Offshore Wind Creeping Towards Reality on the East Coast

Meg Cichon, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
January 15, 2013 | 41 Comments

As the Northeastern coastline is still busy cleaning up after damages from Hurricane Sandy months after its landfall, offshore wind proponents are moving ahead with plans that they hope will help mitigate future storm impacts.

In New Jersey, one of the hardest-hit areas from Sandy, plans are moving forward to construct a 189-mile portion of the planned offshore wind transmission backbone from Jersey City to Atlantic City. This section is phase one of the proposed Atlantic Wind Connection undersea transmission line project, intended to stretch from Virginia to New York City, which has big-name support from Google, Good Energies, and more.

According to the Atlantic Wind Connection, led by Trans-Elect, the New Jersey line will cost an estimated $1.3 billion and begin construction in 2016. Once complete in 2019, it is expected to carry around 3,000 MW of electricity to the coastline, sourcing from prime areas identified by the Obama administration.

Many involved in the project are confident that the transmission line will help reduce storm impacts by sourcing offshore energy during blackouts to hospitals and emergency response stations, but some are more skeptical. Todd Schneider, a spokesperson for Jersey Power and Light, told the New York Times that even though power could be sourced from offshore wind during or after a major storm, it may not be able to reach facilities in need due to onshore transmission line disruption – the utility lost 55 of its 75 transmission lines during Hurricane Sandy.

The economic benefits, however, could prove to be substantial. The project has the potential to create more than 20,000 jobs and push $9 billion in the New Jersey economy and $2.2 billion in local tax revenue, according to an IHS Global Insight study. The line is also expected to bolster renewable growth in the state, which has mandated that 22.5 percent of its electricity be sourced from renewables by 2021.

“The NJ Energy Link can make the grid more reliable and lower the cost of energy in New Jersey by delivering both offshore wind and conventional electricity to where it is needed and when it is needed along the coast, whether that be southern, central or northern New Jersey,” said Robert Mitchell, CEO of the Atlantic Wind Connection, in a release.

Further up and down the Atlantic coast, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is holding seminars to discuss the upcoming offshore wind leasing auctions. Scheduled in Narragansett, Rhode Island and Richmond, Virginia, the seminars will educate potential bidders on the Smart from the Start-influenced auction process, which is scheduled later this year. Smart from the Start was established by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar in 2010 to speed and facilitate the adoption of offshore wind. Documentation on the leasing process can be found here.

BOEM announced the availability of two proposed leasing areas – a 164,750-acre plot off the coast of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and an 112,800-acre area off the coast of Virginia. The Mass./R.I. plot will be auctioned off in two leases – the North and South Zone – and are expected to support up to 2,000 MW of win generation combined. The Virginia plot is expected to produce similar numbers.

Lead image: Offshore wind via Shutterstock

41 Comments

Dr. A. Cannara
January 30, 2013

Right, Genie. There are environmentalists who take responsibility to use science & engineering to evaluate power sources honestly, and then there are others, either too lazy to do that, or more interested in their own financial 'environment'.

Marie Burton
January 30, 2013

How can anyone call turbines "green" when they are composed of materials that emit CO2 emissions? Why is Ontario calling for a moratorium? Why are 1000's of birds and bats being killed in Wales and the USA some being endangered species not to mention sea life? Why are we paying more for electricity when RECs are paid for by consumers and the fact that turbines need backup by coal or gas 24/7. There are better forms of renewables that do not require backup. You may not agree with James Delingpole's book "Killing The Earth To Save It" but he does ask questions which in some cases make sense.

Dr. A. Cannara
January 30, 2013

Gald you read the Forbes pieces, Gary, which, of course, come from other factual sources, like the ones put up here re the best Danish wind farms being teeny in net power output.

Glad you have an electric bike. If you read what I've said time & again, local solar, EVs, plus efficient storage, plus nuclear are the most effective, long-lasting and safest ways to ensure our descendents' futures.

Folks like Hansen, Sachs, Helm, etc. all realize we must think carefully about choices, for the long term, which is why they include nuclear power. We are actually having an EDF meeting next week to shape the group's nuclear policy -- something some other groups fail to do, including my own Sierra Club. Fortunately, many more environmentalists each day are grasping the key parameters of safety and power density. You might even watch Pandora's Promise, just shown at Sundance, when it hits your neighborhood.

