US breathes life, barely, into offshore wind

Feb 11, 2013 by Ivan Couronne
Scroby Sands wind farm off the coast of Norfolk, England, pictured in 2008. Europe: 1,662 turbines; United States: 0. After delays that left the American industry years behind other nations, the first wind farm off the US coast should finally produce electricity by 2015.

Europe: 1,662 turbines; United States: 0. After delays that left the American industry years behind other nations, the first wind farm off the US coast should finally produce electricity by 2015.

With Americans living atop mountains of coal and reserves of petroleum and natural gas, it is little wonder there is resistance to financing a renewable but expensive offshore that remains untapped in the United States.

Despite several proposals, and the blessing of environmentalists who describe them as sustainable alternatives to coal, not a single wind farm off the Atlantic coast has been built.

Several are in the works, but they have run up against political hurdles in states like Maryland and Virginia, where lawmakers are hesitant to offer government subsidies.

As veteran energy expert Jim Lanard, president of the Offshore Wind Development Coalition, noted, Europeans jumped ahead with heavy subsidization of renewables like wind because they lacked the oil to meet their energy needs.

With far more indigenous , "there's less pressure for the United States to do more in the renewable sector than in Europe, where there's a greater pressure to achieve ," Lanard told AFP.

"If you're from a state with lots of coal, it doesn't matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican, you're going to support an with coal," Lanard said.

Coal provides 37 percent of US electricity, compared to natural gas at 30 percent. Far behind is onshore wind at 3.4 percent, but offshore resources would help boost that figure.

For some US lawmakers the jury is still out as to how human activity influences . The American public has shown a stubborn indifference to the phenomenon compared to Europeans.

Scroby Sands wind farm off the coast of Norfolk, England in 2008. With Americans living atop mountains of coal and reserves of petroleum and natural gas, it is little wonder there is resistance to financing a renewable but expensive offshore energy resource that remains untapped in the United States.

But wind received a shot in the arm in January, when Congress extended tax credits on all wind energy projects for this year. Such grants can amount to 30 percent of investment costs.

Two offshore projects in particular will benefit, including Cape Wind, whose 130 huge turbines are being developed in Massachusetts for the waters near Martha's Vineyard, the tony island playground where President Barack Obama and other VIPs spend their vacations.

One of the state's richest men, the billionaire conservative coal and gas investor Bill Koch, has spent years campaigning in vain against the project.

A smaller wind farm of five turbines in water three miles (five kilometers) off Block Island, in the state of Rhode Island, is aimed at replacing diesel generators which have powered the community for years.

Electricity generated by offshore wind costs two to three times more than onshore wind, according to Steve Clemmer, who heads energy research for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

"It's really more economical to develop projects on land," Clemmer told AFP.

Scroby Sands wind farm off the coast of Norfolk, England, in 2008. Despite several proposals, and the blessing of environmentalists who describe them as sustainable alternatives to coal, not a single wind farm off the Atlantic coast has been built.

That is especially true in the United States, where on-land wind resources are more abundant than in Europe.

Cape Wind will sell energy for 18.7 cents per kilowatt hour for the first year. By comparison, a coal-fired plant can produce electricity at about 10 cents per kWh. Electricity from onshore can be even cheaper.

Offshore wind can be a money pit: extensive research is needed to identify the best location and assess risks to marine life; installation, maintenance and replacement in deep water can incur crushing costs, and the use of boats to transport equipment and workers runs up the bill.

Some states like New Jersey, despite experts proclaiming viability for offshore wind, have let projects wither. Operators have thrown in the towel for lack of funding.

But technology favors projects in the open water, where winds are strongest. The government estimates combined offshore potential for 10 projects at 3,800 megawatts, the equivalent of three nuclear power plants and enough to power millions of homes in the crowded northeast.

A new technology being developed, for deepwater "floating" turbines, also solves a central criticism of wind power: visual and noise pollution. A first contract has been approved in the state of Maine.

Job creation is the ultimate carrot for cautious states, and expert Michael Conathan at the Center for American Progress think tank said there is value in being an early entrant.

"If you are first, you are going to be effectively in the driver seat for who gets the shoreside industrial development, who's going to get the jobs (and) where they'll build the first turbine construction facility," he said.

Explore further: Kingston, Jamaica hybrid project to harness sun and wind

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Walney offshore wind farm is world's biggest (for now)

Feb 11, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- The Walney wind farm on the Irish Sea--characterized by high tides, waves and windy weather--officially opened this week. The farm is treated in the press as a very big deal as the Walney ...

