11 replies to this topic

[E3 wise]

By Joseph Baker on February 3, 2012

   Reprinted with Permission EnergyBoom.com- Wind Section

  U.S. Department of Interior announced its "Smart from the Start" offshore wind energy initiative has cleared an environmental review and is moving forward.

  Launched in November 2011, Smart from the Start is a coordinated federal and state initiative to speed the sitting, leasing and construction of new offshore wind projects. In order to simplify the leasing process, the initiative had to first, identify which areas off the Atlantic Coast are "Wind Energy Areas" and second, to confirm that developing wind in those areas is not going to harm either the environment or the economics of the local communities.

  On Thursday, the DOI said its Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's (BOEM) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) assessment found issuing leases in the designated Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the mid-Atlantic Coast would cause no "significant environmental and socioeconomic impacts."

  With the assessment in hand BOEM published Calls For Information and Nominations for Maryland and Virginia to solicit lease nominations and also rolled out a "first-of-its-kind lease form that will help streamline the issuance of renewable energy leases on the OCS."

  This news marks significant strides towards the development of offshore wind in the United States. As the Obama Administration has identified -- streaming the process and minimizing the red-tape is a very important step to realizing quicker implementation of renewable energy generation.

  The Smart from the Start initiative could help companies like Cape Wind Associates avoid an extremely lengthy permitting process. In April 2011, ten years after submitting a proposal to build an offshore wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, Cape Wind was granted the final approval to begin construction by BOEM.

  The initiative may also spur interest not only from developers of offshore wind but also investors. This could result in better fates then the one suffered by offshore wind developer Bluewater Wind whose parent company, NRG Energy Inc., halted operations after the Bluewater failed to find investment partners for its proposed Mid-Atlantic Wind Park off the coast Delaware.

Secretary Salazar says his Department is moving "full-steam" ahead so the U.S. can tap the incredible potential that offshore wind has to offer.

Shared by E3Wise for informational and Educational purposes only.  All statements are the responsibility of the author.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

The lessons we can learn from Europe about off shore wind generation.

A sampling-
"Compared to the U.S. where we have no turbines in the water, in Europe offshore wind is serious business.
Total installed capacity of offshore wind power from 55 wind farms (1,662 turbines) in ten European countries
by the end 2012 was 4,995 MW megawatts, the combined capacity of several nuclear plants.

The projects are expensive, many over $1 billion, so a mix of public and private capital is needed.
In contrast, in the U.S., no government, federal or state, has yet committed to a public debt package for offshore wind projects."

The entire article here-
http://www.huffingto...tm_hp_ref=green

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 30 September 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

The lessons we can learn from Europe about off shore wind generation.

A significant difference is that Europe, and particularly UK, is close to the coast. I read once that the nowhere in UK is more than about 70 miles from the sea. Compared to say, the mid west, the geography is quite different.

Shortpoet-GTD, on 30 September 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

A sampling-
"Compared to the U.S. where we have no turbines in the water, in Europe offshore wind is serious business. Total installed capacity of offshore wind power from 55 wind farms (1,662 turbines) in ten European countries by the end 2012 was 4,995 MW megawatts, the combined capacity of several nuclear plants.

I think there is sometimes a misunderstanding of what is meant by installed capacity. The British Wind Energy Association.(BWEA) gives a capacity factor of about 30% for onshore and about 40% for offshore. So the 5GW would be, on average, about 2GW, about that of the French to UK HVDC connector. But still certainly a decent amount. Comparing it to several nuclear plants is just a tad disingenuous.

By way of context Drax, a coal fired station in UK, just one of the ten European countries considered, has a capacity of about 4GW that can all be on line on demand, produces about 7% of UK electrical energy.

Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I have no commercial interests in nuclear, coal, hydro, gas or the stuff that gets shunted over from France from it's nuclear generation. I'd prefer that we could get by with entirely renewable.

You may not be happy with this post but I'm just a pragmatic old phaart trying to give a bit of perspective and add some information when I can

If you don't agree with any point I've made, just say so. I'm more than happy to engage in polite and constructive discussion. Your propensity to deduct rep with no declared supporting basis for doing so is not really conducive to such discourse.  Adding your own thoughts, facts, observations might be a way to move the topic on.

Again, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not at all miffed by the loss of rep. But, just once again, a little disappointed in your manner of doing so. If you don't care for what I posted just say so. Be candid, up front, blunt to the point of rudeness if you think that's what's justified and that what it takes to make your point. Much healthier for the forum than not making a point at all if you want to disagree.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

The rep represents my tiredness of your negativity on so many posts, not just mine but in general. Next time pm
me your personal discussion.

And to your first point above-we have coasts in America-East and West-so no lack there.
Your posts just come across as argumentative and it's getting old.

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 01 October 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

The rep represents my tiredness of your negativity on so many posts, not just mine but in general. Next time pm
me your personal discussion.

