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2010-11-27 20:43:50

#7

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6681|North Carolina

Kmar wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
The cost is still prohibitively higher than the alternatives. We don't need to be pushing wind power, we need more nuclear.
Nuclear is currently our best bet, but yeah, wind has a lot of long term potential.
Mostly because of the considerable lower overhead. I wouldn't call wind energy a job creator though.

This is true. The most appealing part of wind energy is the lack of any major waste or negative impact on the environment.

A few dead birds is much better than producing hazardous waste that takes centuries to degrade.

Granted, I still support the creation of more nuclear plants here. I just want us to get the hell away from the Middle East and away from trusting oil companies on our shores.

2010-11-27 20:52:51

#8

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6877|132 and Bush

.. and I think that number is even lower off shore.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2010-11-27 21:17:21

#9

Stubbee: Religions Hate Facts, Questions and Doubts; +223|7019|Reality

I was hoping they would generate 1210 Megawatts. 6000 would overload the flux capacitor.

Wind, solar power are niche products. They can't produce constant energy for obvious reasons.

Fusion baby.

The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'

2010-11-27 21:35:09

#10

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6877|132 and Bush

Stubbee wrote:
I was hoping they would generate 1210 Megawatts. 6000 would overload the flux capacitor.

Wind, solar power are niche products. They can't produce constant energy for obvious reasons.

Fusion baby.

"I think we need a comprehensive approach" .. Offshore farms are far more consistent. Again, the studies show that wind is capable of supporting 20% of our energy needs. This takes in to account the consistency.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2010-11-27 22:00:57

#11

Morpheus: This shit still going?; +508|6275|The Mitten

Stubbee wrote:
I was hoping they would generate 1210 Megawatts. 6000 would overload the flux capacitor.

Wind, solar power are niche products. They can't produce constant energy for obvious reasons.

Mr. Fusion baby.

But seriously. I know there are a few nuclear reactors here in MI, Palisades is about 20 minutes from me right now. I also know they were looking into offshore wind farms in the middle of lake Michigan - there's apparently a natural plateau under the water that would make construction easy.

EE (hats

2010-11-27 22:20:37

#12

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6877|132 and Bush

Morpheus wrote:
Stubbee wrote:
I was hoping they would generate 1210 Megawatts. 6000 would overload the flux capacitor.

Wind, solar power are niche products. They can't produce constant energy for obvious reasons.

Mr. Fusion baby.
But seriously. I know there are a few nuclear reactors here in MI, Palisades is about 20 minutes from me right now. I also know they were looking into offshore wind farms in the middle of lake Michigan - there's apparently a natural plateau under the water that would make construction easy.

Good plan. There are many reasons to have multiple sources. It's good for security as well as economics. Part of the reason we are in the mess we are right now is because we put our eggs in one basket.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2010-11-27 23:37:29

#13

tuckergustav: ...; +1,590|6190|...

Morpheus wrote:
Stubbee wrote:
I was hoping they would generate 1210 Megawatts. 6000 would overload the flux capacitor.

Wind, solar power are niche products. They can't produce constant energy for obvious reasons.

Mr. Fusion baby.
But seriously. I know there are a few nuclear reactors here in MI, Palisades is about 20 minutes from me right now. I also know they were looking into offshore wind farms in the middle of lake Michigan - there's apparently a natural plateau under the water that would make construction easy.

yeah, and apparently there are people who are against it because it will "clutter" their beautiful view. lol

...

2010-11-27 23:46:18

#14

Morpheus: This shit still going?; +508|6275|The Mitten

tuckergustav wrote:
Morpheus wrote:
Stubbee wrote:
I was hoping they would generate 1210 Megawatts. 6000 would overload the flux capacitor.

Wind, solar power are niche products. They can't produce constant energy for obvious reasons.

Mr. Fusion baby.
But seriously. I know there are a few nuclear reactors here in MI, Palisades is about 20 minutes from me right now. I also know they were looking into offshore wind farms in the middle of lake Michigan - there's apparently a natural plateau under the water that would make construction easy.
yeah, and apparently there are people who are against it because it will "clutter" their beautiful view. lol

lol. Yea, I actually read up on it a while back, when talking with G@lt or somebody about something..... yea, i know describes all of D&ST.
Anyway, the point of that argument was "If you can see it from your house, that will be the least of your worries..." (namely, your house is in the middle of the fucking lake)

EE (hats

2010-11-28 00:00:18

#15

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6957|Disaster Free Zone

The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year. In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year. Photosynthesis captures approximately 3,000 EJ per year in biomass. The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined.

How is Solar not the obvious choice for further development?
Yes it has some obvious glaring problems, but with some lateral thinking, the worlds power needs could be solved over night.

