George Anne

I agree with you. We must do something and soon.

The heart of the problem as I see it is this. The captains & kings of industry are to deeply involved in their raping , robbing, looting and plundering the earth for it's natural resources. They are to short sighted to see that they are killing themselves as well. And as you have said all to soon the earth will become uninhabitable for all. No clean drinking water nor clean air to breathe . Without those two things man can not survive.

Considering how much money we give in aid to Egypt and Libya, maybe we should take that billions and build ourselves some free turbines.

We are the product of 250,000 generations.

What will be left for our descendants another 250,000 generations from now?

At the pace we are consuming earths resources I doubt there will be even another 100 generations let alone another 250,000 generations.

.

If you added up all the money we give to Israel, the Saudis, Egypt and the other countries in the area to protect oil interests it would be more than enough to build all the turbines needed to power this whole nation. and just think of all the jobs it would provide for skilled workers.

I wonder how many sea birds will lose their lives to the spinning blades.

I wonder how many sea birds will lose their lives because they are going to die off due to a much dirtier environment. How many sea birds lost their lives due to the British Petroleum disaster? Due to the Exxon disaster?

Maybe if we stopped constantly getting into wars, we could divert some of the massively bloated defense budget to securing our economic independence and saving the environment.

Solar in particular has started to reach "grid parity", meaning in some markets (southwestern US, etc.) the price of solar has dropped to less than or equal to the price of power from the existing grid. Wind is not quite as far along, but close.

We will be seeing more and more of our power coming from alternative/sustainable sources in the years ahead... with or without investment from the federal government... however a little push would be good... there are many benefits to encouraging development sooner than later.

It would require 144,000 offshore turbines standing 270 feet tall — not one of which exists since proposals have stalled due to controversy and costs.

I am so for this!!! The rich liberals want to go green, well lets start in their backyard!!! Sadly this will never happen, since they want to the turbines in the poor mans back yard, who doesnt have the political pull to stop it..

If you disagree, why has every project on the east coast been stopped dead. While they are popping up all over in the midwest on farms, in-spite of the farmers and towns best efforts to stop the projects??

Jim in Houston-1509351

What happens if the prevailing wind patterns change and it is no longer windy where we put the windmills? I'm sure it would be quite and effort to relocate 144,000 turbines.

Of all the places in America the north East coast has the most wind all year round... Stop making all these dumb statements and learn something.. How do you start commenting on something that you have no idea how it works.. They even gave a link to the report which explains everything that will go into making this possible..

here...

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/Offshore/12DvorakEastCoastWindEn.pdf

Happy reading and comeback with some smart comments.

pullmyfinger13

100 Million people live in the proximity of a hurricane prone ocean. Should we just MOVE???? If this study is accurate, it would reduce our dependency on fossil fuels enormously. I'd rather have us start building a reusable energy resource than be dependent on OIL from foreign countries that hate us.

pullmyfinger13

LMAO. 144,000 wind turbines in a hurricane prone ocean. Yeah, there's a good idea.

Rob. Rich people are rich people. No matter what political coat they pretend to wear. Only a fool thinks otherwise.

When was the last a Hurricane made that far north into New York or New Jersey?? By the time they get there they are classified as tropical depressions..

Again another person who comes and drops a dumb comment... read the report provided in this story.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/Offshore/12DvorakEastCoastWindEn.pdf

Jim in Houston-1509351

Byron Raum

I wonder how many sea birds will lose their lives because they are going to die off due to a much dirtier environment. How many sea birds lost their lives due to the British Petroleum disaster? Due to the Exxon disaster?

There is a difference. The oil spiils were accidents and therefore preventable. The spinning blades are required to extract the energy from the wind and cannot be avoided.

Theres probably billions of birds in the East Coast.. a few thousand will die every year so that all those billions of other birds will have clean air and clean water...

But you don't address the fact that we also become "outrraged" at the high fuel costs, the high food costs and the expenses of doing "the right thing" for Ma Earth.

I pay more on my electric bill for 50% wind than my friend who has no wind......really? And how do they know that MY electricity from the same line is 50% wind generated and my neighbors isn't?

We want apples 3 for a buck and get outraged when we see them a buck apiece when grown "organically"

Just like food at restraunts.... if it's fast it's probably not low cal. If it's low cal and healthy... it's definately not on the dollar menu..... McD's has tried healthy.. it didn't sell. We try for "alternative energy" that is more expensive... not selling well. How many homes have solar? Certainly not the family earning $40k/year with 3 kids......

Everyone keeps demonizing the companies.... they are only selling us what we want...... If you can save 5cents a gallon, don't you drive across the street? If you save $30 on your electric bill... don't you do it? Companies wouldn't exist if we didn't buy from them... period..... and we have to learn... you cant have everything... if its environmentally friendly....it's not cheap.

OK, start building them......

and THAT's the problem.... everybody has solutions, but nobody implements them.... if we had a serious program to build wind turbines, we would be finished in about 20 years...

when the Iran hostage crisis happened.. if we had taken that as a wakeup call about the Middle East and we:

- restarted Nuclear plant construction

- started a wind program

- forced auto makers to get going on electric vehicles

- integrated solar panels in housing construction

- developed fuel cell technology

- developed natural gas and oil shale

we wouldn't be burning a drop of oil today and we would be a net exporter of oil to the world

problem is, corporations OWN our governmental system.. so nobody has an incentive to do the right thing.... until that gets fixed... the USA will continue to get driven to bankruptcy by self interest

Jim in Houston-1509351

Alex, I looked at the report and there is not one mention of sea birds.

Whats up with you and the birds? I bet you dont even like birds... You are just here to find a reason to trash wind energy.. let me guess because our president supports it?

Jim in Houston-1509351, the bird strike problem has been solved on newer turbine blades that now make some small ultrasonic noise so birds are alerted.

.

Byron Raum

Large turbines turn very slowly, and do not kill thatmany birds, in fact a an office building with its lights can kill more birds in a night. Also British Petroleum did not have any disaster, British Petroleum went away in 1998 perhaps you mean BP.

An alternative to all those wind turbines would be to cull the herd. 7 billion people on this planet is too many.

Responding to the comments about sea birds - I wonder how many will die becauce of loss of their habitat for breeding and nesting, and their natural food sources - due to both man-made causes, and natural causes. Think of destruction of dunes by developers and pollution of both fresh water and salt marsh areas by urban run-off. Wind turbines will be a minor problem. Think a few years back when eagles, pelicans and dozens of other species were reduced to endangered levels because of the man-made chemical DDT . . . ? If the locations of the wind farms are out of natural migratory paths, then this risk can be minimized.

These guys are griping because they may see afew props in the far distance?? get real people! this is way overdue and we GOT to wean ourselves off the dependancy of foreign oil so now is the best time. Why should we continue to rely on a group of people who hate our guts yet we keep giving them our money and treasure and human lives all for the almighty barrel of oil.

Well..when we go to wind power we wont have to deal with them anymore and they can go broke for all I care....not to mention we may be able to start breathing again. Just think fo the health of our children. I bet there would be a major reduction in the numbers of children and adults with respiratory problems and our food would vastly improve from the drop in pollutents. Its a big plus plus people...so what if you got to maneuver your boat around afew turbines...go boating somewhere else if its that inconvenient for you. Its not like they are gonna be built on the entire east coast.

The real complaint is: This is all about a hand full of greedy old rich bast&&ds who dont want to give up their power lock on the oil and energy industry.

Clean coal my ar&&... there is no such thing. And fracking is contaminating our water tables no matter how they try to deny it. Its time for reusable sustainable alternative energy that we dont have to get from anyone else. Its all right here at home and it would create jobs. If these enregy guys really cared about the future of their children they would be jumping on the bandwagon instead of fighting this. Just think of the wars we wouldnt have to fight and all the butt kissing we could stop doing like we do now just for oil ?

Hey, don't forget the West Coast. Off the coast of Montery would be a perfect spot. Or anywhere from Northern California to San Diego. Rarely a hurricane to be seen too.

Since Democrats are so gungho on clean energy one should be put in the middle of any Kennedy back yard too. I mean it's for the environment, right? An Al Gore needs a dozen in his yard. He's the goto guy for climate armageddon after all. So he should be all for it. Take one for the team right?

You people complaint about wars, about human's lives and yet you want to be as dependent to resources to middle east as much as possible.

Alternatives energy allows us just that, to be less involve in Middle East and to be more independent.

The first large-scale offshore wind farm was proposed in 2001 off Massachusetts' Nantucket Island. But vocal opposition, including from political heavyweights like the Kennedy family, are seeking to block the $2.6 billion Cape

As long as it doesnt disturb the rich powerful liberal elite, this would be a great idea!

And yet none of you find it ironic that you use the most environmentally damaging appliance in your home to complain about damage to the environment?

How many of you drive SUVs? How many of you use the most clean technology regardless of cost? How many of you eat beef? How many of you take showers everyday? Do you compost your left-over food? Do you recycle (and I don't just mean the bin that's required by law in most places either)?

Just like the Kennedy family......not in my backyard.

The worst offender, in my opinion, is Al Gore. He is the standard-bearer for clean energy and has the carbon footprint of a medium sized town.

People want to complain about what everyone else is doing to the environment but never want to make any changes of their own unless it's easy and cheap. Well folks, it ain't.

This proposal for wind power is not cost effective; coal is still cheaper...and plentiful...those that say that greed is an issue, would be the first one's to scream when they open their wind-turbine driven power bill.

The big problem with wind is it does not blow all the time. A bad idea, billions of dollars spent and very little in return, and who pays for it?

Most everyone wants affordable energy. That is only possible with the use of coal and natural gas. Both of these products are in abundance in this country. My county alone has enough coal to power the world for 150 yrs. Take the coal and natural gas away, you have just destroyed the economy. Millions of people are reliant on these 2 natual resources to make a living.

AHA, another SOLYNDRA in the making?

Cost stability? Wait till the next hurricane...............

And finally, remember, we are broke, 16 trillion and counting. I think we better get our books balanced before we try this. This is another monorail train to nowhere brought to you by the left.

Boy, they can sure make up ways to spend money we do not have. I wonder whats next? Floating solar panels???? :)

Seems that "Gumps" has hit upon the real environmental driver...

POPULATION!!!

Alternate energy sources are all well and good, but can they keep up with world population growth?

Western water supplies were once in relative balance with local demographics. With california being greedy for water to be diverted to southern california and irrigation taking 2nd place to its population growth. Think there won't be fallout? Or nevada and arizona depletion of the local aquifers.

One thing has always held true throughout time, whatever man builds to functionally help man, nature still is the ultimate winner.

Willysmith...

The 1st law of thermodynamics does come to mind. Most who have studied classical engineering or the physical sciences will understand that heat is generated as part and parcel in creating consumable power.

I daresay that all of our energy creating mechanisms will add to global warming with the only exceptions being solar and perhaps geothermal. Geothermal has its own unknown, what happens to the earths crust as heat energy is rapidly removed over a long period of time? Iceland works because of a low population density WRT its proximaty to a vast amount of geothermal energy.

jb-799024

AHA, another SOLYNDRA in the making?

Cost stability? Wait till the next hurricane...............

And finally, remember, we are broke, 16 trillion and counting. I think we better get our books balanced before we try this. This is another monorail train to nowhere brought to you by the left.