It wasn't a personal discussion.
Just objectivity. I don't greatly care for slanting information to support a particular POV.
If you dispute any facts I have posted, please feel free to do so and we can move the discussion on.
Wouldn't that be the mature approach?

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 01 October 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

And to your first point above-we have coasts in America-East and West-so no lack there.

And, on this, you seem to have quite missed the point.
How far is Madison, Wisconsin from an ocean?

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Besoeker, on 01 October 2013 - 06:54 PM, said:

And, on this, you seem to have quite missed the point.
How far is Madison, Wisconsin from an ocean?

Whatever.

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 02 October 2013 - 04:41 AM, said:

Whatever.

You offhandedly dismiss it,  but it is a rather important consideration when it comes to off-shore wind power.
If you think otherwise, please say so and why.
I won't take as negativity on your part.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Besoeker, on 03 October 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

You offhandedly dismiss it,  but it is a rather important consideration when it comes to off-shore wind power.
If you think otherwise, please say so and why.
I won't take as negativity on your part.

You argue that the USA is not viable for off shore wind because we don't have enough coastline. I disagree. You
disagree with me-so I said whatever.
Your British and therefore think the UK is best. That's fine.
I just don't want to
argue
over every single post.

[eds]

In the US, most of the population is on the east coast and west coast, and
. . . so there is a large demand for energy there,
. . . that could benefit from offshore wind farms.
In the Northeast,
. . . there are some very wealthy and politically powerful people,
. . . who have blocked all attempts to build offshore wind turbines,
. . . for many years.
We call them NIBY's (Not In My Back Yard)

This has caused a lot of discussion,
. . . about why other countries find offshore wind farms,
. . . not to be a problem, but the US does?
The middle of the US is less populated and
. . . has a higher per capita access to renewable energy,
. . . of both solar and wind.

Coastline  Map

Attached Files

•  against.jpeg   15.37K   0 downloads

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 03 October 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

You argue that the USA is not viable for off shore wind because we don't have enough coastline. I disagree. You disagree with me-so I said whatever.

I don't mind that you disagree with what I posted.
But that's not at all what I posted.

Quote

A significant difference is that Europe, and particularly UK, is close to the coast. I read once that the nowhere in UK is more than about 70 miles from the sea. Compared to say, the mid west, the geography is quite different

I was simply drawing a comparison between the geography of the British Isles with its relative proximity to sea and the mid-west which is quite distant from any coasts. That difference in distance is significant in the viability of bringing off-shore wind power to the location.. I picked Madison because I've been there a few times...:).

I made no comment about the adequacy or otherwise of US coastlines. So, although you asserted that I had, I didn't argue that point.

But, of course, I am aware that the US has coastlines.
The maritime states obviously have a proximity to oceans and the possibility citing off-shore there clearly exists. I don't know about the wind patterns so I don't where the best locations would be.
For the UK, the prevailing wind is from the west but most off-shore installations are in the North Sea which is to the east of the island. I've had occasion to go out there to oil rigs (when it had an oil industry) and the winds can be be pretty ferocious.

Shortpoet-GTD, on 03 October 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

Your British and therefore think the UK is best. That's fine.

I've travelled a fair bit and different countries have their good and bad points. And people. UK included.

How do you put them in order of merit?
Per capita use of energy? Green contribution? GDP? Crime, health, work place accidents.....dunno.

Best of all from my travels.......
I'm married to an American..............:)

[Besoeker]

eds, on 03 October 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

In the US, most of the population is on the east coast and west coast, and
. . . so there is a large demand for energy there,
. . . that could benefit from offshore wind farms.
In the Northeast,
. . . there are some very wealthy and politically powerful people,
. . . who have blocked all attempts to build offshore wind turbines,
. . . for many years.
We call them NIBY's (Not In My Back Yard)

This has caused a lot of discussion,
. . . about why other countries find offshore wind farms,
. . . not to be a problem, but the US does?
The middle of the US is less populated and
. . . has a higher per capita access to renewable energy,
. . . of both solar and wind.

Coastline  Map

Interesting post.
I take your points about coastal areas and the middle areas.

Here, in UK, opinion about wind turbines, land or sea, is polarised. My wife thinks they look majestic and I don't disagree. Others see them as monstrosities and a blight on the landscape.

We have walked about among them in the Scottish borders. And ,one time, we stopped at a rest area  on a French motorway - not to be recommended but that's another story! . It was on fairly high ground and a somewhat foggy day. Or low cloud.
We heard the slow woosh, woosh, woosh. Initially we couldn't  quite where it was coming from. Right above us, towering into the fog was the wind turbine built on the site of the rest area. We thought it a peaceful, calming, noise.

Good because Mrs B was on her way to see a back specialist and was nervous about the trip.