2010-11-28 00:06:19

#16

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6877|132 and Bush

I agree that solar energy should be part of the solution.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2010-11-28 00:06:49

#17

Morpheus: This shit still going?; +508|6275|The Mitten

DrunkFace wrote:
The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year. In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year. Photosynthesis captures approximately 3,000 EJ per year in biomass. The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined.
How is Solar not the obvious choice for further development?
Yes it has some obvious glaring problems, but with some lateral thinking, the worlds power needs could be solved over night.

...You mean, by daybreak???

EE (hats

2010-11-28 00:16:05

#18

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6877|132 and Bush

Wind power is actually more cost efficient on average (with todays technology). Obviously this depends on location and seasons. Solar seems to do better in the summer months (duh), wind in the winter months.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2010-11-28 00:40:29

#19

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6957|Disaster Free Zone

Kmar wrote:
Wind power is actually more cost efficient on average (with todays technology). Obviously this depends on location and seasons. Solar seems to do better in the summer months (duh), wind in the winter months.

"With todays technology"

What I think people have to step away from is the idea is that we need a centralised power station supplying X amount of homes/businesses/etc. But rather a system where every building supplies and draws from the grid as it needs it. Given the advancements in glass and even concrete technology, having these materials with inclusive solar cells is not infeasible (and may even already exist) and could mean all (most) man made structures could be fully covered in power absorbing materials. Obviously atm the costs are extreme and then theres the problem of storing this power for periods of low light (night, cloud cover, etc) or high usage times, but given the amount of energy available, to me it sounds like the most realistic long term solution.

2010-11-28 00:49:33

#20

CC-Marley: Member; +407|7105

Good luck to them. They better hope a Kennedy's view isn't tainted. The windfarm project debate off CapeCod has been going back and forth for years. http://www.capewind.org/ Seems to be heading towards construction.

2010-11-28 00:56:50

#21

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6951|Canberra, AUS

DrunkFace wrote:
The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year. In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year. Photosynthesis captures approximately 3,000 EJ per year in biomass. The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined.
How is Solar not the obvious choice for further development?
Yes it has some obvious glaring problems, but with some lateral thinking, the worlds power needs could be solved over night.

Solar panels are not precisely easy to make... there are some particularly rare materials involved (Pd for example)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2010-11-28 01:04:07

#22

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6877|132 and Bush

DrunkFace wrote:
Kmar wrote:
Wind power is actually more cost efficient on average (with todays technology). Obviously this depends on location and seasons. Solar seems to do better in the summer months (duh), wind in the winter months.
"With todays technology"

What I think people have to step away from is the idea is that we need a centralised power station supplying X amount of homes/businesses/etc. But rather a system where every building supplies and draws from the grid as it needs it. Given the advancements in glass and even concrete technology, having these materials with inclusive solar cells is not infeasible (and may even already exist) and could mean all (most) man made structures could be fully covered in power absorbing materials. Obviously atm the costs are extreme and then theres the problem of storing this power for periods of low light (night, cloud cover, etc) or high usage times, but given the amount of energy available, to me it sounds like the most realistic long term solution.

The feasibility of a conversion on a mass scale is rather unlikely. However, if the cost is right, new construction should jump all over it.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2010-11-28 01:04:24

#23

Morpheus: This shit still going?; +508|6275|The Mitten

Don't solar panels also have longevity issues?
Where the need to replace them just about cancels out benefits of having them? At least for home use....

EE (hats

2010-11-28 01:17:05

#24

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6925

CC-Marley wrote:
Good luck to them. They better hope a Kennedy's view isn't tainted. The windfarm project debate off CapeCod has been going back and forth for years. http://www.capewind.org/ Seems to be heading towards construction.

Am I the only one that would quite like to see wind turbines in the distance?

2010-11-28 01:43:23

#25

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6877|132 and Bush

ghettoperson wrote:
CC-Marley wrote:
Good luck to them. They better hope a Kennedy's view isn't tainted. The windfarm project debate off CapeCod has been going back and forth for years. http://www.capewind.org/ Seems to be heading towards construction.
Am I the only one that would quite like to see wind turbines in the distance?

Man.. there was a beautiful shot on flickr I stumbled upon a little bit ago. I'm trying to find it. I should have made it a favorite..

Xbone Stormsurgezz

BF2S Forums Google bets on Offshore Wind Projects (Energy)

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Stubbee wrote:

Stubbee wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

Stubbee wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

Stubbee wrote:

tuckergustav wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

Stubbee wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Kmar wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Kmar wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

CC-Marley wrote:

Board footer