Boy, they can sure make up ways to spend money we do not have. I wonder whats next? Floating solar panels???? :)

Another id!@! who skipped over the whole story and the link provided to the actual report this story is based on...

3.1. Low hurricane risk
Unlike their European counterparts, OWE farms on the USEC can be hit by powerful hurricanes, which frequent the
USEC from June to November. Because hurricane intensity depends on warm water and moisture, hurricanes are less
likely to remain strong over the cooler SSTs of the northeastern USEC (see McAdie et al.,
34 p. 28). Data from 1851 to
2006 show that the states of Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Maine had no hurricanes greater than
Saffir-Simpson (SS) category 2 (see McAdie et al.,
34 p. 33). The Mid-Atlantic and New England states that protrude from
the coast (New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts) experienced several hurricanes of SS category 3, but
no SS category 4 or 5 hurricanes, during that same period (see McAdie et al.,
34 p. 33). The total number of SS category 3
hurricanes for these states from 1851 to 2006 are as follows: Virginia (one), New York (five), Connecticut (three),
Rhode Island (four) and Massachusetts (three). No SS category 4 or 5 hurricanes have ever hit the region from Maine
to Virginia from 1851 to 2006, and only 64 SS category 1–3 hurricanes have touched this same coastal area over the same
period. In stark contrast are Southern states such as North Carolina and Florida. North Carolina experienced 47 hurricanes
from 1851 to 2006, with 12 being SS category 3+. Florida had 144 hurricanes during this same period, with 37 being SS

Alex Cali:

When was the last a Hurricane made that far north into New York or New Jersey?? By the time they get there they are classified as tropical depressions..

Does this answer your question adequately?

2001–2004

• June 17, 2001 – Tropical Storm Allison brushes southern New England as a subtropical storm. In Connecticut, rainfall peaks at 7.2 inches (183 mm) in Pomfret,^[10] closing several roads and causing minor damage to numerous houses.^[10] In Rhode Island, the rainfall washes out several roads.^[11]
• September 11, 2002 – The interaction between Hurricane Gustav and the non-tropical system causes strong winds that affected areas of coastal New England, mainly in eastern New York andMassachusetts.^[12] The winds down trees and power lines, and several homes and cars are damaged by fallen trees; about 19,000 homes lost power in Massachusetts.^[13]
  Mid-September, 2002 – The remnants of Tropical Storm Hanna contribute to around 1 in (25 mm) of rainfall in Vermont.^[14]

• September 28, 2002 – The extratropical remnants of Hurricane Isidore produce widespread light rainfall across the region.^[6] No damages or flooding were reported.^[15]
• Early September, 2003 – Hurricane Fabian produces moderate surfing conditions along the East Coast of the United States.^[16]
• September 4, 2003 – The remnants of Tropical Storm Grace drop light to moderate rainfall throughout the region, though no significant damages are reported.^[6]
• September 17, 2003 – The dissipating remnants of Tropical Storm Henri produce light rainfall.^[6]
• September 19, 2003 – Hurricane Isabel passes far to the west, though rainfall reaches 1 inch (25 mm) in portions of western Connecticut and Massachusetts, and in portions of New Hampshire and Maine.^[6] Falling trees from moderate winds downed power lines across the region, causing sporadic power outages. Two people die as a result of the hurricane, both due to the rough surf.^[7] Damage in Vermont totals about $100,000 (2003 USD, $117,000 in 2008 USD).^{[17][18][19][20][21][22]}
• Early October, 2003 – The interaction between Hurricane Kate and a high pressure area to its north produced 3 to 4 foot (1 m) waves along the coast.^[16]
• August 14, 2004 – The extratropical remnants of Tropical Storm Bonnie produce heavy rainfall, with localized totals of up to 10 inches (250 mm). The rainfall floods or washes out roads across the eastern Maine. In Aroostook County, Maine, the rainfall caused a mudslide, narrowing a county road to one lane.^[23]

• August 15, 2004 – Tropical Storm Charley dissipates near southern Massachusetts, though the remnant moisture produces up to 5 in (130 mm) of rainfall, particularly in Maine.^[6] In Rhode Island, one man drowned in a rip current generated by the system.^[24][25]
• August 31, 2004 – Moisture from Hurricane Gaston drops up to 3.69 in (94 mm) of rainfall.^[6]
• August 31, 2004 – Tropical Storm Hermine comes ashore near New Bedford, Massachusetts as a minimal tropical storm. Damage was minimal, and effects were limited to gusty winds and light rainfall.^[26]
• September 10, 2004 – The remnants of Hurricane Frances produce light, yet widespread rainfall; the system eventually crosses northern Maine.^[27]
• September 19, 2004 – A plume of moisture breaks off from the remnants of Hurricane Ivan and progresses northward, producing heavy rainfall across portions of the Mid-Atlantic and New England.^[28]The rain causes extensive roadway flooding in Connecticut,^[29] and results it minor river flooding in other areas.^[30]
• September 29, 2004 – Moisture from the remnants of Hurricane Jeanne storm produce light to heavy rainfall, with totals of over 7 inches (175 mm) on Nantucket.^[6]

[edit]2005–present

• June 15, 2005 – After being absorbed into a frontal wave, the remnants of Tropical Storm Arlene drop light rainfall in Northern New England.^[31]
• July 8, 2005 – The extratropical remnants of Hurricane Cindy produce moderate rainfall in northern Vermont, generally within the range of 1 to 3 in (25 to 76 mm).^[32]
• August 31, 2005 – The remnants of Hurricane Katrina drop up to 4.17 in (106 mm) of rain and cause gusty winds that blew trees and tree limbs, primarily across Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts.^[6][33]
• September 17, 2005 – Tropical Storm Ophelia brushes Massachusetts with gusty winds and heavy rainfall.^[34]

• October 7, – October 12, 2005 – The remnants of Tropical Storm Tammy and Subtropical Depression Twenty-Two contribute to the Northeast U.S. flooding of October 2005, which killed 10 people^[35][36]and contributed to the wettest month on record in locales throughout the Northeastern United States.^[37]
• June 15, 2006 – The extratropical remnants of Tropical Storm Alberto drop rainfall throughout the region, peaking at 1.98 in (50 mm) at Windsor Locks, Connecticut.^[6]
• July 21, 2006 – Tropical Storm Beryl makes landfall on Nantucket, generating waves 10 feet (3 m) in height as the storm approached the island.^[38] Light rainfall and gusty winds were also reported there, and in portions of Massachusetts.^[39]
• September 3, 2006 – The extratropical remnants of Hurricane Ernesto drop light rainfall; 1.72 in (44 mm) of precipitation is reported at Marlboro, Vermont.^[6]
• June 4, 2007 – The extratropical remnants of Tropical Storm Barry enter the region, producing moderate rainfall that peaked at 3.19 inches (81 mm) at Taunton, Massachusetts.^[40]
• November 3, 2007 – As an extratropical hurricane, Hurricane Noel hits coastal Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Maine with hurricane-force wind gusts of up to 89 mph (143 km/h). with sustained winds topping out at 59 mph (95 km/h).^[41] Power outages were widespread; about 80,000 customers in Massachusetts and 9,000 in Maine lost electric power, mostly on Cape Cod.^[42] Heavy rainfall, high seas, and coastal flooding also occurred.^[43]
• September 6, 2008 – Tropical Storm Hanna makes landfall at Myrtle Beach, South Carolina and proceeds northeastward through the Mid Atlantic states and New England, dropping moderate to heavy rainfall and spawning gusty winds across southern New England.^[44]
• September 15, 2008 – The remnants of Hurricane Ike reach northern New England, though no effects are reported.^[45]
• September 28, 2008 – Hurricane Kyle passes to the east as it heads towards Canada, affecting Maine with heavy rainfall and gusty winds that caused scattered power outages.^[46] Up to 7.15 in (182 mm) of precipitation falls in Hancock County, Maine.^[47]
• August 21, 2009 – Hurricane Bill passes just offshore of New England causing very heavy surf, and a period of rain and gusty winds over Southeastern Massachusetts.
• August 29, 2009 – Tropical Storm Danny passed over Nantucket as an extra-tropical storm, causing up to 2 inches of rain in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and brought wind gusts up to 60 mph off the coast of Nantucket and Maine.
• November 12, 2009 – Hurricane Ida after hitting the northeast gulf coast as a tropical storm, redeveloped off the Carolina coast as a strong nor'easter, bringing severe damage as far north as New Jersey, where severe flooding, beach erosion, and strong winds were reported. As the center of the storm moved out to sea, a batch of moisture broke off of it, and moved north, bringing moderate rain to New England. The storm caused millions of dollars in damage.
• September 4, 2010 – Hurricane Earl passed about 90 miles offshore, but still brought heavy rain, large waves, and tropical storm force gusts to Cape Cod. The heaviest rain affected areas such as Nantucket, Martha's Vinyard, and areas over Maine, while the strongest wind was a recorded gust of 58 mph near Hyannis, Massachusetts. Sustained winds were of 29 to 35 miles per hour, just at and below tropical storm force.^[48]

• August 28, 2011 – Hurricane Irene weakened to a tropical storm immediately after landfall, produced high winds, heavy rains, and flash flooding especially in western New England. The storm left at least 16 people dead throughout New England, with ten deaths in Connecticut. The eastern quadrant of the Irene remained intact as that section had never transversed land and moved north-northeast across southern Bristol and Plymouth countries in Massachusetts. Winds at times reached hurricane force from Westport east to Woods Hole on the south coast.

Ted patrick...

True, the planet earth is not dying, barring some cataclysmic event such as our sun dying or earth being struck by a large foreign body, Earth will continue on. The human species is another matter, we have always been a greedy lot.

The article mentioned that the Nantucket project had a projected cost of 2.6 billion for 130 turbines. These clowns are proposing 144,000 turbines. Everyone here has a calculator in their computer, so take a few seconds and run the numbers! 2.88 trillion...yes trillion with a "T" and remember cost estimates are always low. Cutting off aid to middle eastern countries isn't going to pay for that. This is just another "pie in the sky" project yhat no one has the money fer. The argument that "Europe has them" is meaningless, they're broke, and in debt worse than us!

144,000? Do u realize how much resources this consumes?

Why not include in the design under water blades, geothermal, solar panels, and also utilize the energy produced by the differences in temperature?

Primitive idea but needs refinement.

Send it to M.I.T. They are the best open minds we have.

A lot more energy than wind energy to be utilized at each location.

Have they done studies to see what impact harnessing this energy will have? U are collecting a breeze.

If it has taken 30 years of trying to get wind and solar into a viable alternate source of energy ,and many of you have said we still haven't came up with the optimum technology for those 2 yet. and you still dont want to put Govt Resources into finding the answer .I only have 1 question for you Oil and Coal lovers. When is the exact day that we Try and Turn to Wind and Solar power 1 week before its all gone ? 1 month? 1 year? 10 years? When? I want an exact date? Oil is only around for another 100 years.....

Lots of folks miss one important point in why you must go renewable:

In early 1920's the USA exported grain at $2.40/bushel and imported oil at $3.07/barrel - fair trade !!!

Now in 2012, you export same grain at $9.60/bushel but pay over $100.00/barrel for oil.

Grain price increase of 400% vs Oil price increase of 3300% !!!

Don't look now - you're being screwed by the same people who despise you !!!

