The New York Times today has a story about a possible wind farm in New York. Because of rising gas prices and the high cost of being dependent on the Middle East for energy, we clearly have to develop our own energy here at home. But today's article points out some of the reasons wind hasn't saved us yet, despite the American Wind Energy Association and other advocacy groups' insistence that it's the answer: Industry experts say offshore wind farms are rare in North America because of the difficulty of finding suitable locations, the cost of running transmission lines to shore, and the thicket of environmental regulations. Shipping lanes also need to be considered, as well as a shortage of equipment available to plant turbines in deep water. Nearby residents often object to offshore turbines because of aesthetic concerns, as was the case with the Jones Beach proposal, which also exceeded initial cost estimates.
Does anyone have wind turbines near them? What's it like? And what's wrong with nuclear power? Sure, there have been a couple of disasters, but assuming we can get on top of safety concerns, it seems like that has to be one of the better energys sources, right? MIT thinks so.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 2)
1. We have them near us. We're in a northern climate with fairly severe winters.
Apparently they can accumulate ice on the blades and have been know to throw what have been described as "sofa sized" chunks of ice a fairly good distance.
We have environmentalists who are concerned about birds getting butchered in the blades. I don't know if that's actually something that happens or not.
Obviously they're dependent on weather conditions.
They're also subject to the NIMBY mentality in a number of communities (including the one Teddy Kennedy inhabits in his off-duty hours, if I'm not mistaken).
bob at 11:28AM on Sep 24th 2008
2. I think wind farms are a pretty good idea. I read an article about a city on the eastern seaboard that put up a wind farm to get it's sewer treatment facility off the grid. Apprently, sewer treatment plants are one of the biggest user's of energy. All worked out well for them.
So I say go for it. All cities should be looking at their biggest user's of energy and if wind farms can solve the problem....do it.
Willet at 12:00PM on Sep 24th 2008
3. Regarding wind farms, Bob said: "They're also subject to the NIMBY mentality in a number of communities (including the one Teddy Kennedy inhabits in his off-duty hours, if I'm not mistaken)."
Are they building wind farms in strip clubs and taverns now?
David Pitlock at 12:25PM on Sep 24th 2008
4. We have 6 turbines on a ridge overlooking the city. We also have a steam plant(coal) and an old nuclear reactor. (Oak Ridge)
The French have an interesting nuclear plan. All of their facilities are supposedly built from the same plan. The rods, after use, are brought to facilities to be reenergized and reused after five years.
Its easy. Build them rather small. Build them all alike and reuse the fuel rods.
Steve Seivers at 12:40PM on Sep 24th 2008
5. i lived in wyoming for about 18 years and there are a lot of wind turbines there. i had never heard of any problems they were causing with birds, like what bob was talking about.
as far as the aesthetics, sometimes i'd barely notice them. but i suppose that's because i had gotten used to seeing them. at times they're actually kinda cool because the sun will hit the blades and they just remind me of giant pinwheels.
Richelle at 1:02PM on Sep 24th 2008
6. And what's wrong with nuclear power? Sure, there have been a couple of disasters, but assuming we can get on top of safety concerns, it seems like that has to be one of the better energys sources, right? MIT thinks so.
xxx
one of those disasters nearly wiped out the city of Detroit.
Nuclear can't be ruled out but there are brilliant alternatives emerging that most people don't know much about. It will require a retilting of the economic playing field away from supply side economics for small startup companies to get any chance to get going on a viral basis, but given the possibility this will come to pass, we may not need much or any nuclear. Unfortunately, like everything else, it's political.
Clif Kuplen at 1:10PM on Sep 24th 2008
7. "Regarding wind farms, Bob said: "They're also subject to the NIMBY mentality in a number of communities (including the one Teddy Kennedy inhabits in his off-duty hours, if I'm not mistaken)."
Are they building wind farms in strip clubs and taverns now?"
Ted Kennedy can barely walk these days. I doubt he's out in strip clubs and taverns.
Alyssa at 4:16PM on Sep 24th 2008
8. Thicket of enviromental regulations? As methods of generating power go, wind power has the absolute lowest environmental impact. The Dutch have been using windmills for hundreds of years to make flour by the ton and ships used wind to move all world's freight and people for at least as long. Being from from the availability of public utilities, farmer's usually provide their own electricity using windmills cobbled together from old car parts using technology that is now 100 years old! Anyone who thinks that with today's technology, wind power could not be a viable alternative are subscribing the big oil companies propaganda that there can never be 'free-energy'. Where would they be if people knew the truth?
Keith J. Mohrhoff at 1:26PM on Sep 24th 2008
9. This was something I thought about while at the beach this summer (Seaside, Florida). There is always at least a strong breeze at the coast; even the cutest little cottages have power lines and light poles beside them (and I'm sure there was a time when people protested them as ugly) - why not add a wind turbine and a solar power unit to each structure at the beach?
Sarah at 1:58PM on Sep 24th 2008
10. The MIT study isn't an endorsement of nuclear power; it was an evaluation of feasibility of nuclear power as a future option and the study concluded there are a number of issues which must be overcome:
"But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes."
rick at 6:13PM on Sep 24th 2008
11. John McCain says we should use, "All of the above." That includes both wind power and atomic energy.
Bob at 7:32PM on Sep 24th 2008
12. Wind power is a really bad idea at my house....of course, I eat a lot of beans.
What would be the problem? Meltdown? sailing might get really expensive? The wind might not renew itself if we harness too much? Or maybe a big ole storm would cause a massive power surge, wiping out the grid?
I just don't see it !
mac at 8:11PM on Sep 24th 2008
13. The energy of the future is undersea methane hydrates, in which molecules of methane (the main component of natural gas) are trapped inside tiny cages of ice. The result is an icelike substance that contains up to 15 percent methane by volume. British Petroleum and Texas A&M estimate world underwater reserves at 35 to 177 quadrillion cubic feet. We just have to figure out how to get it out of the ocean depths. And you won't need big refineries (another bottlneck) to make it usable. But as you can see by who is doing the research, they have little incentive to find cheaper alternatives to oil.
Schmeer at 9:48PM on Sep 24th 2008
14. Yes we have over 3,000 of the wind machine now.
And alot more to come. However the cost to move
the energy to Los Angeles, will cost our people
dearly, because of the power lines have to be built
which means, many people will lose houses, and
much needed farm land. So I do not know just how
much power 3,000 wind machine will produce? And
is it worth taking peoples houses? The cost will
be pretty high for this I would believe. I sure
hope that someone knows just what they are doing
cause it is very experince and California is
15 million in debt at this point. Lets find more
oil guys and we should have a soft landing if all
this wind machine does not produce enough power for
over 300 Million people with apartments and homes
and farms. I am not sure we can do this for many
many years. When I was a kid we did not have
electric power until I was about 9 years old. It
told over 10 years to get to farmer land to have
lines, town people had it 20 years before we got it.
So you can see it maybe a very long long time.
jc at 11:33PM on Sep 24th 2008
15. Clif Kuplen : I consider myself to be reasonably well informed. I have no memory of a nuclear incident that almost wiped out Detroit. Could you please furnish more information.
longwalker at 7:10AM on Sep 25th 2008