Study: Offshore wind could generate all U.S. electricity

[martybegan]

​

Now that's attractive!

I think it actually looks really cool, but of course, I'm and engineer. We like big shiny things.

 

[martybegan]

Energy Producing Winds only Blow 25% of the time. What the fuck should we do for the other 75% of the time?

Power Capacity factor

Peak Nameplate.........Continuous Average 8766hr/y
Baseload Power Plant.......90%
Hydro Electric Dam..........50%
Wind Turbine..................25%
Solar Tracker..................21%
Static PV Solar................15%

Average US Household uses 12,000kw per year.
Size required per home
5kw Solar
3kw Wind
1.5kw Hydro
0.8kw Baseload Power Plant

A rational system would have to involve some sort of stored energy mechanism. I would go with a 2 level water system, where you use some of the wind energy to pump water from a low to a high elevation, and when the wind dies down, let the water flow through a turbine. It would reduce the overall effective energy from the wind power, but would reduce the downtime (at least until all the water is in a lower state)

This does however add land use to the issue.

 

[mdn2000]

​

Now that's attractive!

I think it actually looks really cool, but of course, I'm and engineer. We like big shiny things.

You should of studied more English,

Get some glasses, those things are not shiny.

I see a large pile of garbage dripping oil into the ocean. I see the added pollution of motorboats used to service these giant money pits, how many barrels of oil will the boat have to hold to service the worlds largest wind farm that produces insignificant levels of power. How will you get thousands of gallons of oil from the boat up the tower, how will you do it every time without spilling oil at least once a day, if not more.

Wind farms are not Green nor renewable, no such thing as green energy.

 

[martybegan]

​

Now that's attractive!

I think it actually looks really cool, but of course, I'm and engineer. We like big shiny things.

You should of studied more English,

Get some glasses, those things are not shiny.

I see a large pile of garbage dripping oil into the ocean. I see the added pollution of motorboats used to service these giant money pits, how many barrels of oil will the boat have to hold to service the worlds largest wind farm that produces insignificant levels of power. How will you get thousands of gallons of oil from the boat up the tower, how will you do it every time without spilling oil at least once a day, if not more.

Wind farms are not Green nor renewable, no such thing as green energy.

Did you not get the engineer part? We have administrative assistants for the english crap. Have to employ people with communication degrees somehow.

I get you dont like any form of renewables, but any form of power had downsides and contributes negatively to its surrounding environment. Trying to demonize this stuff is just as bad as the renwable nutters trying to sell this stuff as a utopia.

For example, the lube oil can be of a biodegradable type, that has negative impact in case of spill. Servicing is a viable concern, but you have to service any type of power supply.

 

[Stephanie]

ObamaCare now requires every citizen to wear a personal wind turbine, cause it's like reducing the cost of health care or something

made me lol..

 

[loosecannon]

Found the base assumptions made.

1 windmill every square kilometer located throughout the area described. The report admits it does not take into acount practical considerations like concentration, spacing, and suitability of the sea floor, as well as just being a Generating capacity, and not a power supplied factor.

Those figures also project a capacity to create 4 times as much electricity as we currently consume. It should be blatantly obvious to all that nobody intends to generate 4 times as power as we need, simply that we could do it if we chose to. That the wind power exists within reach of shore and at sea depths suitable for offshore wind turbines.

 

[loosecannon]

Wind, Solar, Geo-thermal, Slow Current, there are many, many alternative energy systems coming on line now that are not only non-poluting, but also cheaper than dirty coal.

In fact, other than political opposition, the primary problem today is the grid. It is not designed for distributed sources. We need to access where our best energy resources are, and put in the grid to access the resources. An example of this that I have personally explored for my own pleasure is the area in Southeastern Oregon. The basalt ridges in this area are prime wind areas, the basins have extensive geo-thermal potential, and there is enough sunlight for both photovoltaic and solar thermal. One grid leg could pick up all of this.

This summer and fall alone CA will permit enough solar power plants to satisfy 10% of our states energy use. We could produce 4 times as much power as we need. The economics are not as favorable as cheap oil and coal, today, but that is because alternatives require big upfront costs that cheap oil and coal don't feature.

And investors are wary because they perpetually think something cheaper may arrive and spoil all of their long term plans.

This is a giant lie by government, industry, professors in our universities, special interest groups and the morons.

last paragraph you state Green Energy can produce four times as much energy than the entire amount of power california uses in a year.

Four times as much, prove it, how many windmills, how many solar plants.

I bet you cannot tell us how many watts of electricity is used in the entire state to pump every drop of water used.

Its a large number, get back to me after your google search, I wont wait, I can tell simply by the fact that your statement was made with no thought on your part, hence you have no idea of the amount of energy consumed just pumping water.

Green energy (which does not exist) will never be able to pump water, never in a million years, further, Green energy (which does not exist) can never supply the power needed just to meet the increase in demand every year.

