E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Ingo Wagner / Reuters
Offshore wind turbines are seen in Germany's North Sea, along with a service platform that doubles as a transformer sending electricity to the mainland. Germany and Denmark are leaders in the offshore wind industry.
Placing wind turbines off the East Coast could meet the entire demand for electricity from Florida to Maine, according to engineering experts at Stanford University.
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. But the analysis shows it's doable and where the best locations are, says study co-author Mark Jacobson, a Stanford professor of civil and environmental engineering.
The team is not advocating for an "all wind" approach, saying it'd be foolish to put all of one's energy eggs in a single basket, but they do think it could reach up to 50 percent. Today the U.S. gets about 4 percent of its electricity from wind, but only via turbines on land.
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 Wind project, arguing the 130 massive turbines would mar views and endanger boat and air traffic.
"The question that I would first ask" critics, Jacobson told NBC News, "is would they rather have a coal or natural power gas plant in their neighborhood, which affects their health and that of their children as well as their quality of life and property values, or an innocuous turbine that they could barely see during those times when they were actually looking offshore."
For the analysis published in the journal Wind Energy, Jacobson's team created a computer model with 144,000 wind turbines that produce 5 megawatts of electricity each, similar to the turbines installed off Denmark and Germany. They then plugged in historical wind speed data to come up with estimates.
A. Baseden / AP
Map shows site of proposed wind farm near Cape Cod.
They also favored places with lower hurricane risk, essentially excluding any area south of Virginia.
The best locations are "way out of sight" from coastlines, Jacobson said, and the worst-case scenarios would be distant views of turbines about the size of one's extended thumb.
"The only place with significant opposition to offshore wind that I am aware of has been in Nantucket," he added. "There are dozens of other proposals in the U.S. that have not faced nearly the same extent of opposition."
Cape Wind does have federal approval, as well as support from major national environmental groups, and hopes to begin building turbines next year. But opposition groups like Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound are still battling the project in court and before federal agencies.
Cape Wind
Cape Wind created this simulated photo to show what it says would be the view of its wind farm from Nantucket Island. The distance out to the turbines, seen as white dots on the horizon, is 13 miles.
A further limitation is cost. Cape Wind, for one, is still working on financing, and cheaper natural gas has taken some of the shine off wind, at least in investors' eyes. Moreover, installation offshore currently costs two to three times more than land-based turbines.
Jacobson's team says the new study will help locate the most economically feasible sites, particularly around New York and Boston when peak demand for electricity can send prices soaring.
"Connecting the power to the grid would be technically as easy as laying a cable in the sand and hooking it directly into the grid without the need to build often controversial transmission lines on the land," said Mike Dvorak, the principle author of the study.
He also noted that offshore wind has an advantage over land-based wind turbines.
"People mistakenly think that wind energy is not useful because output from most land-based turbines peaks in the late evening/early morning, when electricity demand is low," Dvorak said. "The real value of offshore wind energy is that it often peaks when we need the most electricity — during the middle of the day."
Nov. 5, 2007: NBC Cameraman Brian Prentke and Soundman David Moodie took a two-hour boat trip just to film the Middelgrunden off shore wind farm in Denmark. Denmark currently gets 20 percent of its electricity from 5500 offshore and onshore wind turbines.
Besides reducing pollution and increasing domestic energy resources, wind has a key advantage over natural gas or coal, Jacobson notes. That's price stability.
"There's zero fuel costs once they're in the water," he said. "Coal and gas are depletable resources, so their cost will inevitably go up over time. The cost of wind energy will remain stable, and the wind resource is infinite."
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Obama: US has 'profound respect for people of all faiths'
- 'Free money' for Conn. fishermen amid eco-disaster?
- Suspected anti-Islam filmmaker questioned by Feds
- 83-year-old held over hit-and-run crash that killed boy, 6
- 'Half of me died with him': Family seeks answers over death of Fla. businessman
- Americans killed in US consulate attack honored at Andrews
- 'Bucket List Bandit' nabbed in Oklahoma traffic stop
- Women face stubborn wage gap as wages fall for everyone
Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
It's a no brainer, and look at the jobs it would create.
Look at the pain it would cause if a class II or larger hurricane comes and hugs the coastline and wipes them all out! This happens about every 25 years on average. And Murphy's law says it will happen just about the time they complete the 144,000 installations! Bad idea. Put it to rest. Bad idea.
Umm...that might explain why they are not going to put them up where hurricanes occur?
Did you actually read the article?
I hate to tell you this but all those jobs will be in China.Those jobs will be performed by people in China. They control 98% of the rare earth minerals in the world and will not allow those to be exported from their country. Wind turbines require a certain amount of that material to work so China has the leading edge over America in the production of them. That is okay with me since I work in the mining industry and I can supply them with all the metallurgical coal they need to make the 270 foot long steel towers.