Gary Richardson
January 30, 2013

@DrAlex
I read your Forbes links,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/01/11/like-weve-been-saying-radiation-is-not-a-big-deal/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

So instead of what I said in comment 28.
If you are truly trusting of what is posted there then I sincerely (I do mean it) live the example if you don't already. And let people know about it.

I believe in electrical transport and own a pedal assist electric bicycle for commuting purposes. If someone didn't know that I did and thought it was crazy to do so and suggest that I do it then I'd let them know I am. I would not gloat over their lack of trust in it and make the remarks you have done with seeming pleasure.

That makes you seem more untrustworthy as a result of how you debate in these articles. But mind you, the arguements made here and on that Apple Delves Deeper into Renewable Energy reminds me of how Big Tobacco would buy off scientists to create falsified reports stating tobacco is harmless.

Dr. A. Cannara
January 29, 2013

"It souldn't be about Engineers, they are just as prone to dumbness as anyone else!" -- especially in spellink, eh Garry?
;]
You tell you doctor or lawyer they're "as prone to dumbness as anyone else"?

Ever go to college & graduate, Gary?
;]
This is fun!

Gary Richardson
January 29, 2013

Nevermind Anonymous,
It souldn't be about Engineers, they are just as prone to dumbness as anyone else!

Dr. A. Cannara
January 29, 2013

Ahh, we have Anonymous sourcing info -- trustworthy folks hide names? Hmmmm.

Yes, the N. Anna shut down (scrammed is cute but flowery) as it does every time fuel needs attention. Yes, grid was gone for a while -- a nuclear problem? Yes, the diesels, 8 all worked, one was turned of for a while for repairs, and there never was anything but far more emergency power available than needed.

Now Gary's back hollering: "ENGINEERS". Yes Gary, TEPCO and NISA management and the Japanese govt. made decisions about what happened every day from before the Fukushima plant was built to the sad time it failed. Engineers advise. Bosses decide. You ever have a job, Gary? So keep on pumping out fluff!
;]
Maybe you'd both like to see some nukes have problems & kill people? Looks like you'll have a long wait -- windmills in Calif. are way ahead of our nukes in death toll.

Gary Richardson
January 29, 2013

@Anonymous,
Unfortunately, yes, we are still talking about nuclear.
However, I need to find the article I read about how ENGINEERS said Fukushima was safe to resume after many incidents.

Dr. A. Cannara
January 28, 2013

Gary, remember the big NE quake a year or so ago? Remember no nukes were damaged, though other structures were. Even the N. Anna nuke only 11 miles from the epicenter was undamaged.

Why? Structures that are cylindrical or spherical have exceptional strength and act as units, whether the ground goes up & down or sideways. That's how nuclear plants are made -- reinforced concrete cylinders or spheres. Engineers aren't as dumb as you seem to wish.

We have faults all over here in CA. The San Andreas is 2 miles from me. Even a proper wooden structure is very strong and resilient in a major quake. So, a steel-reinforced ball, cylinder or even box may move with the land, but it won't bust.

Engineers aren't as dumb as you seem to wish. You should find the video tour of Indian Point, to get an idea of how seriously its staff takes what they do and how competent they are.

craig nyman
January 28, 2013

Dr. A
If you would stop to think, How about Indian Point N Y? This plant built on two faults. Don't tell me it will survive during an event.

Dr. A. Cannara
January 27, 2013

Gary,m actually, if you study Fukushima and the history of TEPCO, you'd actually know some facts. Like, for instance, that GE engineers explained how to design the plant safely re cooling & emergency power, but were overruled by TEPCO execs. And, the regulator, NISA, did nothing because of its direct industry ties,

So yes, Fukushima is an example of what happens when things are not designed properly. So is the entire Sendai coastal region, where the Japanese govt. knowingly ignored evidence of the 869ad tsunami, as big as 2011, and allowed homes & factories to be built where Japanese ancestors left carved stone tablets saying: "Don't build here." (Osnos, 17 Oct 2011 New Yorker)

Gary Richardson
January 27, 2013

I'm sure the managers of the Fukushima Plant said the same thing to those who were concerned of the safety of the plant before the disaster struck. ;]

Dr. A. Cannara
January 27, 2013

Gary, you enjoy continual demonstrations that you know little physics and nothing about nuclear power. Ok, so be it.
;]
The adults in the world will handle the issues you strive to retain ignorance of.