Eamonn, Dublin, Ireland

LMAO...The Kennedy's don't want these in their backyard but they will put them in someone else's backyard at the drop of a hat.

More fools on a fool's errand. This number of propellers represents an environmental and mechanical/maintenance catastrophe. However, those that think the $90,000 volt is dandy will just love this fantasy.

Think about it. The east coast is around 1700 miles in length. To have 144,000 wind turbines, there would have to be one propeller every 62 feet, the entire length.

The idiots that proposed this nonsense could just as easily have said something like; "5 million wind turbines could power the country". Just as inane.

Wait for the 1st hurricane. LOL.

Wind turbines are noisy, I'm sure birds will avoid them.

I believe the GOP has issued "talking points" that we're starting to see the result of. They trickled down to a local politician here and he (stupidly) did a newsy update about how unreliable and inefficient Solar and Wind are. The GOP wants American's to think that when night falls, we won't have electricity if we're relying 100% on Solar. And the wind "stops blowing" or with less force and our lights start dimming....

It's hard to believe that many American's don't know that energy can be STORED. I read recently about storing energy in a battery (auto TYPE) from solar panels for the individual homeowner. I'm sure there are more sophisticated storage options for power companies.

The GOP members that are feeding this BS to their constituents are either nit-wit's themselves, or knowingly passing on inaccurate information to THEIR CONSTITUENTS. They don't think much of those constituents, do they>

If anybody here thinks that the oil companies that own the American government will ever let this idea come to fruition then you need to wake up, you're dreaming. If all the questions were answered and all the problems were solved it would still be generations before the gazillion dollar world oil industry would ever step aside and permit this to happen.

Jim in Houston-1509351

I wonder how many sea birds will lose their lives to the spinning blades.

juanita dominguez

This proposal for wind power is not cost effective; coal is still cheaper...and plentiful...those that say that greed is an issue, would be the first ones to scream when they open their wind-turbine driven power bill.

The facts are simple and stark: In just another 60-75 years, our entire world must find renewable power sources or the masses must go without electric power. We can't burn what's left of our coal unless we want to further damage our environment. Oil that the masses can afford will be depleted within 30-40 years. Once we have to convert tens of millions of homes and small businesses in the Northeastern US from home heating oil to natural gas, and very likely power our cars with natural gas too, that supply will also rapidly become too-expensive for most of us to afford. The reason that our oil companies are fracking all over the US right now is that most of the natural gas above the shale layer is already depleted. For a fact, 44 years ago, the US Energy Dept. tried to use nuclear weapons several different times to crack the shale layer, and indication of how desperate that our national energy situation had already become by then. Worse yet, as Asia and the 3rd world modernizes, energy demand has been forecast to increase by 50% by 2025.

Our planet is running-out of the fuels that our economy is so heavily dependent on, at the same time that population growth is spiraling out of control. Another resource in critically short-supply is phosphorus, a must-have ingredient in fertilizer. Without phosphorus we can't grow high-yield crops, and crop yields will fall by half. In just 50 years our planet will have a population of 10 billion, and without some kind of fuel to power farm equipment and our highly non-centralized freight transportation system, we can't feed that many people, it's pretty simple.

At this point we can greatly expand the use of hydropower, tidal power, geothermal power, wind power, and for a while until the necessary raw resources are depleted, solar power. Unless we can come-up with nuclear fusion, we only have a uranium supply of 100-150 years remaining too, depending on how willing we are to construct new nuclear fission power plants. So, do we worry how many birds get killed by spinning windmill blades, or how many fish get killed going through tidal or hydropower dams and turbines, a solution for which in either case greatly adds to costs and may very well result in human deaths down the road a piece too.

Birds, fish, and wild animals get killed every day by our cars and trucks, by our aircraft, by boat and ship propellers, by trains, by getting sucked into hydropower turbines, by getting hit by windmill blades, and through a myriad of other painful ways of dying too. Another thing to remember is that the human race can not have sustainable urban areas without sustainable economies, sustainable electric power generation of some kind, and without a sustainable food supply too. Many of the more-fervent supporters among the wildlife-protection crowd view the human race as their enemy too. I feel for those poor animals and birds too, but we have to be realistic, as the alternative could be billions of human deaths within a century too.

So, do we quickly work toward the establishment of viable, renewable, sustainable electric power generation, or do we continue to worship the Gods of exploitation of non-renewable resources that greatly enrich a select few, while every day the critical fuels that we are so heavily dependent on continue toward exhaustion while our costs continue to rise at an out-of-control rate. A number of States in the Midwestern and Western US already have large-scale commercial wind-power operations already powering a substantial part of their demand. Perhaps the slopes of Eastern US mountains might be a better location for windpower farms than offshore, but to not build either will eventually cost the Eastern US heavily in terms of economic ability and even in terms of the ability to support a very large human population too.

For those non-believers there is a wealth of information available these days from numerous energy industry sources where the alarm has long-ago been sounded. One of my favorite resources in the field of resource-depletion is the Post-Carbon Institute here in America, which issues new very dire warnings almost every day. Their senior research scientist Richard Heinberg recently wrote a book on this subject entitled "The End of Growth", and I recommend starting with the 3rd chapter, then going back and reading the first two. If you have a little bit of time to give to reading, you will soon realize that what happens to sea birds are among the least of our current worries. The book is available online too:

The End of Growth chapters: http://www.postcarbon.org/end-of-growth-chapters/

Post-Carbon Institute homepage: http://www.postcarbon.org/

I can tell by my ignore list lighting up that the robber barons school of trolls is out in force trying to make this some kind of liberal plot to deprive them of their riches. What a bunch of idiots. Their comments border on the stupid to the insane and have no value. Sooner or later we are going to have to come to our senses and realize that the world resources are not being replenished as fast as we are using them and we need an alternative to what we are now using. We do not need to build and implement 144000 all at once but a few test projects could get us started. Enviromental impact? Look at the Gulf of Mexicao which now has over 27000 oil rigs in it. Sad to say then end result will only be that way if the oil robber barons decide they can make a huge profit off of this.

I may have a valid question. What will happen if the electricity from these turbines is somehow turned loose in the ocean? Will that kill ocean life for tens or more miles? I remember when hand cranked generators were used to knock fish to the surface. What would a massive amount of electricity do to the life in the ocean? I seem to have read lately that several people have been killed in the water near docks with faulty grounding.

Eamonn,

If I discovered some US coins from 1952 and melted then down I could buy a lot more refined petroleum today than I could then. The price of petroleum has gone down quite a bit when based on real coinage rather than some 'good faith' currency.

Prices are higher because our money is worth less, not that the products have changed. This sad change was brought about by our government, not We the People.

You are correct. We contunue to buy from and support people who work against us at every opportunity. That's why we have a State Department and a Department of Energy (whose budget is nearly 35 BILLION dollars per year). Why should we expect good results when we make the Department of Energy struggle along on only seven hundred million dollars a week?

To United WE Stand, I spent 45 years in the electrical industry and understand the technology involved! What's your experience? Mostly lib/DNC talking points I'm sure. !44,000 wind turbines off the east coast is a stupid, impractical fantasy that only you tree huggers could love! I say this not from anybody"s talking points, but from technical knowledge, some thing you obviously don't possess!

THE East Coast? Why you could power the East Coast of of Europe with only one!

The first question to be resolved is, "Can anyone design a wind turbine that can produce enough energy, in its lifetime, to offset what is required to build it?" To my knowledge there never has been one.

It has to produce enough energy to dig the ore, refine it and fabricate it. Energy to build the blades prepare the foundation, connect it to the grid. Then the ongoing expense of maintenance.

If it cannot do all these things, it cannot reproduce itself. If it cannot produce enough energy to produce another one, over time all of them will fall on the ground or into the ocean.

This is independent of the cost of the electricity. Olddog47 is right.

While we are on the subject of power, everything that I said about wind applies to solar, as well.

We do not need to listen to the salesperson that is so desperately attempting to sell his lemons as oranges forget wind it is a bad high dollar eyesore. all we need is Hydrogen, and forget solar its just as bad. you people need to wake up. only a certified IDIOT would even consider wind and solar as a way out of our predicament, a energy crises can sure bring out the stupid people, after you spend all that money on something that wont do the job you will look at those thousands of ugly bird killing eyesore's differently, I suppose then you will want to plant solar panels all over everything, spend the rest of what you have on another plan that you buy from the same salesman that still even with the windmills wont do the job, one thing they will do is make shipping a thing of the past. why don't all you brainiacs go sailing out and have a look at them, wait till there is a electrical disaster involving the wind generated power line and you will see that they can kill more then birds. we need to put a stop to the madness and stupidity. again the solution is and always has been Hydrogen and hydrogen hybrid fuels.

The real problem is to many people, do your part and get fixed. the population has expanded X4 just in my lifetime. that is the problem we need to work on.

OldDog47

To United WE Stand, I spent 45 years in the electrical industry and understand the technology involved! What's your experience? Mostly lib/DNC talking points I'm sure. !44,000 wind turbines off the east coast is a stupid, impractical fantasy that only you tree huggers could love! I say this not from anybody"s talking points, but from technical knowledge, some thing you obviously don't possess!

Lets look at it from a different perspective..

The square mileage of the state of New York is 54,000 miles.. If you look at the link to the report and see the pics provided it shows where turbines can be installed offshore it sure does look that in the total area 2 to 3 New York's could fit in there.

Thats 150,000 square miles.

that means that you put 1 turbine every square mile and get the total power needed.

I have been in the electrical industry for 10 years right after i graduated high school. You and me understand electrical theory and know very well how these turbines work and the kind of electricity that's generated...

The report says that all of the 144,000 turbines are rated 5,000 Watts.. There are turbines in England and around the world being installed rated at 6,000 watts to 7,000 watts. The number 144,000 could be reduced to 100,000 by using larger turbines.

Its possible to do this, while creating millions of jobs. People building them and people installing them..

Um paco, $700,000,000 X 52 = $36,400,000,00. So, what are you saying?

Independent Reasoning

Alex Cali:

When was the last a Hurricane made that far north into New York or New Jersey?? By the time they get there they are classified as tropical depressions..

Does this answer your question adequately?

2001–2004

• June 17, 2001 – Tropical Storm Allison brushes southern New England as a subtropical storm. In Connecticut, rainfall peaks at 7.2 inches (183 mm) in Pomfret,^[10] closing several roads and causing minor damage to numerous houses.^[10] In Rhode Island, the rainfall washes out several roads.^[11]
• September 11, 2002 – The interaction between Hurricane Gustav and the non-tropical system causes strong winds that affected areas of coastal New England, mainly in eastern New York andMassachusetts.^[12] The winds down trees and power lines, and several homes and cars are damaged by fallen trees; about 19,000 homes lost power in Massachusetts.^[13]
  Mid-September, 2002 – The remnants of Tropical Storm Hanna contribute to around 1 in (25 mm) of rainfall in Vermont.^[14]

My Independent friend, i posted the answer to your question right before yours.. Give me the link to the last category 4 or 5 hurricane?? The wind turbines according to the report are rated to withstand category 3 hurricane..