China has placed themselves in a good position, but all that means is that America should have been wiser in placing ourselves in a good position. If we actually committed to an alternative energy future, technology and industry would ramp up more at home.
There are plenty of rare minerals in the US, they were just not mined. There is a new mine opening these days. China restricted access, increased costs, which made other mines profitable.
J. Bailey-1765504 (21.3):
I hadn't thought of that. You're probably right.
(But I think we should do this, anyway.)
We have had solar panels for 11 years and make more electricity than we use. I never feel guilty if I happen to leave a light on, but we do mostly conserve anyway. With wind on the East Coast, solar panels on most houses and apartments on the West Coast and perhaps individual turbines in the midwest, we could do a lot towards making our own clean, eventually fairly free energy. Then the cars that use electricity will be more useful. It would be interesting to see how beautiful some of our smog ridden cities can be.
I've done the math before and I question that number. Each wind powered turbine generator provides enough power for 300 housholds. That is about 1,000 people. The population of the east coast I think is less than 144 million people, but if that is the number they are going by, then that number is about right and I stand corrected. This article doesn't say how many people for the east coast. Each wind turbine generator costs 3 million dollars. Therefore, the cost would be 432 Billion dollars to buy 144,000 of them. Not a bad deal when you consider we pay foreigners each year 700 Billion dollars for their oil. You never get done paying for oil. With wind turbine generators, you only pay once and then it's all free!
Until a class II or III hurricane comes barreling up the entire coastline which it does about every 25 years on average. Then there is NO electricity for YEARS for entire sections of the coastline. And if a class IV happens along it could wipe out the entire coast's electrical supply for half a generation!
And that is why they are not going to put them up where hurricanes occur..
Given all the effort you are putting in repeating yourself over and over, it's kind of interesting you didn't actually take the time to pay attention to this part.
Not a problem in hurricanes. They are designed and built to withstand hurricanes. For example, the blades are adjustable and rotate into the horizontal position. I take it you are not an engineer. What happens all too often is that people with no engineering experience or understandting wade into discussions and dismiss the technologies they don't understand. Leave the engineering in the hands of the engineers to solve these problems. Rather than say something can't be done, ask whether given the circumstances that concern you, can it be done. And the answer is yes.
more2bits-4021678
Did you read the article ? Even if a class III hurricane did hit them there are ways to prevent damage and in addition you build extra capacity because the wind doesn't blow everywhere all the time so you build more than the base amount also you have SOLAR on the east coast in addition to wind you NEVER put all your eggs in one basket. Your comments are stupid and ill considered these things have already been considered.
Why do you dislike this idea soooooo much ?
PLease reply because otherwise I will have to ignore you !
Instead of subsidizing big oil, let's redirect those funds and begin to get it done.
I am much more for underwater turbines immune from topographical storms, pirates, terrorists, and the sight-seeing tourists who would find them ugly. Ditto for Geothermal. Ditto for Solar (mounted on EVERYONE's Rooftop).
I generate 80% of my electrical needs via Solar year round (100% for 8 months of the year, 60% during hot summer months--on average). It cost me LESS than utilities and allows free charging of my Leaf as well at NO cost. It costs me NOTHING out of pocket (20 year lease).
If every homeowner in the country did this then our electrical needs would fall by about 30% nationwide and our use of Coal and Natural Gas and imports of oil would go down drastically.
Underwater will not work in the oceans except in tidal basins or in rivers. Problem in the ocean is that the path of the water current has too many paths and will flow in the path of least resistance. It is analogous to an electrical parallel circuit.
Aren't you worried about pirates and terrorists coming after your valuable solar panels? Or maybe ninjas. Or aliens that don't like them reflecting at them? Or the droves of tourists? You must be protecting them with a private security force.
The FIRST reason listed.........that people like the kennedy's don't want the wind turbine farms is because it would 'mar their view'. Selfish and pathetic. To them, their 'million dollar view' is more important than the rest of humanity, and what we are doing to this planet with oil, coal, and gas pollution. The kennedy's are becoming 'has beens(yesterday's news)'. get over yourself. The needs of humanity are more important than your 'view'.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. When the Eiffel Tower was first built, the Parisians wanted it torn down as soon as the World's Fair was over. It almost happened! They love their Eiffel Tower now. And so it is true with the Danes. They get over 25% of their electrical power from wind turbine generators and not only have them in their capital city of Copenhagen, but out at sea where they ferry tourists out to gaze at them! They love them. In Copenhagen, they actually paint them in bright pastel colors depicting beautiful flowers. They have made their beautiful city even more beautiful by their presence.
