i'm all for them. you gotta start somewhere w/ this, so complaining that alternative sources of energy aren't immediately as cost-effective as traditional fossil fuel sources is, IMO, stupid. we have to look at the long-term w/ these, not just the short term.
as previously mentioned, the "eye sore" critique isn't valid for a couple reasons. one being that the wind farm wouldn't be visible except on the most clear of days...we're talking MAYBE 3-5 days per year here. even then, the turbines will appear to be about thumbnail sized.
i'd personally like to see each region of the country tap into the sustainable energy sources that it has at hand. we've got wind here in the mid-atlantic. great, let's fire up the wind turbines! arizona, new mexico, set up some solar arrays. hydro-electric along the mississippi...that sort of thing. i think that's going to be the only way to fully wean our society off the coal/natural gas/nuclear grid.
oh, & unlike what one poster said, any impact these installations have on wave power is going to be so minuscule as to be irrelevant.
Results 21 to 30 of 62
Thread: Offshore Windfarms: Good or Bad?
Jun 27, 2011, 01:00 PM #21
Jun 27, 2011, 01:33 PM #22Senior Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Monmouth County
Jun 27, 2011, 02:44 PM #23
Hey McLovin, heard about that conference and wanted to go....Off shore wind farms, good idea, its the farms inland that pose the most to interrupt our daily routine if they are constructed around airports and/or any radar facility i.e. NOAA.
I'm an RF guy and I know they can reak havoc on HF/VHF comms.
In short - I read a report out of the UK in where wind farm site data was collected over 2 years and the executive summary stated that the average energy output was around 24% of what was needed so it basically said it failed to keep up w/demand. This was for the entire grid, so I don't know how many wind turbines we're talking here. My point is as with new technology it needs to be studied for some time before definitive results.
But if you'd like your own turbine check out this link..
Jun 27, 2011, 02:54 PM #24
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Lewes, DE
I guess they will be moored to the bottom, like a buoy, and I would assume they would have the same influence on ocean swells as a buoy. The difference is, of course, that buoys are sparse, and one bouy isn't going to have much influence. If you have 200 of these structures all next to each other, then I could see swell refraction/refraction to be plausible.
Last edited by Swellinfo; Jun 27, 2011 at 02:59 PM.
Jun 27, 2011, 04:22 PM #25
there is an impressive wind farm set up a few miles off the coast of the netherlands, i could see them on the flight in to amsterdam. Hundreds of them!!! (saw what looked like a billion sharks too... crazy what you can see from above)
Jun 27, 2011, 05:02 PM #26
On a side note, to those here who insist on "knowing the facts(!)", please give google a shot. Most of this information is readily available, and it's really not that difficult to find.
Distance from land: Most articles I have read cite local groups protesting the "eyesore" argument. For right or wrong, there's a simple solution that involves moving the turbines further to sea. Luckily we have the continental shelf, so this is entirely do-able. Anyone who has worked at sea knows about the "line of sight" equation, which says that sqrt(height of eye, or top of turbine) * 1.34 = distance to horizon. This means a 100 ft turbine would be visible up to 13.4 miles away on the clearest of days. By visible, we mean you could see the very tippy top of the structure from there. Obviously, if you're on the roof of a big hotel, the distance is longer. This article says offshore turbines are huge, with the 5 MW structures up to 350 ft tall. This means they'd theoretically be visible at a distance of slightly less than 19 miles. That's pretty far, but I think most plans call for building at least 20 miles offshore because the wind patterns are more reliable. Definitely check out this link. It shows a lot of detail on proposed designs for offshore turbines and would likely answer many of your questions...
Jun 27, 2011, 05:11 PM #27
The only idea that is stupid (your words) is the one that wants to sprinkle an unproven concept across a nation without figuring out the potential. Personally, picking one area...maybe a small city...and establishing a windfarm that can support it makes a lot more sense than arbitrarily erecting these things with no defined goal.
If your your reply wasn't in response to my post, I digress.
Jun 27, 2011, 05:24 PM #28
Jun 27, 2011, 06:21 PM #29
I don't think one exists, so....just my 2 cents, but I before we start investing time, energy & hope in planting these things in different locations, I think it would be smart to see an actual experiment to see what kind of environmental improvement can actually be measured when a society converts or suppliments it's existing energy with windfarms. Not doing so sounds like an overly desperate move that could be real waste of time.
Jun 27, 2011, 08:20 PM #30
iT IS TRUE AND MORE
Last edited by bushwood; Jun 27, 2011 at 08:23 PM.