D Buck-2239568

We do not need to listen to the salesperson that is so desperately attempting to sell his lemons as oranges forget wind it is a bad high dollar eyesore. all we need is Hydrogen, and forget solar its just as bad. you people need to wake up. only a certified IDIOT would even consider wind and solar as a way out of our predicament, a energy crises can sure bring out the stupid people, after you spend all that money on something that wont do the job you will look at those thousands of ugly bird killing eyesore's differently, I suppose then you will want to plant solar panels all over everything, spend the rest of what you have on another plan that you buy from the same salesman that still even with the windmills wont do the job, one thing they will do is make shipping a thing of the past. why don't all you brainiacs go sailing out and have a look at them, wait till there is a electrical disaster involving the wind generated power line and you will see that they can kill more then birds. we need to put a stop to the madness and stupidity. again the solution is and always has been Hydrogen and hydrogen hybrid fuels.

The real problem is to many people, do your part and get fixed. the population has expanded X4 just in my lifetime. that is the problem we need to work on.

Hydrogen requires more energy to create than what it puts out...

Do a search on Google: the hydrogen hoax

Solar will only be efficient when the price of solar panels comes down even more.. I have in my house 4x250 watts solar panels that charge my lithium ion batteries all day.. At night they power my 2 lights circuits in the house. I use an arduino microcontroller to control my whole system. When the batteries get to a certain voltage the power from the utility takes over..

Just my 4 panels cost me 1,100 dollars... Imagine what i could do if i was able to afford more? now times that by millions of people in the US and that would greatly reduce power consumption form the utility..

Wind power works.. no matter what you people say it works.. I wont even argue this.. "but what happens if there is no wind" you turn on your coal powered plants. Instead of being on 365 days a year you will only turn them on 20% of the time, which equals about 72 days..

Electrician for 10 years...

7 billion people on the planet is too many...what we need is a good plague to wipe out half of the global population. Then there would be no need for 144k wind turbines.

Only 144,000 wind turbines eh, who is stupid enough to believe this would have no impact. Already land based wind farms have been shown to generate heat to the areas they already exist in. That's according to NASA thermal pictures from space. As far as generating new jobs it would most likely go to the cheapest supplier and baby that is not the US. Also I see people jumping up and down about safety security and all that junk, I believe our pioneers would be ashamed of you people. Way to figure it out. I think all of you folks who are gung ho about this should get together and do this instead of belly aching for someone else to make it come true and I'll join in the day I see that happen because it hasn't yet.

All you **save the birds** people MUST support the movement to rid the planet of cars/trucks since; each year, they kill hundreds of thousands of deer, raccoons, armadillo, dogs, cats, turtles, squirrels.....ect...

Here's an idea; bird savers, GROW A BRAIN...and then use it.

The silence from the liberal Democrat greenecks here is deafening over the Kennedy Democrat liberal hypocrisy (and I have to give kudos on NBC "news" for actually even mentioning it). Both Repubs and Dems have a NIMBY syndrome when it comes to domestic energy options.

Now, for the rest of the emotion driven liberal hysterics out there who honestly believe we can just windmill and solar our way into the future, ask T Boone Pickens how his investment in Texas wind farms fared.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/11/t-boone-pickens-ive-lost-my-a-in-wind-power/

Oh, and how's that wonderful Chevy Volt doing, costing GM a $49k loss...on EVERY car sale? Another liberal feel good failure at taxpayer subsidy expense. If T Boone Pickens can't make a go of wind power, then the government SURE as hell can't at taxpayer expense. And I'm SO sure you liberals in your little myopic Utopia would have NO PROBLEMS with that nauseating hum of huge turbine blades whirring in your back yard. Especially when one has a failure like this...imagine your kids, liberals, playing near a wind farm in your neighborhood when one of those things does THIS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAWMpxX60KM

At close to $3+ mill per turbine, we certainly can’t afford them. No one in their right mind would commit to that as an alternative. Financially they are a black hole on the countries’ resources. In Europe, the “feels good” element of these projects is fast running out of favor. The wind turbines there are contributing to the financial troubles they are experiencing right now. In Tasmania (Australia) the Greens of all people are calling for a halt to wind turbine projects in “bird sensitive” areas.

At higher wind speeds, turbines are usually switched off etc. Furthermore, the cost of electricity these “monstrosities” produce is prohibitive. It is also highly unlikely that we can power the whole of our East Coast using wind turbines.

I agree that sooner or later we will need to look for an alternative to our present energy supply sources, but the wind turbines in their current form are simply too cost inefficient and too destructive from the “bird and wildlife” perspective, to deliver the desired outcomes.

Gosh alex, I am not at all good at explaining anything. Let me ask you a question and perhaps then, you can figure it out yourself.

Why do you suppose that there are no solar cell factories powered by solar cells?

Irvmani

Only 144,000 wind turbines eh, who is stupid enough to believe this would have no impact. Already land based wind farms have been shown to generate heat to the areas they already exist in. That's according to NASA thermal pictures from space. As far as generating new jobs it would most likely go to the cheapest supplier and baby that is not the US. Also I see people jumping up and down about safety security and all that junk, I believe our pioneers would be ashamed of you people. Way to figure it out. I think all of you folks who are gung ho about this should get together and do this instead of belly aching for someone else to make it come true and I'll join in the day I see that happen because it hasn't yet.

Ohhh please link that NASA REPORT.. i would love to read it..

Did you see the other NASA reports about global warming too?

http://energy.gov/maps/wind-manufacturing-facilities read that link...

The Energy Department released a new report today highlighting strong growth in the U.S. wind energy market in 2011, increasing the U.S. share of clean energy and supporting tens of thousands of jobs, and underscoring the importance of continued policy support and clean energy tax credits to ensure that the manufacturing and jobs associated with this booming global industry remain in America According to the 2011 Wind Technologies Market Report, the United States remained one of the world’s largest and fastest growing wind markets in 2011, with wind power representing a remarkable 32 percent of all new electric capacity additions in the United States last year and accounting for $14 billion in new investment. According the report, the percentage of wind equipment made in America also increased dramatically. Nearly seventy percent of the equipment installed at U.S. wind farms last year – including wind turbines and components like towers, blades, gears, and generators - is now from domestic manufacturers, doubling from 35 percent in 2005. President Obama has made clear that clean, renewable wind energy is a critical part of an all-of-the-above energy strategy that aims to develop more secure, domestic energy sources, while strengthening American manufacturing.

Millions of more jobs can be created...

Everyone here has a calculator in their computer, so take a few seconds and run the numbers! 2.88 trillion...yes trillion with a "T" and remember cost estimates are always low.

Yes, that sounds like a lot of money. But, as a one-time expense that can be amortized over a couple of decades or more, it sounds like a bargain. Remember, once in place, there are only maintenance expenses to cover. No foreign oil at $100+/barrel, no polluting coal.

Say jhawke, you might find it hard to believe, I know I do, but they are still building windmills in Texas. Ah man, at least it's making some jobs. Then someday, if scrap metal reaches a high enough price, there will arise another industry scrapping them out.

And talk about an eyesore, you ought to take a ride out highway 84 west from abeline for about 100 miles. night or day.

Mr. idependent reasoner, rainfall is not going to bother these generators. Also, I am sure when they do place these wind towers out there, they will account for huriicanes. histroical data and strenthing and new designs to enable those towers to endure huricanes. why the so negative????

I am still waiting for a answer. If we only have 100 years of oil left when do we start to change to alternate energy?

Wouldn't it be a smart idea to prolong oil for another 100 years on top of the current 100 to make it 200 years, and if that is the case then we must start NOW with alternate energy. OIL is not a Finite energy, we must do everything to Help enhance the Lifetime of oil

Why do you suppose that there are no solar cell factories powered by solar cells?

Amen IWonder! The same idiots that believe that corn based ethanol (our FOOD!!!!!) is a fuel of the future (while costing a gallon of gas to make per gallon) are the same idiots that believe that we can solar and windmill our way into the future energy needs of this nation. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

If we only have 100 years of oil left when do we start to change to alternate energy?

IndependentinSD: we have WAY more than 100 years of "oil" left if you include shale. And that's just on our own soil. That's PLENTY of time to come up with REAL alternatives to our energy needs. Batteries have largely gone unchanged for a century or more (they still don't last long in a golf cart, airplane as a backup power source, or in a Chevy Volt). Solar and wind power have been around for nearly a half century and STILL have not made so much as a drop in an Olympic swimming pool's difference in our nation's energy demands.

Shale is a Gas, I am Talking OIl, Oil that makes Tires, Rubber, Computers, not Natural Gas, and when is the Time to come up with alternative energy needs? 1 day 1 week 1 month 1 year 10 years? I get No answers just the same ol same ol. I guess nobody is worried about there Grandchildrens future when it comes to energy. Its the ME Generation and I will be dead and gone when the Chit hits the fan

Jhawke

The silence from the liberal Democrat greenecks here is deafening over the Kennedy Democrat liberal hypocrisy (and I have to give kudos on NBC "news" for actually even mentioning it). Both Repubs and Dems have a NIMBY syndrome when it comes to domestic energy options.

Now, for the rest of the emotion driven liberal hysterics out there who honestly believe we can just windmill and solar our way into the future, ask T Boone Pickens how his investment in Texas wind farms fared.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/11/t-boone-pickens-ive-lost-my-a-in-wind-power/

Oh, and how's that wonderful Chevy Volt doing, costing GM a $49k loss...on EVERY car sale? Another liberal feel good failure at taxpayer subsidy expense. If T Boone Pickens can't make a go of wind power, then the government SURE as hell can't at taxpayer expense. And I'm SO sure you liberals in your little myopic Utopia would have NO PROBLEMS with that nauseating hum of huge turbine blades whirring in your back yard. Especially when one has a failure like this...imagine your kids, liberals, playing near a wind farm in your neighborhood when one of those things does THIS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAWMpxX60KM

Whats your solution to the whole problem then? Drill baby drill?

T Boone is in it to make a profit. The government isn't.. The more the government invests in wind energy the cheaper the wind turbines will become... The more wind turbines that get built the more efficient they will become with time.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/09/GM-denies-losses-of-49000-on-every-Chevrolet-Volt-70000080/chevrolet-volt/70000080/1#.UFUAYa7hewU

GM has only built a few thousand volts... The tooling and manufacturing facilities that were built for the volt far exceed the revenue collected from the cars sold till now.. With time the more cars get sold the lower that number will be.. And that Reuters report was only an estimate.

With advances in wind turbine technology the hum sound has been greatly reduced.. And will only get better with time..

Thats a cool video... Like i said with more government investment the technology can only get better. The turbines used for this report can withstand a category 3 hurricane that's 111–129 mph.. How fast was the wind in this video?

Shale is a Gas

And so is natural gas, also an energy source the last time I checked. Your point is IndependentinSD???

@Alex:

Whats your solution to the whole problem then? Drill baby drill?

If it's good enough for Russia to drill sideways into our continent from the Arctic, then YES, I GUESS IT IS, for now.

GM has only built a few thousand volts... The tooling and manufacturing facilities that were built for the volt far exceed the revenue collected from the cars sold till now.. With time the more cars get sold the lower that number will be.. And that Reuters report was only an estimate.

Yeah - like Solyndra and the other five success stories of government's "Big Green Energy" dreams of taxpayer funded "stimulus" success stories that are now bankrupt (you know, that near trillion dollar "stimulus" bill rammed through Congress in 2009 and signed by Obama that was to have created millions of "shovel ready" and "green energy" jobs).

