U.S. Offshore Wind Industry Gets Not One, But Two Major Boosts

[jpak]

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/10/u-s-off-shore-wind-industry-gets-not-one-but-two-major-boosts

The U.S. wind industry -- launched in California in the '80s under the leadership of former governor Jerry Brown -- has become a major player in global markets with traditional onshore power generation applications, leading the world in terms of accumulative wind capacity for the last two years. Yet efforts to move offshore, where wind resources are far superior but logistics are more challenging, have been hampered by a lack of regulatory support, particularly at the federal level of governance.

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) sponsored an offshore wind power conference in early October in Atlantic City, New Jersey. It started off with a bang: U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar signed a 28-year lease for the first off-shore wind project in the U.S., to be located off the coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The Cape Wind project, which will grow to 468 megawatts (MW) when completed, took 8 years to gain final project approvals.

In a passionate speech, Salazar pointed out that taking eight years to permit an offshore wind project was unacceptable. He promised that by the end of 2010, the federal government hopes “to identify places where offshore wind makes sense.” He suggested that this approach — which has been utilized by European countries such as Denmark -- could help reduce the length of future permitting battles as environmental reviews could be expedited up-front, “so developer proposals will have a better chance.”

Looking at a map of the U.S., the best offshore wind resource in the U.S. is the Atlantic Coast from Georgia to Maine, with 1,256 gigawatts (GW) of potential development, with the best resources in the Northeast. Though the West Coast has 930 GW of potential, the steep drop-off renders it impossible to secure foundations for offshore wind turbines, which may reach in 10 MW a piece in scale! However, trends in offshore wind deployments are to go farther from shore, and in deeper and deeper water. Floating foundation structures tethered to the ocean’s floor are under development that may allow California, Oregon and Washington to ultimately tap a significant new source of renewable energy.

<more>

[glowing]

1. And last I looked, they don't spout poison into the ocean...

[kristopher]

2. 1,256 gigawatts (GW) of potential development? DAMN!!!

Actually I already knew that, I just LOVE pointing it out.

:toast:

[NNadir]

3. It's only impressive if you can't tell the difference between power and energy.

Since the number of "renewables will save us" who understand high school physics is, um, zero, they find this "impressive."

The entire wind industry in the entire nation of Denmark is hard pressed to match the energy output of the small nuclear reactor that the Chinese put on line last week.

Have a nice "Physics? We don't need no stinking physics!" kind of day.

[kristopher]

4. Is that like not being able to tell the difference between true and false?

In the world of real scientists there is nothing more important than the credibility that comes with adhering to the truth; even when it goes against cherished beliefs. If a real scientist were to do what you are documented doing below it would result in them being permanently ostracized from the scientific community.

Your remarks on the wind turbine maker Vestas where you make an an explicit claim you know to be false in order to sully their reputation:

Vestas calls itself in its company reports, the Vestas OIL, GAS and WIND company.

Posted by NNadir on Sat Oct-16-10 09:29 PM

Vestas, OIL, GAS and wind company.

They know what they are, even if mathematically illiterate purveyors of self delusion and indifference don't.

It's notable that this piece of shit dangerous fossil fuel company suffered huge losses in the middle of the decade for being required to meet five year warranties on their worthless hunks of metal.

Their "solution" to this problem with their reliability did not lead them to improve the crappy gearboxes on their subsidized garbage, but rather to reduce the warranty period from five years to two years.

It is interesting to note that the most transparently dishonest people are the first to accuse others of dishonesty.

Have a nice day.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=261737&mesg_id=262014

They were never in fossil fuel, they started in engineering
Posted by muriel_volestrangler on Sun Oct-17-10 06:17 AM

NNadir was talking a load of complete bollocks about 'oil and gas'.

# 1898 - Vestas founded by H.S. Hansen, a blacksmith, in the small town of Lem in Denmark. He and his son, Peder Hansen, manufactured steel windows for industrial buildings.
# 1945 - Peder Hansen established the company VEstjyskSTålteknik A/S, whose name was shortened to Vestas. The new company, which initially made household appliances, started to produce agricultural equipment.
# 1970s - During the second oil crisis, Vestas began to examine the potential of the wind turbine as an alternative source of clean energy.
# 1979 - Vestas delivered the first wind turbines. The industry experienced a genuine boom at the start of the 1980s, but in 1986 Vestas was forced to suspend payments because the market in the United States was destroyed due to the expiration of a special tax legislation that provided advantageous conditions for the establishment of wind turbines.

http://www.vestas.com/en/about-vestas/profile/vestas-brief-history.aspx

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x261737#262053

No, you are very, very wrong; they have NEVER been a fossil fuel company
Posted by muriel_volestrangler on Sun Oct-17-10 06:14 AM

Vestas is a wind turbine company. It does not sell oil or gas. It never has. What it says, in one part of its website, is "Wind, Oil and Gas is Vestas’ vision, which expresses the ambition of making wind an energy source on a par with fossil fuels." So, they want to be as big as the huge oil and gas companies that supply so much of the world's energy. That's where the 'oil and gas' phrase comes from.

I realise that you're hoping no-one will check to see what your link says, because you're counting on them thinking "yet another boring piece of crap from NNadir, why bother looking?", but you are being highly misleading.

It is not a fossil fuel company. Your claim is incorrect, wrong and misleading. You have the gall to accuse others of dishonesty in the same post. You have no shame.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x261737#262052


Have a nice "Truth? We don't need no stinking truth!" kind of day.

[XemaSab]

5. Is that what you learned at the Hollywood Upstairs Science College?

I find it interesting that you have never once stated your credentials on here.

[jpak]

6. LOL!!!1111

:rofl:

[joshcryer]

7. He claimed to have co-authored several papers, but refused to tell us which those papers were.

I got the suspicion that he was either a 16 year old high schooler or that he is in deeo with the commercial wind industry and negative information about the wind industry could hurt his bottom line.

I think I am leaning more and more toward the former.

[DrGregory]

8. WRONG AGAIN!!

In the world of real scientists there is nothing more important than the credibility that comes with adhering to the truth; even when it goes against cherished beliefs. If a real scientist were to do what you are documented doing below it would result in them being permanently ostracized from the scientific community.
-----------------------------------------------

Contrary to your unfounded assertions, he would NOT be
ostracized from the scientific community.

It is entirely proper to point out the difference between
"power" and "energy".

Of course, since you don't understand the difference between
power and energy, you only "think" ( term used loosely ) that
his statement is worthy of being ostracized.

Of course, that's YOUR problem.

Dr. Greg

[jpak]

9. So what's your problem?

:D

[Kolesar]

11. Says you

:cry:

[Glassunion]

10. With that kind of power...

Just make sure you keep that shit under 88mph. We all know what happens if you go over 88mph.

Just sayin...