Gary Richardson
January 26, 2013

@ comment #25
What a load of crap!
And the vain comment at 27 too.

Seriously, go take all that low level (harmless) radioactive waste, recycle/reuse it into living quarters for you and any of your family you have brainwashed.

I'm sure there is alot of that waste that can be ground up into aggregate (please live down wind from it while they mill it too) and made into new concrete (low CO2). And while you are at it, recycle the metals too (don't forget to carbon capture the effluent for re-use as well).
Stick your money where your mouth is and live by example because your credentials don't mean anything when it comes to the uncertainty of nuclear.

If you and all your buddies do this, then maybe (over time) I will become a believer. Otherwise, it is all hot air to me.

Dr. A. Cannara
January 24, 2013

Craig, thanks for the recognition, but being an electrical engineer, I never would have said "too cheap to meter", even for the hot air & straw men available here.
;]

craig nyman
January 24, 2013

Dr. A
You have been around for a while, remember "too cheap to meter". That was a great moment. Nuclear costs about $8000/kw h.

Dr. A. Cannara
January 23, 2013

Lauryn, the point is twofold, radiation is natural and so below severe levels, all organisms handle its damage, just as cells handle damage from oxidants from foods we eat and air we breathe. So it's a matter of what's serious for radiation from any waste. As I said, we all have radioactive isotopes naturally within us for life. This is not news to Nature.

If you want to see what we all are allowed to get from the combustion industry, have a gander...

www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf30.html

Now that's a subsidy! The natural radiation around the world is shown at the end.

So, if a reactor technology produces a trashcan of radioactive waste after 3 decades of powering a city, is that hard to store safely? Most isotopes decay by emitting electrons, positrons or alpha particles (Helium) none of which can penetrate paper. Some decays emit gamma & X rays. For that reason, burying the trashcan under a few feet of soil is fine. So if we had 200 such reactors supplying baseload to the US, we;d have 7 trashcans to bury each year.

Compared with existing ash dumps from cioal, mining waste from materials like rare earths used in your iPhone, or windmill, or new car, the waste from advanced nuclear stations is peanuts. And, unlike chemical wastes, PCBs, Mercury, pharmaceuticals, plastics, etc., radioactive waste is always going away, forever.

Lauryn S
January 23, 2013

And after these decades, are the "leftovers" radiation free? No, so we still have to have something to do with them. As I said, it's a combination of factors for me that leads me to find nuclear unsuitable, even if the French model for nuclear energy is far more efficient than the current U.S. examples.

You did, though, seem to state that we would be able to take care of our energy needs solely with solar, eliminating the need for wind power, the actual issue of this article. If this is so, why would we even have a need for nuclear?

Dr. A. Cannara
January 23, 2013

Lauryn, first: "We simply don't have the technology to do this, and it seems doubtful that we will any time soon." -- is false, even for our present 1946-patent LWRs, as the French have demonstrated for decades. The French have even been taking spent fuel from Japan and Euro countries to process for new fuel, even the Plutonium produced in LWRs. You didn't know this?

The French now have about 100 tons of Plutonium in storage, which fits in about 100 boxes big enough to hold a sombrero -- not a big storage room. And, it's 3 mixed-up isotopes can all yield more fission energy in the right reactor.

The amount of actual "waste" from properly-run LWRs is very manageable, because it has two components: light, fission products that decay quickly, & small amounts of elements heavier than Plutonium, that last a very long time, but are not very radioactive & can also be fissioned for power in the right reactors.

One thing that our media fails to explain is that radioactive materials are radioactive because they are disappearing into non-radioactive daughter elements. The faster they do this decay, the more radioactive they are. The longer they take to decay, the less radioactive they are. We each have radioactive Potassium throughout our bodies, because Potassium is essential to our systems & regulated by our kidneys. The radioacti8ve Potassium40 isotope has a 1.2 billion year half life, so is not very radioactive, but nonetheless zaps our innards with 4400 particles or gamma rays every second for life -- Nature is not ignorant of or vulnerable to modest radiation from long-lived isotopes.

Advanced nuclear systems do 3 things: a) keep all the fission products possible inside the reactor so their heat adds to output power, b) choose a fuel cycle that minimizes production of heavy, slowly decaying elements, & c) use liquid fuel that can stay inside the reactor for decades, eliminating spent fuel.
http://tinyurl.com/7o6cm3u

Lauryn S
January 23, 2013

I completely agree that solar should be a main focus, and that at least much of our energy needs would be fulfilled.