Wind energy can power much of East Coast, study says

Sep 28, 2010

The strong winds off the Atlantic Ocean could become a cost-effective way to power much of the East Coast -- especially North and South Carolina, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia, a new study ...

US lawmaker pushes for quick growth of wind power

May 01, 2010

Democratic lawmaker Rush Holt told AFP on Friday that in view of the disastrous oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico the United States should quickly focus on developing wind power along its coasts.

U.S. clears path for offshore wind farms

Feb 13, 2012

Wind farms could soon be on the horizon for much of the U.S. Mid-Atlantic Coast, both figuratively and literally. The Interior Department has completed a study examining how offshore wind development would affect the region, ...

Recommended for you

Kingston, Jamaica hybrid project to harness sun and wind

Jul 19, 2014

A hybrid energy project in Kingston, Jamaica, aims to satisfy the need for money-saving renewable energy. U.S.-based WindStream Technologies recently announced the wind solar hybrid installation commissioned ...

Security contest techies say they hacked Tesla Model S

Jul 19, 2014

The good news: Tomorrow's cars are computers on wheels. The bad news: Tomorrow's cars are computers on wheels. Ma Jie, writing in Bloomberg News, reported this week that the Tesla Model S sedan was the target ...

User comments : 64

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

julianpenrod
2.8 / 5 (41) Feb 11, 2013
Among other things, there is still the fact that, in order to turn the turbines, the wind has to lose some energy. And the mechanical energy in wind is the wind itself, the moving or air. As a result, wind farms eliminae portions of the earth's moving air flows. And those flows are crucial for transfer of heat; facilitating the expression of that other reservoir of energy, weather, which can react strongly if impeded; and such things as the distribution of seeds and dust.
And, which so few mention since they seem to have been brainwashed not to consider it important, they erode the quality of scenery! People have the right to have a pleasant landscape to look at. To condemn that sentiment entirely is to suggest how far from humanlike "science" devotees behave.
julianpenrod
2.6 / 5 (36) Feb 11, 2013
Incidentally, note, too, the carefully misleading language employed in selling this boondoggle. They speak of "environmentalists" giving the project their "blessing". All you need is two "environmentalists" out of all the thousands to be able to say that! What fraction of accredited environmentalists, if that is even accredited, recommend this? And why? Not what they claim, but, actually, why?
casualjoe
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2013
Quoting the article:
But technology favors projects in the open water, where winds are strongest. The government estimates combined offshore potential for 10 projects at 3,800 megawatts, the equivalent of three nuclear power plants and enough to power millions of homes in the crowded northeast.
A new technology being developed, for deepwater "floating" turbines, also solves a central criticism of wind power: visual and noise pollution. A first contract has been approved in the state of Maine.
maxb500_live_nl
3.2 / 5 (13) Feb 11, 2013
Europe: 1,662 sea turbines; United States: 0. The bashing by US conservatives of renewable options is paying off. Lets stop all the research. Just pump in more of those extreme chemicals to get the gas out the rock layers while heavily polluting the drinking water. At least make an effort to test new technologies.

Like the cancelling of the US Superconducting Super Collider leaving Europe with CERN to build the LHC and eventually discover the God Particle/Higgs Boson and now continuing far more work and perhaps lots of new insights and eventual technologies. Not least for the new advancements integrated in the LHC construction.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (19) Feb 11, 2013
And those flows are crucial for transfer of heat

Heat moves upwards.
Windfarms are also very local and wind movements are accross heights of more than 100 meters. So all you get is a bit less bending of grass (which should lessen soil erosion) - and out to sea a bit less waves. Big deal.
The wind energy accross the globe is MANY times what we'd harvest out of it. If we were to power 100% of everything with wind (as noted elsewhere - a very unreasonable course to take) we'd use less than 1% of available wind power (and less than 5% if you just count low level winds).
http://www.scienc...0446.htm
They also detail the temperature impact in the article. It's negligible.

they erode the quality of scenery

Oh boo-hoo. Nuclear power plants don't? Smokestacks from coal power plants don't? I'd look at a windmill over a smokestack any day.

And really: how much scenery do you need off shore? Most countries have stretches of unused land.
mrlewish
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2013
Who the heck gave julianpenrod positive ratings? the shills and aliases out early today?
gblaze41
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2013
"Europe: 1,662 turbines; United States: 0."

Who cares, Wind is yet worth the investment. When it is we will do it, without subsidies.
El_Nose
2.6 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2013
@max

While i wish that the SSC had been built, I just learned that the funding Congress did make might bring dividends in science making the US the first to produce fusion power plants. the project is called LIFE... I knew of the ITER project for years. LIFE has been kept under wraps.