Four times as much power than is produced today, how many windmills, you cannot even answer how many and of which types, be sure to tell us where all this Green Junk will go, hell, tell us where you will bury it after it turns to junk in ten years. That is all you get, ten years, after that it turns to junk, where do you bury your toxic solar panels, where will you burn all that junk fiberglass, how will you dispose on millions of tons of toxic batteries.

I didn't say green energy, I said solar steam power on BLM land in the mojave desert. Any and all addition sources of power or available lands in other parts of the state would only add to that total.

But again CA has only permitted 1/40th that capacity because altho the potential exists to convert all BLM land in the mojave desert to solar/steam power generation lots nobody is prepared to develop all of the mojave desert.

 

[loosecannon]

If you have all that knowledge how come you pasted a link to an article in USA Today.

Because I don't have and didn't claim to have any idea what the potential for windpower generation off the coast of 26 states is. I am aware of the national wind survey maps and have studied them to appraise specific projects, but only 20-30 inland locations in the US are attractive for windfarms. Whereas even a cursory look at the USA wind survey maps reveals that nearly all offshore locations are attractive for wind farms.

All you need is 7 mph average wind speeds to qualify as a suitable location for wind generators. Almost the entire coast of the US features 7 mph average wind speeds.

 

[martybegan]

Found the base assumptions made.

1 windmill every square kilometer located throughout the area described. The report admits it does not take into acount practical considerations like concentration, spacing, and suitability of the sea floor, as well as just being a Generating capacity, and not a power supplied factor.

Those figures also project a capacity to create 4 times as much electricity as we currently consume. It should be blatantly obvious to all that nobody intends to generate 4 times as power as we need, simply that we could do it if we chose to. That the wind power exists within reach of shore and at sea depths suitable for offshore wind turbines.

I dont like the methodology where they quote the 4 times number, and then immidiately say that at a max 60% is even close to realistic.

The paper is just feel goody crap.

 

[mdn2000]

Energy Producing Winds only Blow 25% of the time. What the fuck should we do for the other 75% of the time?

Power Capacity factor

Peak Nameplate.........Continuous Average 8766hr/y
Baseload Power Plant.......90%
Hydro Electric Dam..........50%
Wind Turbine..................25%
Solar Tracker..................21%
Static PV Solar................15%

Average US Household uses 12,000kw per year.
Size required per home
5kw Solar
3kw Wind
1.5kw Hydro
0.8kw Baseload Power Plant

A rational system would have to involve some sort of stored energy mechanism. I would go with a 2 level water system, where you use some of the wind energy to pump water from a low to a high elevation, and when the wind dies down, let the water flow through a turbine. It would reduce the overall effective energy from the wind power, but would reduce the downtime (at least until all the water is in a lower state)

This does however add land use to the issue.

A stupid idea. You obviously have no idea how much energy that requires and how little energy the wind produces.

 

[mdn2000]

​

I think it actually looks really cool, but of course, I'm and engineer. We like big shiny things.

You should of studied more English,

Get some glasses, those things are not shiny.

I see a large pile of garbage dripping oil into the ocean. I see the added pollution of motorboats used to service these giant money pits, how many barrels of oil will the boat have to hold to service the worlds largest wind farm that produces insignificant levels of power. How will you get thousands of gallons of oil from the boat up the tower, how will you do it every time without spilling oil at least once a day, if not more.

Wind farms are not Green nor renewable, no such thing as green energy.

Did you not get the engineer part? We have administrative assistants for the english crap. Have to employ people with communication degrees somehow.

I get you dont like any form of renewables, but any form of power had downsides and contributes negatively to its surrounding environment. Trying to demonize this stuff is just as bad as the renwable nutters trying to sell this stuff as a utopia.

For example, the lube oil can be of a biodegradable type, that has negative impact in case of spill. Servicing is a viable concern, but you have to service any type of power supply.

No such thing as Renewable Green Energy, calling windmills renewable or green is like calling cats, dogs.

The downside of Wind farms, they must the largest electrical generator farms in the world, using millions of tons mores of the earths resources to create insignificant amounts of electricity. You use more oil to build the wind mill than if you just burned oil directly.

biodegradable lube oil cannot be used, you have to make too much, there is not enough farm land to use for bio fuels, you would have to quit feeding people. Further there are chemicals in oil that are used to make fiberglass, I guess while you are dreaming and giving ideas not based on fact you will tell me we can invent chemicals from magic corn to replace the petrochemicals used to make your non-renewable wind farm.

You have to service any type of power supply, sure, but in windmills case you use more resources to service windmills than fossil fuel or nuclear, hence again green energy's impact on the environment is greater than just burning coal.

So you have still proposed the worlds largest pile of garbage, you replace wind farms before you have to replace a fossil fuel plant, you need the fossil fuel plant to make fiberglass, wind farms cannot exist on the merits of the energy, they only exist when Government and industry trick the weak minded.