However, until we have an adequate way to make nuclear waste safe, I cannot support nuclear. We simply don't have the technology to do this, and it seems doubtful that we will any time soon. This, combined with even a very small risk of huge harm, precludes my support, in addition to other issues like the prohibitive cost. You are free to disagree; but until we have a truly safe disposal/conversion/breakdown method, I cannot support it.

Back to solar and wind, certainly many places such as most parts of California appear to have enough locations for solar to fill most energy needs; however, many other parts of the country and world don't necessarily, at least not year-round. I feel that wind is necessary to supplement solar in these areas, even if only half the year. If we can create energy systems even in less-sunny areas based solely on solar, then of course I would be happy to support this as well.

Dr. A. Cannara
January 22, 2013

Good questions, Craig...

1) Costs of "wastes" -- the reactors we've used for decades are 1946-patent, solid-fuel machines. They only use about 3/4 of their original fuel load because their solid fuel pellets become inefficient and even cracked after about 5 years. So, when 'spent' fuel is removed from a reactor, it still has 1/4 the expensive fuel we put in originally, plus an equal amount of new Plutonium fuel, bred from the 95% of the original fuel -- U238 isotope. So, "waste" fuel is not "waste". It's valuable, as the French have demonstrated for decades.

2) the Solid-fuel choice was made for military and bureaucratic reasons in the '50s, partly because of the Plutonium it can make & partly because physicists just don't like chemists. So, a Nobel chemist of ours proposed better reactors using liquid fuel, which avoids the waste production & allows complete fuel consumption. His work was turned into the Molten--Salt Reactor (MSR) by our ORNL in the '60s. That success didn't make bomb material for the Cold War & didn't meet some physicists' political needs, so it was shelved. DoE is now helping the Chinese complete MSRs to production. Oops, more T-bills to China.

3) Subsidies -- each reactor built must pay up front for its decommissioning per kW installed. No other systems have that. The Price-Anderson Act helps insurance needs, but the insurance is indeed three. The amount of concrete & steel used to make a standard nuke plant is smaller than that needed to build an equivalent, average-power wind 'farm'. And, wind is not bonded for de-commissioning, nor is it ascribed costs for grid storage, variability compensation, etc. Grid "flexibility" is expensive & ignored by wind projects, without assigned cost.

4) Local solar (DG) is superior to wind in all respects, especially in terms of efficiency, life, power density and grid-interface reliability. This is why we have so much going on around the world with local solar.

craig nyman
January 22, 2013

Dr. Alex
I understand your liking nuclear, but lets get real on the costs issue. What does it cost to isolate the waste products for longer than when humans began to write. The massive subsidies that nuclear hides behind are amazing. And you are saying the cancer deaths are acceptable.

Dr. A. Cannara
January 20, 2013

Lauren, the solution I propose is along the lines of our Calif. "million solar homes" initiative. There's more human structure on earth than needed to generate full peak daytime electricity demand from even existing, 20% efficient solar PV. Add in hot water too.

So, there's no need for wind, which, unlike local solar, takes up massive amounts of land and resources of about 2000 tons per average MW installed, and which now is seen to have far shorter lifetime, especially in offshore environments. Then too are the environmental deficits of wind re species and collisions.

So, with local solar (DG), EVs and efficient storage, we need advanced nuclear to only about double our current capacity and we are good for thousands of years.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but Thorium is not the key, except to minimizing wastes.

The real key is liquid-salt reactors, like that operated in TN in the 1960s. That design was chosen for its natural safety and no need for power or if shutdown is necessary. In fact, the reactor in TN was shut down in 1969 by simply removing power from a cooling fan, all the liquid salt ran down into underground tanks for safekeeping. Those tanks and their salt are still there, 43 years later.

You can imagine how safe Fukushima would be today, if those reactor designs had been deployed.

So the molten salt reactor is not only naturally safe, it can be used to consume existing solid-fuel wastes, of which we have about 100 years of power for the US sitting round.

Thorium would be the future, when we're done consuming most of the LWR fuel waste we now have. So, from then on, waste would become measured in pounds per reactor per decade, because we want all the radioactive materials in a reactor to stay there until they give up their heat as well as their fission energy. Liquid fuel allows us to achieve all this.