A local ferry company near the Cape Wind project also has plans to offer ecotours out to the turbines:
"Cape Wind, Hy-Line Cruises Announce Plans For Eco Tour, Visitor Center" (Google that since I cannot post HTML here apparently)
http://vimeo.com/21327652
A bogus study. Wind power sounds might great but, the wind farms in Europe, Hawaii and California have already proven to be a total failure. The average wind mill will have a major break down within 3 year. The cost of any wind mill is 2 times the value of electricity it will ever produce. But when you add the cost of repair and maintenance, the cost increased to 4 fold and that is not calculating into the cost of natural disaster like an hurricane. Wind is not constant nor the demand of electricity, there is currently not a system available that can store even the smallest amount of electricity. Therefore, a backup system must be in place when the wind is not blowing or when electricity demand is high. A typical 270 ft wind mill on land cost $5,000,000 to build and will generate about $250,000 worth of electricity on a good location. The gear box usually goes in 3 year at the cost of $750,000 and other smaller items would bring the cost close to $1,000,000 in maintenance and repair every three years. In the end, it is all about economics, if your electricity bill is currently $200 now, with wind power your bill should be $1,000 because, wind power cost 4 times more and the old system must still be in place to generate electricity when the wind is not blowing.
Leased Solar powered homeowners is the solution to 30% of our electrical needs nationwide. I generate 80% of my needs yearly and that's including free driving of my Leaf locally. It costs me LESS than my typical energy bills despite the free charging of my Leaf (about $1000 less total per year or nearly $100 a month savings). So I generate a small fraction of the pollution 'finger-print' and save tons of coal and oil being depleted and polluting yearly.
The solution is MORE subsidization of homes and businesses with solar.
It really works and I will gladly provide proof of this from my own details (costs of solar, costs of utilities, savings, mileage on Leaf, etc). I did my homework and the math doesn't lie.
My monthly savings on electricity are exceeding my lease amount by a large margin so in many locations of this country this would work the same for everyone else who has enough brain to realize the math works in the homeowners favor.
Any excuse to preserve the status quo.
I recommend that we use turbines under the water. Hyundai makes tidal power generators now!.
Wales, New Zealand and South Korea are using tidal power generators. No pollution , not seen, no nuclear waste , infinite energy as long as the moon exists.
We could place tidal power generators along both coastsd and in the gulf and connect to the national grid.
Why not use both- and solar? It's going to take every available alternative power source- including, something called OTEC- a Rankine cycle thermal engine- to replace petrochemical power generation.
See: http://guides.wikinut.com/How-an-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-OTEC-plant-works/ea6g.1hd/
OTEC has been successfully trialed in several places- and is especially useful on desert islands, where the evaporation phase can be used to condense atmospheric water.
The plan is to develop everything, and shift emphasis according to whatever is working out best.
Wind turbines are beautiful. Every time I see one it makes me feel good.
Sales of natural gas at the current price still reap huge profits at grave cost to not just the consumer, but to everyone.
More immediately dangerous and problematic is the fact that much of it is now obtained using a "fracking" process which renders local drinking water poisonous indefinitely for the sake of short term profit.
By contrast, wind turbines have the potential for creating potable water by providing the power to desalinate sea water- which is plentiful, to say the least.
The choice is short-term profit, long term disaster or long-term profit with little consequence- and likely benefit.
Let's see now...I can have cheap chocolate today, if I burn down my house tomorrow, or I can just buy it at a fair price now- with a promise from the seller that tomorrow's chocolate will cost less- not more.
Wow...hard choice.
Your natural gas luxury will cease to exist once natural gas replaces gasoline based products.
Big Gasoline is on the way out the door which everyone can tell by the gas prices that Big Gasoline is scared sh*itless about something.
That something is natural gas and other non gasoline fuels taking over the monopoly that Big Gasoline has had since Henry Ford.
Progress requires change. Change requires that the old systems be removed and replaced.
Big Gasoline is just like the horse was to the car.
Makes you wonder about how rational we really are...homo sapiens...the "wise" man.
Use tidal power generators. We have the technology. No pollution, no nuclear waste, unseen infinite energy as long as the moon exists. Presently being used in South Korea, Wales, Nee Zealand.
I would be opposed if they were close to shore but if that photo is accurate, short of it possibly affecting the oceans eco-system and bird flight paths I see no problem with this.
Everyone b*itches about the billions that are going to this Middle East group or that Middle East group.
If you want the money to not be spent on the Middle East then support the 144,000 Sea Turbines being built.
144,000 Sea Turbines will create alot of jobs as well as reducing our need for coal which not only is a very dirty fossil fuel but costs lives and more money than the Sea Turbines will.
Plus the Sea Turbines are a good defense along the coast to keep an invading Naval Fleet from being able to bring their ships close to shore.
We would also be able to monitor boat traffic to keep drug runners and illegals out.
Monitoring that would create technology jobs as well as security center operators.
See how many more jobs can be created other than simply planting a wind turbine in the Ocean?