The Volt is an EPIC failure of GM. EPIC. It's a classic case of the government trying to create a market that largely is NON-EXISTENT!

Finally, ask the Kennedy's how they like windmills in their back yards.

Jhawke

Why do you suppose that there are no solar cell factories powered by solar cells?

Amen IWonder! The same idiots that believe that corn based ethanol (our FOOD!!!!!) is a fuel of the future (while costing a gallon of gas to make per gallon) are the same idiots that believe that we can solar and windmill our way into the future energy needs of this nation. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Can you link the website where you got your "while costing a gallon of gas to make per gallon"????

You Oil junkies are just like Heroin Junkies, I dont want any methadone I want Heroin, I dont want solar or wind I want oil,

Jhawke

we have WAY more than 100 years of "oil" left if you include shale. And that's just on our own soil. That's PLENTY of time to come up with REAL alternatives to our energy needs. Batteries have largely gone unchanged for a century or more (they still don't last long in a golf cart, airplane as a backup power source, or in a Chevy Volt). Solar and wind power have been around for nearly a half century and STILL have not m

The Obama administration has also increased natural gas production, but at some point that is going to run out too. With time they will have to start extracting it from more dangerous places...

But you cant include oil and natural gas in the same category?? If you exclude shale what does the leave you for oil in a 100 year period?

We will be seeing more and more of our power coming from alternative/sustainable sources in the years ahead.

Not if we elect the GOP this November.

Ryan's budget takes every penny of federal money out of renewable energy.

Obama/Biden 2012
Better for America's Future

The question here is not really whether or not utilization of wind power on a massive scale is possible; of course it is. Nor is it a question of whether it's an appropriate alternative; clearly, in many ways, it might be preferable to what we now have. The main factor which stands in the way of implementation is simply whether or not the fat cats will get their cut, and right now, the answer would seem to be 'no'.

It wasn't that many years ago when even the thought of ethanol as a fuel met overwhelming opposition, yet now, even though it's use and production constitute a net energy loss, because those in power are getting their cut, we all have some ethanol in our tanks. Likewise, solar once was considered so repugnant that Reagan removed solar cells from the White House (which Jimmy Carter had had the foresight to install). Now that they have had time to leverage a piece of the action, we will probably be seeing more and more adoption of alternative energy sources (it's made significant inroads in new construction on the west coast already).

What was onced dismissed as piep dreams is now marketed as 'green', but the simple fact is that public policy in the US is designed to maximize profits for the most powerful and well-connected firms, rather than to promote policies which make life better for ordinary citizens. Call me cynical, but it's simply fact: none of these matters are decided by science, nor by civil engineering, but by fiat, yet the illusion of a working democracy and 'free choice' must still be maintained. No wonder so many posting here are so confused....

Jhawke

If it's good enough for Russia to drill sideways into our continent from the Arctic, then YES, I GUESS IT IS, for now.

Yeah - like Solyndra and the other five success stories of government's "Big Green Energy" dreams of taxpayer funded "stimulus" success stories that are now bankrupt (you know, that near trillion dollar "stimulus" bill rammed through Congress in 2009 and signed by Obama that was to have created millions of "shovel ready" and "green energy" jobs).

The Volt is an EPIC failure of GM. EPIC. It's a classic case of the government trying to create a market that largely is NON-EXISTENT!

Finally, ask the Kennedy's how they like windmills in their back yards.

Solyndra employed 1,100 workers for 2 years.. Thats money well spent.. If you want to get into the details of this failed company why dont we get into the details of why the Bush Administration gave 50 billion dollars to the Iraqi government to rebuild their country? Obama gave 500 million to an American company and all of a sudden hes unpatriotic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38428898/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/audit-us-cant-account-billion-iraqi-cash/#.UFUF_67heqj

To make matters worse 8.7 billion of that 50 billion is unaccounted for..

ARRA did create and saved millions of jobs.. I think ill believe economists not some blogger on nbc news..

Eventually electric cars will catch on, even though there has been massive opposition..

I haven't looked at the Kennedy claim, but i believe that there's more to it that what the story only mentions..

David Wellman

The question here is not really whether or not utilization of wind power on a massive scale is possible; of course it is. Nor is it a question of whether it's an appropriate alternative; clearly, in many ways, it might be preferable to what we now have. The main factor which stands in the way of implementation is simply whether or not the fat cats will get their cut, and right now, the answer would seem to be 'no'.

It wasn't that many years ago when even the thought of ethanol as a fuel met overwhelming opposition, yet now, even though it's use and production constitute a net energy loss, because those in power are getting their cut, we all have some ethanol in our tanks. Likewise, solar once was considered so repugnant that Reagan removed solar cells from the White House (which Jimmy Carter had had the foresight to install). Now that they have had time to leverage a piece of the action, we will probably be seeing more and more adoption of alternative energy sources (it's made significant inroads in new construction on the west coast already).

What was onced dismissed as piep dreams is now marketed as 'green', but the simple fact is that public policy in the US is designed to maximize profits for the most powerful and well-connected firms, rather than to promote policies which make life better for ordinary citizens. Call me cynical, but it's simply fact: none of these matters are decided by science, nor by civil engineering, but by fiat, yet the illusion of a working democracy and 'free choice' must still be maintained. No wonder so many posting here are so confused....

Lets make sure our president gets reelected then.... If by any chance these Republicans get in power again they will make sure there's a reverse in green energy investments..

The entire article ignores a lot of environmental impacts that would occur if this were put into place. How much energy would be consumed simply installing them? How much energy would be consumed producing them? How much fuel would be consumed maintaining them and energy making parts? If you actually calculated these costs both in money and in terms of environmental pollution, in no way is this an environmental effort as a whole. I would imagine the net benefit to be severly negative versus a modern coal plant.

What is the impact of marine life? These things give off resonance which will negatively impact creatures like dolphins or whales that use forms of echo location (sonar). They leave the area and what impact does that create on the ecosystem?

How could we possibly secure them in any war time event? How could we protect ourselves from underwater submarines since we can't use sonar or some of our other technologies due to the noise created by these turbines? The entire east coast is exposed.

What happens to shipping routes? How much more fuel do these ships have to use and what happens to all the harbor towns that rely heavily on the shipping industries?

Use your heads people! This isn't a worthy cause to champion. The whole concept is absurd and they don't for one second actually apply a net environmental benefit as part of the overall plan. That is the key that we always ignore. What the total environmental impact of is of the project. Not, what it will do when it's in service, but construction, running and maintenance.

Yeah, they worked out soooo well for California......NOT! A HUGE WASTE OF MONEY!!!

Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the roof of the White House and installed a solar hot water heater.

Reagan dismantled them shortly after becoming President.

Think where we could have been if we'd been working on alternative energy for the last 30 years instead of "drill, baby, drill".

With all the subsidies we've given the oil companies in that time, we could have had solar and wind energy today.

Phil McKrackin

The entire article ignores a lot of environmental impacts that would occur if this were put into place. How much energy would be consumed simply installing them? How much energy would be consumed producing them? How much fuel would be consumed maintaining them and energy making parts? If you actually calculated these costs both in money and in terms of environmental pollution, in no way is this an environmental effort as a whole. I would imagine the net benefit to be severly negative versus a modern coal plant.

What is the impact of marine life? These things give off resonance which will negatively impact creatures like dolphins or whales that use forms of echo location (sonar). They leave the area and what impact does that create on the ecosystem?

How could we possibly secure them in any war time event? How could we protect ourselves from underwater submarines since we can't use sonar or some of our other technologies due to the noise created by these turbines? The entire east coast is exposed.

What happens to shipping routes? How much more fuel do these ships have to use and what happens to all the harbor towns that rely heavily on the shipping industries?

Use your heads people! This isn't a worthy cause to champion. The whole concept is absurd and they don't for one second actually apply a net environmental benefit as part of the overall plan. That is the key that we always ignore. What the total environmental impact of is of the project. Not, what it will do when it's in service, but construction, running and maintenance.

From the report the article is based on:

3.3. Minimizing conflicting uses
Many competing commercial, recreational, military and environmental uses of the USEC offshore region exist. OWE farms
would be sited with significant consideration of the impacts on these preexisting and competing uses. Dhanju et al.
37 ana-
lyzed the Delaware offshore region for uses that would potentially conflict with OWE projects. That study estimated the
offshore areas that would be excluded by avian flyways, shipping lanes, chemical waste and explosives sites, military
exclusions and beach nourishment borrow areas, in addition to a visual exclusion areas of 15 km offshore. The regions
from 0–27 and 27–50 m depths were found to have 57% and 69% availability, respectively, with zero visual exclusion
zone. When visual exclusion zones of 15 km were included, the available area was reduced to 34% and 69%, respectively.
On the basis of this study, we assumed a one-third availability for the monopile depth class (1–30 m) and a two-thirds
availability for both the multi-leg (31–50 m) and floating turbines (51–200 m) when calculating the overall OWE resource
potential. Future studies should use modern marine spatial planning techniques to determine the precise amount of area
that might be available for OWE.

Zathrose

Yeah, they worked out soooo well for California......NOT! A HUGE WASTE OF MONEY!!!

Explain? can you provide some links please?

Jhawke

The Volt is an EPIC failure of GM. EPIC. It's a classic case of the government trying to create a market that largely is NON-EXISTENT!

I suggest you watch a movie called "who killed the electric car" Same thing is happening with the Volt..

You answered exactly 1 question! Just like that study did. They basically said more study and planning is needed.

How about the part of the study that shows the actual, genuine, NET ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT when compared to what the number of modern coal and/or nuclear plants required to create the same amount of power over the average lifespan of a coal and/or nuclear plant? Within the study there is exactly 0 estimations or even proper discussions on the subject of the overall net positives to the environment versus the alternatives.

Iceland is almost entirely run on renewable energy.

If Iceland can do it, America can.

Since when did all you right-wingers decide America is less capable than Iceland? We're being left behind, folks.

Iceland promotes clean-energy data centers

Icelandic officials say they are tapping the country's abundance of green energy resources to establish it as a global player in data storage center industry.

Ossur Skarpheoinsson, Iceland's minister of Foreign Affairs, last week hailed the opening of a second new "green" data center in the country to be powered completely by geothermal and hydroelectric resources -- a fact that makes them attractive to European customers seeking to reduce their carbon footprints.

"This is a new chapter in the industrial history of Iceland," Skarpheoinsson told the online technology trade publication TechWeek Europe about the Thursday opening of 5,300-square-foot Verne Global data center. The facility is in a former NATO air base at Keflavik, Iceland.

The new center joins the 28,000-square-foot Thor facility that opened at Hafnarfjordur, just south of Reykjavik, in 2010.

Data centers are energy-intensive enterprises. The amount of electricity needed to heat and cool them as they preserve the optimum operating temperatures for the storage devices inside is prodigious. A study released by Stanford University last year estimated data centers consume 1.3 percent all electricity produced across the globe, including 2 percent of the United States' supply.

The Verne Global data center has potential access to more than 100 megawatts of power, all of it sourced from Iceland's renewable hydroelectric and geothermal sources. About 72 percent of Iceland's electricity comes from renewable energy and geothermal heat, which is used to heat 87 percent of Icelandic houses.

European customers who have good connectivity to Iceland can use the data centers as means of reaching their carbon-reduction goals as well as a way to save costs on electricity, backers say.

