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:
What a joke on peoples ignorance... again. This is one moron with a twisted theory that does not even account for practicalities. Don't know who is paying off this bone head, or MSNBC for running the story without a counterpoint.... but I do know the administration is pouring billions into GE to build giant turbines for no reason other than to get in bed with GE and maybe a kickback contribution or two. Plus, wind power and solar power hoo haa nonsense are great vote getters via the ignorant masses. Go out an read any real scientific journal or true research project or engineering evalutation to find the truth. With todays technology you would have to cover the entire state of Arizona, and a big chunck of Nevada with solar panels just to power up L.A. And even more for wind. Solar panels are only good for a short number of years and need to be replaced.... one of those giant windmills costs almost 10 million dollars to put in place, and the maintenance costs are astronomical. Get real folks. Better to use our known energy now, and develop some truly viable alternative energy resources through investing in research. These folks want to build horse drawn wagons while the automobile is on the production line... This is a waste for votes. How about this instead.... we get all of our high school drop outs together and put them to work in giant energy factories turning tiny generators by hand.... enough drop outs turning cranks and we could power the entire nation. Just feed them a little broccoli every day....
My concern with tubines at sea is storms.... that and break aways floating with the currents causing problems.
Jack this is a nice feel good sentiment. Wind energy is irrelevant to dependence on oil. Oil is not a fuel used for making electricity because of its cost. The power industry has been reorganized and each day only the cheapest forms of energy actual are used to make power unless by government requirement are allowed to run. That means the states require more expensive renewables be run in place of cheaper power plants. This is the most significant part of your electric bill. When you here of people commenting about increased price of their electric bill it’s from government intervention in a market place (ConED). The push for renewables is for reduced CO-2 reduced dependence on oil is only achievable when everyone can afford a 45,000 dollar Chevy Volt and the replacement battery packs every 7 years. The law of unintended consequences is in play here because the price of electricity can be responsible for an plant closing and moving to China. While the power has restrictions on pollution in the US, China has no restrictions. Some people feel good about reducing pollution by artificially forcing renewables. What they don’t realize is the jobs left the US and the Pollution increased for the same use of electricity. Law of un intended consequences.
Jack the part about oil rigs is not a realistic comparison. The margin on sale of the oil VS electricity is crazy large. Its orders of magnitude. Oil costs are regulated by the market and do not have much competition for energy in the auto market. Electricity has many competing energy sources of which natural gas is by far the cheapest. The cost is the driver not logistics. In countries that have tried to increase renewables (Wind- Spain, Denmark, Finland) the utilities are not market driven, these countries are run by a governments that have made an ideological decision to pay more.
All efforts to save the environment will ultimately prove futile unless we not only halt, but eventually reverse, our population growth so that our population after an interim period of decrease can be stabilized at a sustainable level, far below what it is today. My 2 cents.
The Kennedy's OPPOSE wind power? Classic!! Not in my backyard. What does that tell you about the Kennedy's and democrats in general. FULL OF SHEET!! Phony dirt bags.
Here is what I don't get in all of this debate about alternative forms of energy in the US. A we willing to force an unnecessary cost on the people of this great nation all for the political sake of a few people who whish their agenda be included. Wind power is poor investment and can only be justified today when natural gas exceeds $8 per million btu's. So, who will pay for this when there is not profit motive to drive it long term. If you haven't seen the ugliness of a wind farm just visit any of the plains States.
If the average consumer realized that this feel good use of windmills was going to drive their electric bills up 300% (yes dorothy 300%) they woudn't would not be sooo in love with the feel good idea of windmills. I say let whomever puts them up live or die (finacially) on their viability. Please dont raise my electric rates to pay for them. Another little fact to ponder is that if a utility puts them in a utility is mandated by law to show a profit no matter how irresponsible the project.
Large wind turbines typically have a cost of about $4,000,000 EACH leaving the factory floor. The cost to install them is between about $2,000,000 to $4,000,000 EACH. Large wind turbines require a huge maintenance estimated between $200,000 $1,000,000 EACH per year.There are large power transmission costs. The turbines and the transmissions typically cost about $500,000. Off shore maintenance costs are about triple that of large land based turbines. About 2% will catch on fire each year requiring full replacement. They are typically uninsurable in winds over 90MPH. NO insurance in hurricane winds. Without a MASSIVE subsidies there is never a break even point. Most peak power production is between 6AM and about 9PM, MOST of the power produced at night is wasted and costs the consumer the same or more during peak power usage periods. The negative cost and output just goes on.
Photovoltaic panels typically have about a 5-7 year pay back period. The maintenance costs are minimal . Photovoltaic panels can be placed just about any where [roofs, parking lots, beside road ways, etc] with no transmission costs. Photovoltaic panels typically have a 20 - 25 warranty from the manufacturer. All of the power produced is all peak power production. The cost of the thin cell photovoltaic panels typically lower and lower each year currently between about .50 cents a watt to .75 cents leaving the factory floor. Installation costs for the panels is generally under $2 a watt including the panel [typically about a 1,000 panel]. The benefits of photovoltaic power vastly outweigh any benefit thought to be gained from wind power, it is just a huge waste of time and money .
is the tradeoff however akin to setting something on fire with a magnifying glass? Seriously! Do photovoltaic panels placed in mass generate more heat than the ground can handle? I personally perfer a mix of all available alt energy systems to get us off the world oil grid. whatever gives us a measure of independence is better than presenting one to be superior over the other. no harm but you sound like a shill for the industry you tout, much the same as the wind article being presented.
