Atlantic Coast Wind Energy Potential Greater Than For Oil Or Gas: Oceana Study

nytimes.com:

The Atlantic coast has more energy to give via wind than it does from oil or gas, according to a study sponsored by Oceana, an environmental group.

Read the whole story: nytimes.com

Comments

[Caroline Webb]

09:18 PM on 10/01/2010

Denmark is cited very often for its wind power achievement. I looked at this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgUsun3hIT0 and I learned that the whole thing is pretty dodgy. The technology just cannot stand up economically. Danes are paying over the odds for this tech. While it might be a good idea to pay over the odds given climate change, I would much prefer to see small nuclear power plants providing electricity with virtually 100% reliability at a price that is affordable. The land footprint is compact and other species are not out-competed. Fuel supplies are plentiful given that all the waste can be re-used, something that too few people realize because they have not updated their knowledge. And meltdowns are physically impossible. Containment structures could not be pierced by any bomb/aircraft.

Wind is okay if it does not harm other species' habitat and if it can be made to work economically. Here is another story, also from Europe, which shows that small-scale wind can be functional and viable - although STILL there is a need for fossil fuel backup. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/science/earth/29fossil.html?th&emc=th

[heavyweather]

12:58 PM on 11/15/2010

You are a dreamer.
Where in the world is nuclear waste "reused" to a hundret percent?
Try to find out which problems arise in transmutation.
With so called gen4 reactors it`s not only about material science limitations but a cost issue.

Try to read scientific articles and stay away from science fiction blogs ;)

Its also not a good idea to "learn" from random Utube-Videos
Wikipedia says about the "institute for energy research":
"When the Institute released studies opposed to higher standards of fuel-efficiency in the nation's automotive fleets, the Los Angeles Times referred to it as "a Washington-based hotbed of global warming denial supported by oil and coal interests".[6]"

Check out this session and everything you write is contradicted by a CERN scientist.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3065676834452768739#

Nuclear was costly a bridge technology.

[stocksight]

08:42 PM on 10/01/2010

Coal extraction and the devastation of a pristine Alaska wilderness; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/akmuckraker/chuitna-and-the-curse-of_b_739033.html. "1 billion metric tons of low-quality sub-bituminous coal that will be strip mined, crushed, shipped to Asia". How many windmills would you have to build to match this with it's huge footprint? The real energy issue centers around energy density. This can only be matched with nuclear power which is 2-3 million times more energy dense than coal, not windmills and solar panels. There is actually more energy potential in the coal ash than was in the original coal because of the remaining uranium and thorium.

[stocksight]

02:14 PM on 10/01/2010

This is what our growing energy requirements is going to depend on: http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/twndbspt.aspx? This is just the last week. Then I see pie in the sky studies that propose linking dispersed and distant renewable sites together to balance the output without reference to cost or feasibility. It is almost impossible to get long distant transmission lines approved (NIMBY) through all the communities and cities along the way. of course the answer for the environmentalists is always the same, just burn gas!

Check out www.bravenewclimate.com to see clear and transparent analysis.

[aligatorhardt]

07:58 AM on 10/01/2010

Visit www.renewableenergyworld.com  to see the many good solutions now available. There is no need to wait any longer for clean energy.

[Egalitare]

09:55 AM on 09/30/2010

Wind + Solar + Low Head Hydro + efficiency and insulation = Permanent Energy Security

[mikefina]

07:48 PM on 09/29/2010

The problem isn't the Offshore Wind--it's the ONSHORE Wind--most notably that windy bloviation from the axis of NIMBY Kerry-Kennedy-Cronkite.

It took Cancer to get 2 of the 3 obstructionist DEMOCRATS out of the way of the Cape Wind project--which they objected to because it was distantly visible from their waterfront estates.

[Christopher Hull]

05:51 PM on 09/29/2010

And this is only ONE area of the country they are talking about. There are mountain ranges, buildings that could take advantage of the the draft effect. There are countless ways we could use wind power to create more energy than we could use. It would set our economy on fire!

[stocksight]

02:37 PM on 10/01/2010

It creates an environmental blight, uses enormous resources to build and provides little; http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/twndbspt.aspx. Does it really help us to install wind turbines and solar panels made in China?

[aligatorhardt]

03:04 PM on 09/29/2010

The old propaganda about renewable power is proven wrong again. Wind power is cheaper, cleaner and needs no fuel for many years of service. Modern grid improvements make managing variable outputs just a matter of measuring and switching as supply and demands fluctuate through out  the day and night. Let the shills for old systems fume, their days are numbered and good riddance to old rubbish.

[Kenz300]

01:42 PM on 09/29/2010

Renewable power is farther along in some countries than others.