Because Iceland has an oversupply of renewable energy, its data centers offer stable, long-term electricity rates as low as $43 per megawatt-hour, TechWeek reported

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2012/02/13/Iceland-promotes-clean-energy-data-centers/UPI-22311329132660/#ixzz26aIJlQIP

Phil, there are many offshore winds projects on hold right now.. I think we should look at the environmental studies done for those.. Im very sure we can find some..

http://www.capewind.org/article38.htm

here is a good place to start.

RealAmericansFirst,

Check out that link

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/15/benjamin-netanyahu-iran-nuclear-weapons-containment_n_1887155.html

Can you believe that guy? Lets make sure this link gets watched by millions of people.. uhggg!! im so pissed..

Yep zathrose, when I visited california, around 1990, I noticed that about 1/4 of their windmills were broken down, some lying shattered on the ground and some hanging akimbo from their generator housings. I asked why? The californians told me that the windmills did not produce enough dollars worth of electricity to pay for their repairs.

Uh - you do realize 1990 was 22 years ago, right?

Technology has come a long way in that time.

And it would have come a lot further if the U.S. weren't ruled by oil barons.

I just glanced over the report and environmental impact study. They didn't calculate the polution generation of any maintenance vehicles, the construction vehicles or the construction itself, production of the components, nor do they estimate any of this very important environmental information. How can you make a genuine, informed decision when this important information is left out? You do realize that marine vehicles are far less efficient and have almost zero environmental pollution restrictions compared to land based vehicles? These studies lack too much information to be considered true costing.

We can calculate the information with land based plants, but we cannot with marine based? It is pointless arguing points that none of you have actually thought about and have already made up your mind that this absurdly stupid idea is a worthy cause. You point to studies that contain zero information about the true environmental costs, just the cherry picked benefits after the fact and the massive monetary costs. We would do more to protect the environment by improving our total transportation infrastructure by minimizing stop and go traffic, improving public transport as well as improving freight transportation. It would also be a lot cheaper to accomplish.

IWonder-932455

Yep zathrose, when I visited california, around 1990, I noticed that about 1/4 of their windmills were broken down. I asked why? The californians told me that the windmills did not produce enough dollars worth of electricity to pay for their repairs.

23 years ago? I can assure you with great accuracy that the technology has improve greatly.. Have you seen the latest reports of how much electricity gets produced from wind in California??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_California

Phil McKrackin - do you calculate all those costs for the fossil-fuel based electricity we currently generate?

No.

And even without adding them to our side of the equation, Iceland is providing power from renewable sources at HALF the cost we're currently producing it from fossil fuels. ($43 per megawatt-hour vs. $99 for coal-fired plants)

Insanity - Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

b-799024

AHA, another SOLYNDRA in the making?

And finally, remember, we are broke, 16 trillion and counting. I think we better get our books balanced before we try this. This is another monorail train to nowhere brought to you by the left.

Boy, they can sure make up ways to spend money we do not have.

You desperately need to go see who is putting up the money for wind turbines (hint: it ain't Uncle Sugar unless you want count a very minor subsidy). I think I'll just go ahead and tell you so you don't have to strain too much: it's the utilities.

Yes, yes, I know, wind is more expensive that gas or coal. But with every kilowatt hour that is produced from wind, the marginal cost goes down. Eventually the cost/kwh will compete directly without subsidy with coal and even natural gas. Have a little patience! This isn't a 30 minute television show with a happy ending. It's going to take time.

Note:

144,000 windmills should put an end to the bird population along the eastern seaboard. One windmill kills thousands, annually.

alex cali

Jim in Houston-1509351

Byron Raum

I wonder how many sea birds will lose their lives because they are going to die off due to a much dirtier environment. How many sea birds lost their lives due to the British Petroleum disaster? Due to the Exxon disaster?

There is a difference. The oil spiils were accidents and therefore preventable. The spinning blades are required to extract the energy from the wind and cannot be avoided.

Theres probably billions of birds in the East Coast.. a few thousand will die every year so that all those billions of other birds will have clean air and clean water...

If they are anything like the 2-300 land based ones near my house they don't move fast enough to kill birds. The windmills turn extremely slowly as the point is to collect energy, not make a fan.

If we could just harness all of the hot air coming out of Washington DC it should generate enough energy for the entire country.

IWonder-932455

Gosh alex, I am not at all good at explaining anything. Let me ask you a question and perhaps then, you can figure it out yourself.

Why do you suppose that there are no solar cell factories powered by solar cells?

You are not good at explain things, or at making points either..

they are, you may have fix the link, they wont let me post links

/huge-solar-panel-factor/

or search..

Henning Larsen’s Stunning Solar Panel Factory in Greece is Powered by the Sun

Read more: Henning Larsen's Stunning Solar Panel Factory in Greece is Powered by the Sun | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

Forget DC, just put windmills in front of the windbag right wingers on this thread and we'll power the country.

I especially love the old man know-nothings whining about how it doesn't work in California when they've in all liklihood never even been here.

Palm Springs, CA produces enough wind energy to power the entire city and sell the extra to Phoenix, Vegas, and Los Angeles.

California produces nearly 20% of it's energy from renewables, with many solar and wind plants under construction.

But I'm sure the oil shills here know better.

Not.

ANYONE voting against an idea like this should be banned from living on the planet earth !!!!!

The big complaint is the cost. Here's an easy way. Take the monies we flush down the toilets that are Afganistan and Pakistan and we could built twice as many units with money left over. Sadly this isn't going to happen because the oil companies will buy congress off to block the building of anything that could lower their blood money. I believe nothing will happen until we get the people who have made a career out of sitting on their asses and collecting money under the table while thumbing their noses at the people they are supposed to represent.

Does anyone do math anymore?

According to the report, installing these windmills will cost 16% of the current US GDP. Add a 16% sales tax to every dollar you spend. That's how much it would cost each and every American for 25% percent of the population to have power provided by these devices.

In context, if we used the dollars we send as foreign aid to Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and Afghanistan it would take us 1,400 years to pay for it.

I see the need but I can't see any feasible way to pay for it. You volunteering? Or do you intend to take the money from someone else?

Glad to see all the Fruits and Nuts are coming out, just in time to make billions of those nasty Fruit Cakes for the Holidays (usually regifted from year to year).

Did the Lobbyist and Troll alex cali leave yet.

Stop being Hypocritical about the current US Standard of Living, saying that we are grabbing everyone's Resources, as those Resources required to maintain your current US and US Allies Standard of Living, unless you learn to live like a Fourth World Nation's Citizen like the Somalis.

And stop being so ignorant about "Alternative Energy" as some sort of solution to everything there is no such thing as perpetual motion machines, and the materials, resources to create and maintain the Alternative Energy must come from somewhere.

And stop being so lazy and research the actual US Resources, especially the depleted US Oil during the 1900s "Black Gold Oil Rushes", leaving the US with high sulfur content oil that was used during "the 1970s Oil Crisis" and created Acid Rain (Sulfuric Acid). Why do you think that the US Oil Corporations are spending Billions USDs pushing Natural Gas (Methane) and Fracking, for your benefit....LOL, research Methane's effects versus CO2 on the environment. Electric Cars, LOL, where do you think the electricity comes from and where do the materials come from to make the batteries and the rest of the electric car; how about learning how to handcarve (no electricity for wood working machines) the whole car out of wood.

All of you crybabies saying US and US Allies stealing other Nation's Resources, learn to live like as depicted in NBC TV Series, Revolution, September 17, 2012.

After President Obama stated his March 2009 Iran Policy, US must negotiate before any actions (position of weakness); the Ayatollahs of Iran that actually control everything basically told President Obama NO EMPTY WORDS "negotiations".

Then the Fundamentalist Islamic Shia Republic of Iran started those covert and overt things that are now Documented History: Overthrow of Former US Ally President Gaddaffi by Islamic Jihadists fully supported by the Fundamentalist Islamic Shia Republic of Iran. Overthrow of US Ally President of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood as fully supported by the the Fundamentalist Islamic Shia Republic of Iran before the "Egyptian Revolution". Overthrow of US Ally President of Yemen by the Islamic Jihadists of Al Quada Yemen as fully supported by the the Fundamentalist Islamic Shia Republic of Iran. US told to get the f**k out of Iraq, no more negotiations with President Obama nor SOS Clinton, US must follow President Bush's Iraq Withdrawal Time Table, the the Fundamentalist Islamic Shia Republic of Iran in Northern Iraq tells the Islamic Shia Government of Iraq to give the Chinese and Russian Federation the Iraqis Oil that could have paid for the US Military Liberation of Iraq with decades to centuries of Iraqis Oil, this make the Libyan Oil of Strategic Importance to the US European Allies, this too was lost to the Chinese as negotiated by the Islamic Nation of Qatar. The Strategic High Tech Mineral Rights at Afghanistan are given to the Ally of Fundamentalist Islamic Shia Republic of Iran, the Chinese, China Metallurgical Group, these High Tech Mineral are necessary for the current US High Tech Standard of Living and the Future Alternative Energy. Lots of etc..

Before any of you say anything about Mexican, Canadian, Saudi Arabian, etc. Oil Sources, I already explained how they are running out; as to why even before the First Gulf War they were Oil Laundrying Iraqis Oil. Back then I also discussed the environmental disaster of Strip Mining of Oil Shale.

The longtime stated Strategic Goal of the Chinese and Russian Federation of getting the US And US Allies out of their Backyards (Resources). The Chinese and Russian Federation using the Fundamentalist Islamic Shia Republic of Iran as their "Proxy Fighters". The Fundamentalist Islamic Shia Republic of Iran using the Worldwide Islamic Jihadists as their "Proxy Fighters" as funded by the Islamic Laws Mandatory Islamic Tithes of Trillions USDs per year of 1.5 Billion Islamic Believers Worldwide.

Very doubtful that the Chinese, Russian Federation, Fundamentalist Islamic Shia Republic of Iran will let the US and US Allies to do a "Do Over". As they are building up their 21st Century Militaries to protect their new Gains of the US and US Allies losses.

How many of you actually lived at Europe and saw and used the European Alternative Energy. Hint: If a Salesperson is trying to sell you something, they will not tell you how much it sucks.

You want solutions, do the REAL Research I am NOT going to spoonfeed you.

In 2009 President Obama killed the Brazil Solution by stopping all Federal Subsidizes that were then given to his Illinois Corn Lobby (Corn to Ethanol). Vice President Biden got some too, as the Federal Subsidizes for something else were removed and given to VP Biden's Clean Coal baloney of his home State Pennsylvania.

Seriously? 144,000...is that all? I truly thought that number was a typo or something! Wind Turbines off the coast huh. Just 5KW models alone are huge. I work in the Energy Industry and know a little about what this would entail. Why 5KW? I guess to sell more and create more jobs by way of installation and maintenance of just 144,000.

This is not feasible. You have to take into account the underwater structures such as the piers, then a grid to interconnect them all, plus many other things. The pollution created during the YEARS of construction, plus the never ending maintenance (by boat, i.e. exhaust) and damage that is a given as they are only rated Class 3 Hurricane makes this seem very unreliable. 144,000! Could go on and on but no point. Bad idea.

Next solution?

Agree especially on the branches of government..And with all the hot air flying around in this election only ..we could power the whole world for at least decade..

