Power East Coast via wind? Doable with 144,000 offshore turbines, study says

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Placing wind turbines off the East Coast could meet the entire demand for electricity from Florida to Maine, according to engineering experts at Stanford University.

It would require 144,000 offshore turbines standing 270 feet tall — not one of which exists since proposals have stalled due to controversy and costs. But the analysis shows it's doable and where the best locations are, says study co-author Mark Jacobson, a Stanford professor of civil and environmental engineering.

The team is not advocating for an "all wind" approach, saying it'd be foolish to put all of one's energy eggs in a single basket, but they do think it could reach up to 50 percent. Today the U.S. gets about 4 percent of its electricity from wind, but only via turbines on land.

The first large-scale offshore wind farm was proposed in 2001 off Massachusetts' Nantucket Island. But vocal opposition, including from political heavyweights like the Kennedy family, are seeking to block the $2.6 billion Cape Wind project, arguing the 130 massive turbines would mar views and endanger boat and air traffic.

"The question that I would first ask" critics, Jacobson told NBC News, "is would they rather have a coal or natural power gas plant in their neighborhood, which affects their health and that of their children as well as their quality of life and property values, or an innocuous turbine that they could barely see during those times when they were actually looking offshore."

For the analysis published in the journal Wind Energy, Jacobson's team created a computer model with 144,000 wind turbines that produce 5 megawatts of electricity each, similar to the turbines installed off Denmark and Germany. They then plugged in historical wind speed data to come up with estimates.

They also favored places with lower hurricane risk, essentially excluding any area south of Virginia.

The best locations are "way out of sight" from coastlines, Jacobson said, and the worst-case scenarios would be distant views of turbines about the size of one's extended thumb.

"The only place with significant opposition to offshore wind that I am aware of has been in Nantucket," he added. "There are dozens of other proposals in the U.S. that have not faced nearly the same extent of opposition."

Cape Wind does have federal approval, as well as support from major national environmental groups, and hopes to begin building turbines next year. But opposition groups like Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound are still battling the project in court and before federal agencies.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/15/13864179-power-east-coast-via-wind-doable-with-144000-offshore-turbines-study-says

[^_^ 5,021]

Can't we litter some far away ocean with these turbines and transport the energy to the US? That way the residents of Sri Lanka or Papua New Guinea get their views ruined while we get energy and our navy can still point to why we need them at reorg time.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Can't we litter some far away ocean with these turbines and transport the energy to the US? That way the residents of Sri Lanka or Papua New Guinea get their views ruined while we get energy and our navy can still point to why we need them at reorg time.

That's mighty colonial of you.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Can't we litter some far away ocean with these turbines and transport the energy to the US? That way the residents of Sri Lanka or Papua New Guinea get their views ruined while we get energy and our navy can still point to why we need them at reorg time./quote]

The views issue would be resolved if you put them 20 miles off shore.

[TBoneTX 45,312]

*** Thread moved from P&R to Off Topic -- not political or religious. ***