Leading the way:

% of power

Iceland 29.8%

Denmark 28.6%

Portugal 21.6 %

Brazil 7.9%

U.S. 4.3% --- The US needs an energy policy that promotes sustainable alternative energy

[lightningbolt]

01:28 PM on 09/29/2010

Clean renewable energy is the ONLY type of energy that can power the entire world indefinitely, cleanly and profitably.  All other sources will run out and leave the planet in ruins.

[Kenz300]

01:21 PM on 09/29/2010

Clean energy production can provide jobs.

If every county had a garbage dump that was co-located with a cellulose
ethanol plant we could reduce our landfill problems and also provide cheap inputs
for an ethanol plant. Local jobs producing local energy. This could also go a long
way toward reducing our dependence on oil from countries that want to do us harm.

IF PEAK OIL advocates are correct and the demand for oil from China and India will soon
exceed the worlds ability to supply it the price of oil will go up for everyone.

The last time oil prices hit $147/barrel people were parking their trucks and SUV's and were
tripping over each other at the foreign car dealers.

Our economic security and our national security depend on our ability to generate
energy locally. Wind, solar, geothermal and biofuels all need our support.

America needs an energy policy. With the proper incentives in place we could go a
long way toward reducing our energy vulnerability and we can provide local jobs.

The party of NO seems to be more interested in contributions from the oil and coal industries than in moving toward clean alternative energy

[SecondTime]

09:01 AM on 09/29/2010

Voodoo economics at work. I note that the turbines in the picture look stationary, as they indeed very often are. I think if everyone on the Atlantic Coast exercised on a bicycle with a dynamo every day, there would a dandy amount of electricity generated. But would it be sensible? The lights would go out as soon as you stepped off the machine, and you would eat more, and of course all that time cycling was time you did not spend doing something else. Imagine what could be done with the labour and materials required for windfarms! We'd be better off just paying the wages as a direct gift, and agreeing not to have a single windmill built. Better for the birds too.

[Monk2001]

12:37 PM on 09/29/2010

Worst Post of the Day!

[aligatorhardt]

03:08 PM on 09/29/2010

When they have no basis then hollow denial is all they can say. Straw men and false comparisons are not very convincing in the face of proven value.

[ThinkCreeps]

04:33 PM on 09/29/2010

200 million people on bikes - given the average american that's about 150W each, so about 30GW. With total US output at ~500GW the bike's aren't going to do it.

Go and burn some coal, it might make you feel better.

[Playfaire]

07:34 AM on 09/29/2010

OK, trying to slip this past the moderator...

Why is the article about Google's bicycle monorail already closed to comments?? I just spent several minutes researching this, and now have nowhere to post, so here goes...

Ha! My town had a bicycle monorail 120 years ago, connecting the town to the "campus" of an enlightened businessman who ran a bicycle factory. Check out the Smithville Conservancy. http://www.smithvilleconservancy.com/BicycleRR.php

[I3edlam]

12:10 AM on 09/29/2010

It's awesome that we have more advocates for green energy. The more options we have and pursue the better.
Realistically though, in the mean time if we're going to power the grid right now without using hydrocarbons we need to turn to nuclear power until the greenest technology has advanced far enough to power larger sections of the grid.

[Steelheadangler]

08:00 PM on 09/28/2010

The problem with wind and solar is storage. Once that problem is solved it should be relatively easy to move towards a fossil fuel free economy. However we will still need on demand power supplies such as nuclear and hydro to bridge the gaps during peak demand.

[iceage7]

08:15 PM on 09/28/2010

Why cant we develop wind and solar storage..I mean batteries are storage why cant we do the same for big projects..have storage batteries that can store MW of unused energy and then release the energy on demand

[Steelheadangler]

08:22 PM on 09/28/2010

Current battery technology is not only cost prohibitive but also not very efficient. There is some work being conducted on capacitor technology that may hold the key.

[MunyaBuddya]

11:28 PM on 09/28/2010

You seem well educated on the subject. Would you say that this problem is really that much of a priority at this point? To me, and I am a layman, it would seem that the issue of greater importance at this time would be getting wind and solar up and running to begin with. Though I would like to be off of coal and oil, etc. as soon as possible, they do have the advantage of already handling most of the market. What I would like to see is some sort of priority given to renewable energy, as in "that's the stuff we use first". The dirty stuff will pick up the slack. As the market favors renewable energy, companies will be more likely to phase out oil and coal and gas production in favor of wind and solar. Over time there will be less need for the filthy energy sources and they will be phased out.

Would something like this be a feasible approach to changing over to renewable energy?

[maslin]

12:40 AM on 09/29/2010

Power generated but not used is at present probably wasted. We cannot control when the wind will blow or the sun will shine brightly, so lacking storage is a serious problem for wind and solar.

[aligatorhardt]

03:13 PM on 09/29/2010

Well stated, Munya. The best way to move foreword is to build clean and renewable and as they increase, phase out the old, dirty and dangerous methods. It is a process, will not be done in one day. There is plenty of time for old industries to place new investment in renewables, no one needs to act like their industry is being thrown out immediately.