Someone must put giant screens around the blade sections. This must be done to protect the blades from all the flying bull crap cumming from those locations. It could cause the main barrings to fail before their time.

Denver bill, while I agree with you about Congress, President Obama is leading on the idea of renewables. However, I am less than optimistic that we can replace those in power with others that would not be bribed by the Koch brothers, Carl Rove and all their cronies. As unfortunate as it is even the newbies elected in 2010 refuse to aknowledge that energy production from coal, nat gas and oil has long lasting global effects that will not be fixed overnight and they have no plan to change the status quo when it comes to energy. I go by one philosophy which is to never vote for an incumbent and to never vote Republican

Not 3, we need 4, you forgot the SCOTUS

This whole wind turbine thing is a hoax fueled by enviro nut jobs. I live in Wyoming and these atrositys are jumping up everywere they are ruining our skylines and our quality of life they are an eyesore with no benifit. Every bit of electricity that they produce goes out of state. I guess that we don't have the money or the influince out here that the Kennedys have. People may think that wind power is the way to go but wait until they build them in your back yard. One or two may not be bad but it literally takes thousands of these monstrositys to do any good.

Pan... it's like everything else.... "not in my backyard" but "we HAVE to do it because it's good for earth."

So the elites in New England will dictate what we do while reaping the benefits........

I have 40 acres and they can build some on my property. Tho offshore makes more sense because there is more wind. With air quality getting worse people would not be able too see them if they were just half a mile away.

How about just two turbines, one powered by Romney and the other by Ryan.

Don't knock it til you've tried it. I live totally off the grid. Not a utility pole for miles - just wonderful. I have solar and wind. Use a small amount of propane every year for hot water heater, stove and clothes dryer. Also have an industrial generator for those just in case times.

Oh! and don't talk to me about clean coal. There is no such thing. Maybe you are forgetting the people who have to work to get in out of the ground and have close contact with it. Ever hear of BLACK LUNG?? I was raised in a small coal town in PA. Arthritis, emphysema and black lung were prevalent.

Panhead, by your account, the wind turbines do nothing more harmful than be an eyesore for you to have to deal with. I guess a coal plant by your house would be less of an eyesore. Unfortunately, those who want to move forward with sustainable energy have to deal with the ignorance of people like yourself.

I've lived in Wyoming the wind farm is between Laramie and Cheyenne. There is nothing there to look at anyway. If Wyoming is stupid enough to send the power out of state versus using it themselves then at least its benefitting someone else.

Surely Wyoming is SELLING the energy from the Wind Farm to someone--out of state, according to Panhead. Panhead, you should find out what Wyoming is doing with the profits.

Panhead, you're arguing with people who live in a fantasy world. United is too stupid to know that those turbines likely don't belong to the state, and you should know by now (you're not new here) that Eric shouldn't bet let out of the house without an attendant.

wyoming does not own the turbines it is owned by out of state power companies and oil companies

eric those turbines have never made a profit and have bankrupted every company that has purchased them. and we have alot more than those old turbines now....pan is probly referring to the new ones outside casper

lovely... they have created alot of problems here and are super noisy and next to where people live and killed their property values.

Yet I'm sure you see no problem with fracking, cb.

Far worse for property values than windmills.

There are hundreds of wind turbins near my house. Property values remain constant, they don't make noise unless you get right up next to them. They do take a bit of getting used to, but after awhile they just blend in and are ignorable.

If this can be done and power 1/2 of the east coast, the question isn't if we should do it; but how soon can we get it done!

This should be a issue for both parties to rally around.

Therein is the issue... "Should" vs. actual.

The only way that Republicans would rally around wind is if President Obama rejected it, which he never will. Since anything the President supports - Republicans reject regardless of whether or not it would be helpful to all Americans.

I see the Kennedy's aren't on board. Have they become Republicans?

...dont forget there wont be any pollution from it that would harm our marine life or pollute the air either. They could be build far enough out to not block anyones view that much. They dont seem to gripe about oil rigs now do they?

Funny how the oil companies tried to stop electric cars afew years back too didnt they? these are some greedy people who dont want to give up their gripe on our power grid...well its time to loosening your fingers guys coz we're sick of it.

Time to save the planet and oursleves.

Check with Idaho about wind power.

need a job: looks like you're the winner of who has posted the most generalizations today.

John Kerry is against them as well, he might sail into one of them on his 100+-foot yacht.

When did Kerry become a Republican?

Have any of you tree hugging libs ever heard of the law of unintended consequences? That's when you think some fantasy like this is a good idea and rush right in, only to find out later that it caused more trouble than it was worth!

So OldDog47, why don't you give us all the intimate details of how this would cause more trouble than it's worth? I've read several comments so far from readers giving pros and cons. Only a few have any firsthand knowledge of the technology, the rest are simply speculating.
I don't claim to have firsthand knowledge and I'm not a "tree hugging lib". I look back to history to see that wind helped power things in the past. The Netherlands understood this and have been using wind power for centuries. The article mentions Germany and Denmark using wind power and while some may say Europe is in financial trouble, those two countries are not.
What about how it affects marine life and bird migrations. We should look to studies done on that if we are to proceed with this type of project as it's a responsible thing to do.
You say this is some type of fantasy. Are you aware at one time oil was looked upon by many as a fantasy fuel source? I don't believe for a minute that wind power is the answer to all our energy problems. But if it can be done with minimal negative impact, if it can be cost effective, it would be foolish not to use it. Those who talk about the cost, think of this. When you open a business, you're basically starting in the hole (unless you're independently wealthy or someone fronts you all the money up front without having to pay it back). You have startup costs that have to be paid back. Over time, you make up those costs and eventually start making money. Most strong businesses have started this way. There are very few "get rich quick" legitimate businesses with minimal startup costs. Even most business startups on the internet aren't totally cost free.
We can do this. It would be cowardace and irresponsible not to try. If cowardace were the driving factor, we wouldn't enjoy many of the things we take for granted today like cars, air flight, electricity, TV, computers, the Internet and cell phone just to name a few.
Finally, anyone who looks at this as a Democrat/Republican or liberal/conservative topic really need to stop making excuses and look at this from a mature and logical standpoint. In that respect, I do believe I'm looking at a fantasy outcome (those with idealistic beliefs are more than likely incapable of looking at any topic logically as it clashes with their narrow, ill-thought out, and limited views).

But if we never invest in it, we won't overcome any of the obstacles to it. Then as the cost for oil keeps going up energy will cost more in direct and indirect costs than the initial investments in wind power.

We NEED to invest in renewable energy resources for sustainability, health, environmental considerations, and national security.

Once again greed of money over the life of the planet and life itself..When they first started drilling oil the throw away the refined gas.. then they found out the could make gasoline from it..It is all a processes of improving..But if you abandon other forms of unlimited energy it because the kinks aren't all worked out, you go back to relying on a dwindling resource and face the consequence for that action....You're going to have to decide what is more important life or money...

Pickens still supports wind power, the problem is that the return takes too long to realize. The argument that renewable energy cost more than fossil fuels leaves out the opportunity costs. If the cost of cleaning up after natural disasters and combatting drought caused by CO2 were included in the cost of the resource, renewables would look like a much better investment. The shortsightedness of so many complicates our ability to move forward.

And the ones who benefit from selling you the gas, the oil companies, don't bear the cost - you, the taxpayer does. It's a perfect example of privatizing profits and sharing costs with the public.

That's why republicans are wrong when they say private industry can solve these problems. The government is the only investment vehicle when it comes to large-scale infrastructure projects that are critical to society but don't offer a short-term ROI.

Business has its place, but not here. Citizens need to take this matter in their hands and authorize the investment needed to secure our independence from fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, our citizens are manipulated, ill-informed. People take side and lost their analytical skills.

This may be a stretch for some of the audience here, but we do not have the money right now to blow on government programs. 16 Trillion in deficits? We need to remove barriers for existing energy right now so we can get our prices back down. The energy costs are being shown in other place like food.

We are in an economic free fall and unless we change course this country will crater. We need exports again. Our GDP is down and effective unemployment is still rising. Our economy must be solid before making long term investments especially when the maintenance costs over the long term are not known. Everyone WANTS renewable energy, our budget just cannot support it.

MOMINNJ-6679824

There is a huge cost difference between his on shore and this off shore plan. His plan requires land leases for each turbine, it requires very expensive shipping costs and a foundation for each turbine. Once they are in place, lines must be strung to join them all to a grid, each transmission tower has those same costs.

An off shore installation has none of those over head costs.

Why do we have to invest billions in the technology when it's already in use elsewhere? I'm tired of people constantly saying we need to spend more money on this or that, as if we're the only country that can do it. We are most definitely no longer the center of the world; it's time we stopped acting (and speding) like we were.

It wouldnt take that long to build these turbines... the hard part would be getting past the money hungry greedy power barrons.

Funny how money and deficits dont matter unless your a democrat in the WH.

Whatever happened to the old phrase of

It takes money to make money.

We could recoup the cost by the production itself so dont tell me we cant afford it. We certainly can afford all the other ridiculous projects these genius's in congress think up...and all their unpaid for tax cuts and wars.

robn56

your right and think of the jobs created too. I love the brainstorming here..we all seem to be on the same page pretty much. This is a good thing. Now if we could get our guys in the congress to talk this much huh?? and listen to us...they are suposed to be representing us and working for us after all.

Tom
Of course we have the money. For one thing it will create a lot of new jobs that can't be outsourced. And if we continue to put it off we will never get there.

I know everybody belittles Carter. Yes, he had some bad info on the amount of natural gas we had BUT he was right. If we had continued on his path of energy Indenpendence we would be there by now. How many wars, lives would have bern saved? How much cleaner would our planet be right now if we had just followed his path?

It's always said 'we're 20 years away'. Guess what? We will ALWAYS be 20 years away until we START.

robn56;

Now please take a minute and reread what you posted above, I've quoted it below.

There is a huge cost difference between his on shore and this off shore plan. His plan requires land leases for each turbine, it requires very expensive shipping costs and a foundation for each turbine. Once they are in place, lines must be strung to join them all to a grid, each transmission tower has those same costs.

An off shore installation has none of those over head costs.

Can you please explain to the rest of us uneducated folk, how these offshore windmills will stand up in the ocean if they are not built onto/into some type of "foundation"? How will the electricity generated from these off-shore windmills get onto the grid, once they are in place (not built on any kind of platform or foundation)? How would these off-shore windmills avoid "expensive shipping costs"? Are they simply going to fly there on their own? Are they magically just going to float on top of the ocean without a foundation or platform of some kind? Are they simply going to beam the electricity they generate to us here on shore?

In Maine, we are looking at on-shore and off-shore wind farms as well as submersed ocean water turbines...All face pretty much the same costs of transportation, site work and transmission costs. The submersible turbines actually show the most promise due to the fact that the ocean is ALWAYS moving 24/7/365 and they are not seen from shore or on water.

Next time PLEASE think before you post such a ridiculous comment, thank you!

dsb, do a little quick math (get an adult to help you if you need it) Of course we don't have the money! This pie in the sky project would cost TRILLIONS of dollars! Do you have it? Didn't think so.

Agreed that things need to be looked at. However if we disregard this as a resource completely by not making the investments needed until it is too late, it will still be "too late."