Congress has made funding decisions and i disagree with a lot of them... but some are spot on and we might see the benefits in our lifetime.

@gblaze

but coal and oil plants get subsidies ... so lets keep this apples to apples and fair
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (28) Feb 11, 2013
wind farms eliminae portions of the earth's moving air flows
So does deforestation, agriculture, buildings, highways, and global warming. Lots of things affect wind. But this might pose a problem:

"Wind turbines disturb the proper functioning of Mother Earth's subtle body by blocking the flow of Prana,what Taoists and practitioners of feng shui call chi, or qi the life force that sustains humanity and the plant and animal kingdoms.

"By disrupting the flow of prana wind turbines are also injuring Mother Earth's subtle body and diminishing her ability to regulate and maintain the environment."

-Is this what youre worried about julian? Prana?
Nuclear power plants don't? Smokestacks from coal power plants don't? I'd look at a windmill over a smokestack any day
Also dont forget cell phone towers, power lines, and korean cars. And british architecture.

Julian has no appreciation of scale. Air flows around things much like tsunami waves do. Wind farms - small. Sky - big.
gblaze41
4.6 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2013

@gblaze

but coal and oil plants get subsidies ... so lets keep this apples to apples and fair


But they are not apples to apples, renewables receive much, much more subsidies than fossil fuels.

As told by this White House Report of 2010.

http://www.eia.go...subsidy/

The folks at the Institute for Energy Research used the Energy Department data to calculate a subsidy per unit of electricity produced. Per megawatt hour, natural gas, oil and coal received 64 cents, hydropower 82 cents, nuclear $3.14, wind $56.29 and solar a whopping $775.64.
julianpenrod
2.8 / 5 (27) Feb 11, 2013
Those who oppose the truth don't care what they say.
antialias physorg claims, "Heat moves upwards." Then it's impossible for warm fronts of air, moving parallel to the ground as wind, to travel, say, from the tropics northward and southward?
And antialia physorg says that the winds removed would not cause soil erosion. But erosion can be good, as well as bad, moving, for example, fertile soil elsewhere.
And to say that only 1% of wind power is absorbed is very short sighted. At any one time, there is an effective balance of total energy in the air, representing the amount of energy received from sunlight and not lost to space. Remove 1% of this and you have now only 99% total energy. Given another cycle of winds around the globe, during which sunlight energy will not increase and loss to space will not decrease, and 1% will be lost, leaving 98% of total energy. The short sighted look to immediate results and this may not be immediate, it will be significant.
julianpenrod
3 / 5 (24) Feb 11, 2013
Sometimes, it can be appalling the degree of misrepresentation those who oppose the truth will go to.
TheGhostofOtto1923 claims "deforestation, agriculture, buildings, highways" eliminate portions of the earth's einds. But, then, in the same comment, TheGhostofOtto1923 says, "Air flows around things". So which statement is a lie, the first one TheGhostofOtto1923 tried to pawn off or the second?
Also, if air goes around the windmills, what causes them to turn?
And, as for smokestacks, nuclear reactors, cell phone towers and all affecting the landscape, they are on land, with hills and rises that can block them to an extent. That doesn't exist on the ocean. The would stick out like a sore thunb. And you can go somewhere else on land, there is only so much coast you can go to. And, for that matter, if an amount of damage had been done to the landscape, does that "justify" doing more?
julianpenrod
2.8 / 5 (26) Feb 11, 2013
How interesting that mrlewish got an average rating of 3, yet they added absolutely nothing to the discussion. They merely bad mouthed me. Again, a picture is provided of the nature of a plurality of those who look at the website.
And, note, too, I received a rating of 2.1/ 5 (7), which means that the average rating I got got 7 votes was 2.1 out of 5. But that means that the total rating I received from those who voted was 14.7! If only whole number rankings can be applied, how did I receive a total of 14.7 from 7 votes? It would have to be a whole number!
Whoever owns PhysOrg should take this as a message, it appears someone has it in for me and has been doctoring the numebrs on the website from behind the scenes.
And antialias physorg's craven, contemptuous attitude about scenery, and the at least suggested lack of humanity involved in that, says a great deal about how much they can be trusted.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (25) Feb 11, 2013
But, then, in the same comment, TheGhostofOtto1923 says, "Air flows around things". So which statement is a lie, the first one TheGhostofOtto1923 tried to pawn off or the second?
I and most people would say neither.
http://www.youtub...6E1Lh7yo

-Both texture and shape affect aerodynamics. Do you not know this??
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (26) Feb 11, 2013
"We draw two interesting conclusions from these results. First, the effectiveness with which increasing δCD extracts additional power declines with δCD because surface winds decrease with increasing drag. Second, the increase in surface drag has a negligible effect on the global dissipation of kinetic energy at the surface. Surface winds outside the wind-farm array are slowed so that dissipation outside the array area decreases to compensate for the increased dissipation within the array. The reason that the compensation is so complete is likely that the generation of available kinetic energy, as well as its dissipation outside the boundary layer, depend on a large-scale atmospheric structure that varies only slightly in response to the changes in surface drag; also, near-surface sink must equal atmospheric source."