Americans want jobs.....there they are.
So quit b*itching.
You're assessment is wrong in so many ways. First off because we will be using less coal, we will actually lose jobs because we get all our coal domestically. So the miner will lose their jobs and the current coal plant operators will have to be retrained and relocated. That costs money so there are more expenses.
The sea turbines are 13 miles out. That is not that far for a navy. If our Navy and Coast Guard don't catch them before then we're screwed anyways. Besides they can just go around. Tactically speaking the placement of these turbines would be little deterrent to a potential invader. On top of all of this, who do you think would invade by sea? There is not a single country in the world that could invade the U.S. by sea. Not one. Not China, not Russia, no one. They don't have the ships or the trained marines to do it.
The illegals and drug runners are not coming through the eastern seaboard. They come from Mexico, through the Gulf and around Florida. Monitoring that would be a government job and again would be an added expense that would have to be supported by the tax revenue that the energy companies were paying for operating the turbines there and the revenue they generate. Again not helping.
So you're not creating jobs, you're at best breaking even and causing added expenses. So quit posting.
Has anyone considered the environmental effects of installing large numbers (and I mean very large numbers, as in the project in this article) of wind turbines in discrete locations? Wind turbines remove energy from the atmosphere. That energy drives the local weather, and, over time, creates local climate and has an effect on global climate. Do large-scale wind energy projects have the ability to remove enough energy from the atmosphere to affect the weather and climate? And, if so, how?
I've never seen any actual numbers, but common sense suggest it is pretty negligible.
Wind velocity rises with altitude- so most wind energy will remain unaffected.
All the forests that once covered every continent turned wind energy into thermal energy- and everyone survived that too. In fact, the only periods during which turbulence related wind conversion really dropped were ice ages.
It's not some scary new technology with unforeseeable consequences- it's a windmill.
Europe had more and bigger at one time (peaking at about 200,000)- and they didn't experience any apocalyptic consequence, did they?
Even here, it's estimated that there were some 600,000 wind-driven water pumps in the 1930's.
Current (just the big ones) wind turbines worldwide at the end of 2011: close to 200,000.
Here's a link for further info..: http://www.gwec.net/global-figures/wind-in-numbers/
Yes, there have been more windmills in the past, but the amount of energy they each took from the atmosphere was negligible; they were capable of very little work compared to the large turbines envisaged in a project like this and they were scattered far and wide. (Comparing these small wind-driven water pumps to the turbines being built today for large-scale electricity production is laughable. It's like comparing a model airplane engine to a Cadillac STS.) And, as I mentioned, large numbers of these would be placed together. A wind turbine here and there would be negligible, but the energy (enough to power the entire east coast) being sucked out of the atmosphere in a relatively small area makes this prospect very different from the past. Additionally, this is only one project of what could eventually be many, all removing energy from the atmosphere. I just checked the numbers you suggested and see that hundreds of gigawatts of energy are already being removed from the atmosphere. At some point, as more and more energy is removed, this will have an effect. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
We've heard the argument before about negligible impact of this and that. Such an argument is not reassuring.
Sounds like a great place for terrorists to plot attacks, i know i would if i were trying to cripple the entire east coast.
How would you blow up 144,000 wind turbines simultaneously?
how does one destroy 2 of the tallest buildings on the planet in one hour?
Doesnt need to be simultaneous, and where there's a will, there's a way.
The point is tha it would be an easy target but a pretty silly one. Zero symbolic value and the energy would be instantly shifted to another source. We would only be out the cost of replacing the turbine, which would be pretty routine.
Obviously nuclear power plants or other mega-sources would be much more tempting targets.
They are ruining the earth and will have to be held accountable for that.
Only when the wind blows...LOL ...and it is in comments today. One hurrican and they all gone and no electricity.
Since it would never be the sole source of energy, that would be a fairly weak argument against it.
Why waiste money on two sources... goes to show you wind turbines wont work good enought for one source.
Nobody has ever suggested using anything as a sole source. That would obviously be pretty stupid, so no one is considering it. (except in academic exercises such as this)
The problem in Nantucket is they want the energy, no matter in what form, but they don't want to be exposed to the process of creating it. Their NIMBY attitude shows their elitist mentality and how they are so much better than the rest of the United States. Build the wind turbines and put them out there. The energy problem is a national one, not a regional (Nantucket) eyesore problem.
Or we can build 20 new nuclear reactor.
Would be great if this actually happened.... however, as long as Big Oil runs the show progressive, renewable energies like this will be something that won't likely happen. There are people with too much money blocking it from happening.
Like john kerry
The oil companies would probably be fine with them if they owned them
trudat6445 (40.1):
W..h..a..t.............??????
What does John Kerry have to do with this????????
I doubt he'd block pushing for the alternative to Big Oil.
(He's not a Republican, either.)