Gary Richardson
January 20, 2013

I'd rather assume the worst might happen and take precautions based on that. Therefore, I'd look into thorium reactors for some baseload applications as long as a spill can be cleaned up and the contaminated area can become habitable. Otherwise, Offshore wind does make sense for utilizing an untapped source and options can be made to make transporting shipping containerships a cleaner endeavour.

Dr. A. Cannara
January 17, 2013

Lauryn, maybe my grump was because Apple has long known better and my a) - c) has often been repeated here.

Now to "weighing the risks of nuclear power". We lost 2 Californians to wind last year just in one site. Our 4 reactors killed/injured how many in decades? -- 0.

Ever seen how windmills are erected or maintained? Especially now that we known stats showing wind generators don't last anywhere near the 25 years proponents have advertized, continual maintenance is continual emissions and continual exposure of workers to danger. Perhaps we can forget the species damages, but that too looms as very expensive in croplands, as reported oin AAAS Science last spring.

Worldwide, the UN has reevaluated even Chernobyl's effects to be far less than previous estimates, partly because radiation standards were have been wrongly set since 1946...

www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/01/11/like-weve-been-saying-radiation-is-not-a-big-deal/
http://pandoraspromise.com/

And some enviro folks have the right idea...
http://thoriumforum.com/pro-nukes-environmental-movement#comment-261

Nuke safety...
http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l (PSI ENSAD)
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Nuke cost...
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-human-cost-of-energy
http://theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/103871/talking-turkey-nuclear-costs
http://tinyurl.com/3tjvc9q

ANONYMOUS
January 17, 2013

Not content with ruining the land now we are to ruin the oceans. Why can't we use solar, waste to energy, or some other form of renewables. People do not seem to realise there are thousands of turbines rusting away in Hawaii and Caliifornia because they are too expensive to remove and you cannot reuse or recycle them. The consumer pays for RECs and for 24/7 backup from coal or gas. See how much it has cost the UK and Scottish govts. to turn them off during times of no wind or too much wind. The wind industry has done very little to improve turbines in 30 years. These are not windmills but industrial turbines and should be treated as industrial complexes not farms

Lauryn S
January 17, 2013

Dr. Alex, I completely agree with at least A & B. Your original comment just seemed entirely unhelpful and grumpy rather than based in alternative suggestions like your follow-up comment is now.

Any form of energy conversion and transmission has some loss of energy; I haven't actually seen numbers showing that it is much greater for wind power, so numbers would be interesting. Certainly "wind farms" have to be sited away from busy maritime locations, and I haven't seen indication that any such accidents were caused by anything other than human error on the ships, so other information would be interesting to see as well.

IMO, when weighing the risks of nuclear power in worst-case scenarious, even if unlikely, the risks are too great for me to support it. I would far prefer and hope to see us concentrate on solar and energy efficiency like you mentioned, as well as some wind power, of course with detailed environmental impact statements and care in siting.

Dr. A. Cannara
January 17, 2013

Lauryn, sure, same thing I've repeated here many times...

a) Local solar PV/Hot-water -- more than 2% of land is covered by human structure. More peak daytime power is available via existing, 20% efficient solar PV than we need. This is the reason for our Calif. "million solar homes" initiative & various municipal PV projects now in place or planned. A simple example of a church meeting more than its needs...
http://tinyurl.com/3znad4b

b) EVs and efficient storage -- EVs with regenerative braking not only are ~90% efficient in energy use, they bring back home every day about 15% of the energy they were originally charged with. That goes directly to grid load reduction. Storage is on the way in many forms, stationary & mobile.

c) Advanced nuclear power -- a handful of fissile Uranium runs a large city for an hour, as opposed to hundreds of tons of coal/oil/gas, & does it with no emissions. Even present nuclear does that & has a lower CO2 burden in construction than does an equivalent wind 'farm', & on ~1/100 the land.

Engineers have long warned that subsidized 'farm' power sources (wind/wave/solar) are wasteful of more than just resources, land & emissions, but of continual power loss in transmission/ conversion. It's even worse for offshore wind, which threatens shipping as well -- the Coast Guard estimates that Cape Wind will cause 1.23 maritime collisions per year (love that precision). Thought a cruise ship going aground in Italy was expensive?

