I was at a conference here in VB that involved a proposed offshore wind farm to be installed off the coast (around the North End area). They have a long way to go, there are a lot of restrictions in the water here: with the shipping lanes, fishing, environmental stuff, and most of all, the military allocated areas. Personally, I dont want it here. Im not really the best wave-ocean-landscape guru, but these wind turbines (and poles) are huge, theres gonna be a lot of offshore digging and trenching, and I dont want it to ruin what little waves we get out here. But that doesnt matter, I think they are at least 10+ years away, and I dont plan to be living here by then. Some speakers also talked about projects they had throughout the mid-atlantic. There is supposed to be a project involving 6 wind-turbines off the coast of Atlantic City, and there were proposed test projects in the MD and DE areas. Plus theres the Cape Wind debacle.
well, if nothing else, it sure beats coal. we also need to focus far more heavily on the DEMAND side. there's great potential for new development on that end and lots of people working to make it happen.
I am a proponent... I have never done any extensive research, but from what I can tell there is mostly positives and minimal negatives. I believe the hardest part about any of this new clean energy technology is making the technology cost effective. My guess it that they are able to make these offshore wind farms cost effective since it seems to becoming an increasing popular idea.
yeah, im not opposed to them at this point, but again, my opinion lacks extensive research. I know that they are planning them on the west coast as well, and with tons of wind activity sending us all that surf, I have to wonder why they wouldnt try and harness all that raw power...
And as far as it affecting the waves or surfing in VB, I was under the assumption that these turbines are installed WAYYYYY offshore. Not even within eye sight, so waves would probably difract around any installed piping, and if you think about it, if it is installed directly east of North End, it would take a perfectly direct, dead on, and I mean perfectly east swell to come right at it. Every other swell angle would clear it the way it normally would.
Maybe some one could shed light on where they install these things, but I thought it was 20+ miles out to sea. Anyone?
I think it's a great idea and we should really expand upon it. I mean look, we have all this energy floating around every day all over the place, wind. Instead of using free wind, we pump oil and mine coal out of the ground. It doesn't really make sense (other than for cars ect.) to use coal or oil for an energy source when we could just build a few of these. Yes, they may be expensive to initially build, but over the years they would pay themselves off. If each city had a wind farm, I am sure they would cut electric costs by A LOT. I am not sure how effective they would be off shore, with big storm swells/hurricanes, but I believe onshore they may be a bit safer.
According to the planners, the one in VB would be far enough offshore to be out of sight. They can't get any closer since military operations happen in a good chunk of square footage right offshore. Its expensive for sure right off the bat due to the capital cost, but the payoff is that prices will not fluctuate like oil.
Polls are being done to see if residents are willing to pay a couple of cents more per kilowatt-hour than normal, but not have the rates fluctuate as much as they do today.
One proposal I read indicated that you would see the turbines... they'd be about as big as your thumb at arm's length.
So it comes down to this... what do you want to look at, wind turbines or oil rigs? Because that will be our legacy.
The eye sore issue, in my opinion, is ridiculous... Every road in America has a telephone pole with electric wires going across - no one is complaining about that at this point... Anyway, I think in most cases, the farms are far enough off the coast and not within sight.