LMAO...one hurricane and no mo Turbines. Most airplanes, trucks, cars, trains do not run on electricity the last I looked. This could power maybe a small city, but what small city could afford the cost of these, or taxes it would cost the citizens of that city to not just build but maintain. Power New York?? lol....
Go for the Wind Farm energy which is a green, cheap, natural energy source, with Plan B energy source, which is natural gas, in case of any incident of Wind Farm; no coal, please.
Hope that West Coast has Wind Farm energy, or Solar energy, with Plan B energy source, natural gas.
Go green, go cheap, and go natural.
more likely than not our government would never pull aid monies out of foreign countries to back a project such as this. in fact in some of our lifetimes they will do little more than provide lip service with regard to alternative energy sources. this is an excellent project for the people to get behind and donate to one entity to construct then put on line into our national grid system. protest or make your voice heard for our government to give you tax credit for every dollar you as an individual donate to make this project become a reality. we the american people need to turn away from the government in order to get things done on behalf of ourselves. do what you can to get off the government grid and for gosh sake donate absolutely zero to each party.
Like the though hate the version. I'm in the though of using those corkscrew one which get rid of one problem I continuously hear of with bird traffic and possibly sound. I wonder if view being the fact if they have cell service near by since the recent ones stick out like a sore thumb (sometimes the older ones are dressed like local forestry and you have to squint).
I'd still at this point be more pleasant building less tall on businesses and dressing them with solar panel. We'll see in a few years how this works out but I'm sure if the big cities spoke up, these towns would have a smaller mouth.
There is not enough research on the impact of turbines to place them in the ocean yet. Wind turbines also vibrate and those vibrations will be felt for hundereds of miles in the water and through the bedrock. A lot of people will not be able to tolerate the vibrations and will have to move. Do some research on people who live in areas of bedrock where wind turbines have been placed. This will also have a huge impact on fishing in those areas.
The energy may be cheaper to produce, but not for a very long time - the companies will need to get back the cost of building the turbines. And what makes you think the reduced costs will be passed on to the consumer? Ethanol is no cheaper than gas, and cheaper fuel was why the gov pushed for ethanol production.
For the cost of 1 (one) of these turbines, 10,000 houses could be equipped with hydrogen fuel cells.. These cells have no moving parts and are 100% eco friendly. When you are not using the power it goes into the grid. The technology has been around since 1956. It will never happen though because the power company has to pay for the power you don't use, instead of you paying perpetually for their "Green Power".
I think they look awsome and although I do object to an oil rig, these have a somewhat artistic and sereine appearance.
I will take this study with a grain of salt because of a similar study done in England a few years back whose authors laid claim to all this power with windmills..Then the English Government department that checks on truth in advertising and facts did a review of the the blow hards study and found that it would actually take TWICE THE NUMBER OF WINDMILLS" to produce the power the Blowhards said their study would produce..So basically the Windmill Industry lied just to get the job.....and with the people in the Solar and Power Industry in the United States as evidenced by the bankruptcies..I do not trust them one bit,,,especially SINCE one George Soro's company makes Windmills....Speaking of which,, I found it intersting to watch a National Geographic Special on the how badly the Bureau of Lands and Mines are handling the Wild Horse situation,,prime Land for installing Windmills on...,,,Funny this is the very Project "Thank God he is Dead" Ted Kennedy was fighting.....
Deep water rigs are not cost effective. Coastal rigs along the whole eastern seaboard could power the whole US and they could also incorporate solar power for mechanics of collapsible blades. Close to shore would also promote reefs and fisheries, and exclude any damages incurred by people who get injured by interfering with their operation. Lawsuit proof, good of country not your view of an Ocean that is dying.
cwet, check out there wed site,its the answer, clean power, and clean water..
Turbines are not made out of sugar. The materials and process to make these wind turbine probably pollute more of our atmosphere than drilling for oil. I have watched piece by piece being transported on interstates and it does not take one trip to get all those pieces there. For one turbine it takes approximately 7 to 10 semis to transport them and then those same semis have to return to pick the next one. In addition, turbines do not last forever and must be replaced so what do we do with the old parts? In addition, wind turbines and solar panels pollute the landscapes and it is sad to drive through a region with them and to see all the landscape that is taken up by them not to mention the airspace. Lastly, this is a really really bad thing for natural habitats and their survival.
nantucket can have the oilrigs. let florida have the windfields. we get tradewinds offshore and turbines may boost our wonderful tradewinds all along the coast. florida has had enough damage done by oilrigs like the bp disaster enough is enough. if you fly over the gulf look out the window and see the oil seepage all over from the rigs out there on the surface of the water its a disgrace!