The point of science & environmental protection is simple -- power density. The power density of nuclear is ~500,000 times that of combustion fuels & the power density of combustion fuels is orders of magnitude higher than wind's pitiful power density. So, apart from killing species, consuming lands, making noise, not lasting as long as advertized, etc., wind is simply a way for a few to make $ off subsidies from the many -- like our banks on steroids.
;]

Lauryn S
January 17, 2013

Dr. Alex, do you have any better suggestions for meeting our energy needs without destroying our land and water with dirty drilling for fossil fuels, and/or specific issues with these offshore projects to be discussed and possibly addressed, rather than your entirely vague, unexplained, and unhelpful comment?

Dr. A. Cannara
January 16, 2013

As an NJ native, and engineer and environmentalist, I sure hope reason prevails and junk like this never gets pput up. What a waste.

Angus Campbell
January 16, 2013

If offshore wind was combined with Wave Energy Converters and Tidal/Current devices the amount of electricity generated could be quadrupled. A Wave Energy Converter that can be integrated with a Wind Turbine Tower or Tidal Current staff is what I have invented and it works quite well in the Proof of concept stage.

Gerry Wootton
January 16, 2013

West coast may be too deep for fixed installation; however, floating systems are being developed for far offshore. The US can always wait until the Brits and the Japanese deploy this technology and then go and find out how they do it.

Regardless, off-shore beats on-shore for capacity factor.

Gerry Wootton
January 16, 2013

Actually, for grid applications, HVDC above or below ground is much cheaper - for a start, only one conductor is needed instead of 3. Also, the grid losses and cost of frequency regulation is lower.

If you replace above ground lines with below ground lines, that costs money, but then they are refurbishing and doing new installations all of the time. Utility companies simply want to provide the easiest solution for them which is mostly to do nothing and avoid new technology as much as possible. Their response indicates that even basic concepts like waterproof vaults are beyond their ken: flooding is largely the result of not providing bulkheads and ventilation stacks for underground vaults.
The complaint is that it will cost them billions to modernize rather than continue to milk decrepit legacy capital. In opposition to that is the many more billions lost by their customers due to sustained power outages including all of the damage done and lives lost because pumping stations and communications systems could not operate properly.

Tim Hanson
January 16, 2013

Underground transmission/distribution lines. Good idea, but costly.

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/12/11/20/sandy-spurs-new-look-at-underground-utility-lines-upgrade-of-grid/

Sola Bleeva
January 16, 2013

West Coast too deep for offshore wind.

Gerry Wootton
January 16, 2013

So ... the problem is an archaic distribution system. Sort of like when automobiles had to run on roads that were only fit for horses. The shore link is likely HVDC, one of the advantages being that it can be run underwater or underground with little loss of efficiency unlike HVAC (incumbent 19th century technology) which is strung high in the air making it susceptible to storm damage. Putting power distribution on poles is a victory of common practice over common sense.

Tim Hanson
January 16, 2013

This story lists several reasons why this project is good - future energy source, green energy, jobs. But it is misleading to suggest that these offshore wind turbines will be able to deliver uninterrupted electricity after a major storm or hurricane. Transmission is often and inevitably disrupted which is the bigger issue. The first sentence almost sounds as if these turbines can change the weather.

West Coast areas are pursuing these technologies. less population density and abundant hydro power possibly reduce the urgency. Plus there is an abundance of on-shore wind power farms already online.

Russell Judge
January 16, 2013

Absolutely amazing stone age mind set Mr. nadianichols. I regularly fly over the English channel where I see literally thousands of off shore wind turbines. Germany today gets more than 20% of their electrical energy from renewables as does Holland. Do you work for Exxon by any chance? Block Island plans to install 5 six megawatt turbines in 2014, one of which alone will power the island, the rest of the energy being shipped to the mainland. If you don't understand technology, at least don't get in the way of it!

Penelope Gray
January 16, 2013

What an amazing concept, 189 miles of five hundred foot tall turbines being blown ashore during the next major hurricane! The towers could be used for emergency housing once the water drained out of them!

ANONYMOUS
January 16, 2013

Cool. Hope they can withstand (or tame?!) those hurricane-force winds!

V. Bruce Stenswick
January 16, 2013

Why is there no offshore wind development on the west coast?

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Meg Cichon

As associate editor of RenewableEnergyWorld.com, I coordinate and edit feature stories, contributed articles, news stories, opinion pieces and blogs. I also research and write content for RenewableEnergyWorld.com and REW magazine. I manage...