 

[mdn2000]

This summer and fall alone CA will permit enough solar power plants to satisfy 10% of our states energy use. We could produce 4 times as much power as we need. The economics are not as favorable as cheap oil and coal, today, but that is because alternatives require big upfront costs that cheap oil and coal don't feature.

And investors are wary because they perpetually think something cheaper may arrive and spoil all of their long term plans.

This is a giant lie by government, industry, professors in our universities, special interest groups and the morons.

last paragraph you state Green Energy can produce four times as much energy than the entire amount of power california uses in a year.

Four times as much, prove it, how many windmills, how many solar plants.

I bet you cannot tell us how many watts of electricity is used in the entire state to pump every drop of water used.

Its a large number, get back to me after your google search, I wont wait, I can tell simply by the fact that your statement was made with no thought on your part, hence you have no idea of the amount of energy consumed just pumping water.

Green energy (which does not exist) will never be able to pump water, never in a million years, further, Green energy (which does not exist) can never supply the power needed just to meet the increase in demand every year.

Four times as much power than is produced today, how many windmills, you cannot even answer how many and of which types, be sure to tell us where all this Green Junk will go, hell, tell us where you will bury it after it turns to junk in ten years. That is all you get, ten years, after that it turns to junk, where do you bury your toxic solar panels, where will you burn all that junk fiberglass, how will you dispose on millions of tons of toxic batteries.

I didn't say green energy, I said solar steam power on BLM land in the mojave desert. Any and all addition sources of power or available lands in other parts of the state would only add to that total.

But again CA has only permitted 1/40th that capacity because altho the potential exists to convert all BLM land in the mojave desert to solar/steam power generation lots nobody is prepared to develop all of the mojave desert.

So you cannot debate anything in the study?

BLM land, they own no land, that is my land, that is the land of the people, not for you to turn into a windfarm.

You want to make the worlds largest garbage dump composed of windmills and you need my land to do it, mandated by law.

BLM owns no land, they must steal from me, they must make me work harder for an idea that is proven not to work.

Solar steam power will never produce the power needed to pump the water it uses.

Look up how much electricity is consumed pumping water.

Further, where do you get the water, last time I heard its desert because of the giant lakes of water that all flows magically to solar steam plants financed by my labor, my money, on my land, stolen by the government because you read the USA Today.

Still now one direct quote and reference to the article, this shows me you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[mdn2000]

If you have all that knowledge how come you pasted a link to an article in USA Today.

Because I don't have and didn't claim to have any idea what the potential for windpower generation off the coast of 26 states is. I am aware of the national wind survey maps and have studied them to appraise specific projects, but only 20-30 inland locations in the US are attractive for windfarms. Whereas even a cursory look at the USA wind survey maps reveals that nearly all offshore locations are attractive for wind farms.

All you need is 7 mph average wind speeds to qualify as a suitable location for wind generators. Almost the entire coast of the US features 7 mph average wind speeds.

Average speeds, average speed is not good enough, you need sustained speeds.

Still, how come you refuse to debate anything in your article.

The article states "assumptions and estimates". That is not scientific nor something you base national energy policy on.

Assumptions, that is all you got, assumptions, you even linked to an article that states exactly that, based on assumptions.

Assuming and stating your assumption proves there is no such thing as Green Energy or Renewable Energy.

 

[Old Rocks]

sorry chumpo but my own math and my own experience in solar and water current engineering had long ago convinced me that there is far more than enough energy latent in those media to power our consumption.

10 years ago the figure was batted around that solar energy available at the earth's surface was 10,000 times the value of our entire energy consumption.

To bad the cost of capturing all that Energy would be astronomical both in cash cost and the sheer size of space you would need to cover with solar panels eh.

We need to work on solar collection in Orbit IMO.

Not at all.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep4L18zOEYI[/ame]

 

[loosecannon]

I dont like the methodology where they quote the 4 times number, and then immidiately say that at a max 60% is even close to realistic.

The paper is just feel goody crap.

Only if you suffer from diverticulosis.

 

[loosecannon]

So you cannot debate anything in the study?

Neither can you, and who cares? You haven't represented yourself as even being coherent much less having a rational grasp of the facts.

In fact you embody the term strawman.

 

[loosecannon]

Average speeds, average speed is not good enough, you need sustained speeds.

No, average wind speeds of 7 mph are sufficient to make a site cost effective. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[loosecannon]

Assuming and stating your assumption proves there is no such thing as Green Energy or Renewable Energy.

I never said anything about green or renewable energy, you did.

You have an agenda and you don't know a damned thing about the topic.

Sucks to be you.

 

[Mr. H.]

Think of all the football fields these windmills could fill.

 

[mdn2000]

Average speeds, average speed is not good enough, you need sustained speeds.

No, average wind speeds of 7 mph are sufficient to make a site cost effective. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

If the site is cost effective why does the land half to be given to them, why do they need the massive subsidies, why does it take government mandated law.

You linked to an article to start this thread, that is as far as your intelligence goes, your challenging me to read a study you have not read and you refuse to read.