I don't know if your objections are earnest, or part of the delaying tactic called "do 100 years more study". I remember when wind energy was the bright spot for liberal minded people. Still is really, but I think it is encroaching on the really wealthy "Liberals" who now object to it. But of course they use honorable-sounding reasons... installing them might upset local fish, or make noise that disturbs whales or some such. Notice how most of the objections are from wealthy - liberal ( this is MASS!) - beachfront owners.

I feel like they are showing their true colors....

The negative effects on all species on earth are far much worse when using coal, nat gas and oil. Mercury poisining, coal ash spills, contaminated aquifers, oil spills and so many more negatives that come from our current energy sources should cause everyone to be concerned and move towards a more sustainable future. Birds and fish may over time be able to change migration patterns and life style, but they cannot stop eating and drinking poison. As far as dealing with ramifications; nat gas industry does this by bribing elected officials to allow them to be exempt from the clean air and water act. Change is needed, and now is the time to start changing. We should demand the end of fossil fuel use over a short period.

Someoneelse:

I had the same question myself. Building the turbines would tear up the ocean floor. I hadn't thought about the noise. I suppose we could go study the ones that have been built elsewhere.

Need a job--- you refer to mercury....interesting topic considering they banned it in watch batteries over a decade ago (you know the little button types that are usually recycled- most jewelers do, I'm one and don't now one that doesnt.) but are jamming it into those little curley glass tubes called CFC bulbs that everyone rants about..... that are thrown into the landfills.............

So one great technology that looks good isn't always better. I use the damn things tho because I don't have to change them as often. Lowes does recycle them, but I see people throwing them in the trash all the time.....

The ocean is a mighty big place and I am sure the marine life would assimilate easily enough..after all they have survived pretty well so far and have been around longer then we have.

Remember 95% of the oceans havent even been explored yet...(heard it on National geographic channel).

Even big oil won't be able to stop this if their is the requisite political will. Voters have subordinated themselves to special interests, but it's still our country. It's time for us to WAKE UP.

If they were smart they would take their profits and use them to invest in the alternate energies. Then they would still have a monopoly on the energy.

love ya bdop

I totally agree.

Better Careful;

Big Oil, and their partners in corruption in Washington, will never permit this to happen.

I guess that's why BP, Exxon Mobile, Shell and Phillips are ALL working on wind generation, solar, geo-thermal, etc.

Of course your party wants you to believe otherwise because they need to keep the Big Oil = Rich Republican myth alive.

So glad I left the Democratic party when I did...being Independent makes one have to think on their own for a change!!!!

I agree, there is currently construction going on in Michigan of land wind turbines and every time I see another erected it lifts my spirits. There is also plans in place to put off shore wind turbines in Lake Michigan, but self centered coastal property owners are being effective on stopping the plan from moving forward.

We just drove across Iowa, a state that gets 20% of its energy from wind, and found the sight of wind turbines beautiful. As for migratory bird kills; studies have shown that skyscrapers, power lines, and cell phone towers account for most bird kills from manmade structures. I'd love to see more wind power in my own state of MN, and our previous governor, Republican Tim Pawlenty, pushed for renewables, including wind. Combined with solar, we could see 50% of our energy from renewables within the next two or three decades. As for cost; which is higher, wind and solar structures, or Americans' deteriorating health due to pollution in our air and water?

I used to live up on Kodiak Island in AK. During my last year there, they installed 3 wind turbines on the top of a mountain near the coast. It was amazingly beautiful, watching those turbines turn slowly as the clouds roll beneath them.

I used to live in Southern California and they are along the 10 freeway going out toward Palm Springs and I think they look cool...way better then oil rigs and quieter too.

There are some wind farms here in TX. I love to watch them. I think they are mesmerizing. Just beautiful. For people who haven't actually seen them, the blades move very slowly. It's not like the fan you have sticking on your desk.

TheCollaredCrow (8.3):

I did, too (from 1982-1985 and then again from 1988-1991).

What year did they install the wind turbines?

(I think it's great, by the way. Must admit I'm a little surprised.)

I would only add that the tidal flow of water can also be harnessed for power. Perhaps utilize the base of these large wind turbines that are set in the ocean to also harvest tidal energy.

Then there are windstalks that harvest motion from the wind and look like gigantic blades of metallic grass.

These windmills have been in place for a very long time and it's very close to where Flight 93 crashed. As many times as I've gone past them, I've never seen them turning. Always thought it very strange that there was never any rotation but they are quite impressive to see.

http://nodivisions.com/photos/set/?20050911_Windmills

Agree... if they were putting them down in the Gulf, or south of Virginia..... You DID read that they stopped around Virgina BECAUSE of the threat from hurricanes?

more2bits

The problem you have sighted is over come-able . Most ( not all ) conditions can be simulated in a lab. You only sighted wind. What about rough seas, form storms or other sources. That is why R&D along with testing must continue. Everyone said the first skyscraper would fall down from it's own weight or the wind would blow it down. How high are these buildings now and all have faced major storms and are still standing. What sounds impossible isn't . It just takes longer to get it wright so those things don't affect them. Most of the testing of size, shape, design and materials can and will be tested in labs first. So your fears are ill-founded .

I think these Stanford people are smarter than you think. As Jim Barrill pointed out, they are not placing them within the historical hurricane region.

I guess you missed the part in the article that talked about building the turbines outside of hurricane zones. But any argument against moving forward will stop us from moving forward and progressing to a CO2 free world which makes the Koch brothers very happy; Carl Rove would say to you; "Keep up the good work and thank you for your opposition.

Why do think this area is being looked at for a potential off-shore wind site? It's precisely because the risks for hurricanes in this area is low. Engineers have also been studying how to strengthen wind turbines so they will not buckle in hurricane force winds - for example, the orientations of the blades can have a big impact on how the turbines hold up to high winds.

The point is that this is not impossible - with research and investment it is doable - and would be a far better option than placing even more oil drilling rigs in the gulf where the chances of hurricanes are high and where failure of the rigs can lead to huge environmental catastrophes. Why should the American people continue to take huge environmental risks for an energy source which goes on the world market?

And why not seriously think about what we are leaving for the next generation? Look at what America has accomplished in its short history.....I honestly believe that if the American people would get behind clean energy - not to mention preserving our beautiful country for future generations - that our world could change.

They wont be builting them out of paper machete

Drill baby drill.

Boy, I'll bet you would have been one of the people at Kitty Hawk nay-saying the plane. Probably telling Guttenberg that his moveable type idea on the printing press was a bad idea as well.

This is the future. Get behind it, or get out of the way. Either way, it is coming.

The amount we spend on space exploration these days is MINISCULE. NASA/JPL has done more with limited funding than any government agency.

How about taking a $2-300 billion out of the defense budget?

bdop4: wow, great idea cutting the defense budget...given the fact that Islamic terrorists want to kill us and the latest events in the Middle East.

Our exploration of our solar system has given us the technologies to make this feasible. Talk about want to cut off the hand that feeds you.

No. Years. If you have 144,000 installations and keep thousands on hand for a potential event and you had the manpower it would still take them years to re-install 10,000 of them. So entire areas could be without power for YEARS. You can't live like that!

Well we will learn as we go now won't we..Better to lose power then destroy the planet and life..We will learn by trail and error..But we will have too or cease to exist..Plain and simple..

Ummm...maybe that would explain WHY they are not going to put them up where hurricanes occur?

Did you bother to read the article?

I am sure they would still keep "back up" energy sources in place until this is sorted out. Dont stir up paranoia before anything even happens...dang people.

elaine-442221 (12.4):

I was thinking the same thing. Also, as technology would improve, we'd need the "back up" less and less....

Drill baby Drill.

"Industrial waste" Hmm, do you mean like acid rain, oil spills, smog, other greenhouse gases, contaminated water supplies???

I remember seeing an article about that in Popular Science decades ago, and it still looks good to me.

All we need is a little courage/imagination from the American voter. That's the biggest hurdle of all.

They actually built one in NY harbor area but you need a very large tidal movement to make it profitable so that limits locations that tidal generators can be used

Just a few miles from our home in Maine they have done just that. Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC) has underwater turbines now in place that can provide the power for 1,000 homes. This is just a start. It has been correctly noted that you need sufficient tidal movement to make this work and we luckily have this. The enterprise has provided a nice economic boost to the area.

There is also a plan for an onshore wind turbine in our town. Not sure how this is going right now but there appears to be little opposition but there are some envirionmental, cost and long-term tax concerns.

Nothing said here will do any good. Two weeks ago Obama and his elite told Virginia and other poor cool producing states not to worry. His administration was working no a deal to sell coal to China and India. Wow, that is going to do a lot of good for our environment since all of their polution works it's way back to us. What a bunch of liers.

Cost shouldn't be an issue when you think about the reality of the benefits..When we went to to moon they said cost shouldn't matter and we did it...So why should cost stop us form producing a source of unlimited energy...

Because my friend if it costs 110% of your gross annual income to purchase it, you can't. That is unless of course you are the current govt. in which case you could not spend enough on it. That is precisely why cost IS an issue.

Unless you can save that 100% in the first year by dumping subsidies and foreing aid to nations that hate us. In that case, take all of the money we waste on that stuff and spend it on developing unlimited energy resources like wind, solar, et cetera. Make the promise from the 1940's come alive.

Or better yet, utilize the technologies that play to the strengths of a particular region. Solar in the south/southwest, wind in the northeast/northwest, geothermal in Wyoming/Hawaii, etc.

Environmentalists may be a number of things, but they're not short-sighted. Maybe you need to think a little harder.

Defense is a red herring. Believe it or not, there aren't massive hordes of people waiting to invade our country and destroy our infrastructure. That's what WE do.

U.S. Navy protects our seas. We will be able to deal with any problems if they occur. Refusal to move forward based on fear will get us no where.

We have pirates on the east coast of the U.S.A.?

The things you learn.

Seems to me we have something called The United States NAVY & The US COAST GUARD how's that for protection the best military in the World, your point is silly!

Secondly we didn't say we had to do only this, and would be very silly if we did, reduncy is the key, the more the better, Solar in places like the south west, wind on the coasts where feasable and practable.

Why are you so against this IDEA ?????????

I'll defend it on Tuesday's. Maybe another 1/2 day.

Well, we will stop buying the terrorists goods, get completely out of the Middle East, and wake up from the nightmare of being held hostage by them. After all, their main complaint is that we are there. I say take ourselves, and our money, and get the heck out of there. Energy sources such as this will make it happen.

Lot of pirates off marthas vinyard. Get real.

Pirates and terrorists would have a field day out there.

Well look at it this way..A whole lot easier to fix and repair a turbine then and oil rig and the destruction of life from an oil spill.. Remember BP in the gulf..An we still not done with it now are we..We could have had the whole field of turbines fixed by now..

Pirates and terrorists are already having a field day in your stunted, paranoid imagination.

Just have the air force concentrate their training runs over that area if it is a problem. Just might turn into a live target excercise occassionaly.

These problems can be overcome with a bit of thought and planning people.

Yeah, you're just a misanthropic idiot.

Did you learn a new word today, Amminadab? If so, you have misused it. There's nothing in more2bits post that would label him/her as misanthropic. Otherwise, your post is a useless crock of @!$%#.

What we really need is to come up with a way to generate power from baseless fear and paranoia. We would never run out of energy.

Justin, you just said a mouthful!