-So it seems that wind outside the array compensates.

"The climatic impact of wind power is currently negligible in comparison with other anthropogenic climate forcings."
Maggnus
3 / 5 (20) Feb 11, 2013
Ghost, you're arguing science with someone who thinks the moon landings were a hoax. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to actually understand what you are saying to him.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (24) Feb 11, 2013
Hey here is a neat app which you can use to learn about how wind works
http://www.youtub...KYjeb0O8

-Here is a wave simulation around objects.
http://www.youtub...mbhrEEmQ

Have fun. Dont hurt yourself.
Ghost, you're arguing science with someone who thinks the moon landings were a hoax. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to actually understand what you are saying to him.
I am having fun too.
Telekinetic
4.1 / 5 (17) Feb 11, 2013
Besides that Cervantes character, julianpenrod, you remind me of the yokels who believed that rocket launches from Cape Canaveral were screwing up weather patterns in Maine. It's pure superstition, and the Dust Bowl is proof. There ain't no stoppin' the wind, particularly gale force ones. And as far as aesthetics, how about them strip malls? Cripes. And being a God-fearing man as you are, wouldn't it be a sin to knowingly pollute the lungs of our young'uns with sulfur dioxide from coal? Why not give us Americans a chance to prove we ain't so ugly after all?
betterexists
1.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2013
Instead of GIVING AWAY $26B to the Charities.....Buffet should have built up these Wind Farms & GIVEN AWAY FREE Energy to the GRIDDDDDDD...Sounds Greeeedieee
Steven_Anderson
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2013
It's a silly thing when we don't invest in off shore wind and current power off the continental shelf I would think would be another good one. These technologies can supply huge energy and more continuously I suspect than on land versions. The technological resistance comes down to loss or revenue streams. If the producers of oil spent as much effort trying to find ways of making revenue streams in alternative energies we would already be using alternative energies. A perfect example is that we have not been investing in LFTR Nuclear reactors for the past 40 years. A safe alternative to conventional nuclear and costs on par with coal. Problem with it? It doesnt have the continuous revenue stream of conventional reactors. Compairatively its a set and forget technology. See my "We the People" Petition on the matter! http://rawcell.com/yzEMb please sign it before its too late!
RealScience
5 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2013
And, note, too, I received a rating of 2.1/ 5 (7), which means that the average rating I got got 7 votes was 2.1 out of 5. But that means that the total rating I received from those who voted was 14.7! If only whole number rankings can be applied, how did I receive a total of 14.7 from 7 votes? It would have to be a whole number! Whoever owns PhysOrg should take this as a message, it appears someone has it in for me and has been doctoring the numebrs on the website from behind the scenes.


Julian - it is just rounding to the nearest tenth.
If the total that you receiver was 15 points from 7 votes then your average was 15/7 = 2.142857. The rank is averaged to the nearest tenth of a point. 2.1428 is closer to 2.1 than it is to 2.2, so your comment shows up at 2.1.

For example, AA's comment currently has 4.3 after 6 votes. That's 26 /6 = 4.33333 rounded to the nearest tenth, or 4.3.

ryggesogn2
3.5 / 5 (24) Feb 11, 2013
Maybe if rich 'liberals' like the Kennedy's and Walter Cronkite would have supported Cape Wind there may be more.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2013
How interesting that mrlewish got an average rating of 3, yet they added absolutely nothing to the discussion. They merely bad mouthed me.


Ya need to update your whining. It's now up to 4. No great mystery in trying to figure it,,, all it means is that 4 out of 5 people would have written what mrlewish wrote, but he beat them to it. And in your own case, only 2 out of 12 (at the time of this writing) would have wished to write what ya wrote if ya hadn't beaten them to it.

By the By: So how are those studies of the fraudulent moon landings going? Have ya got to the bottom of it yet? One would think that after four decades ya could have given us some answers to the unanswered questions about it. Please keep me in the loop, I really want to know how they pulled off that scam.
philw1776
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2013
Cape Wind. Affects the view from the Kennedy compound, as if I care. Salt water is not nice to things made out of metal. Cape Wind has "sold" their power (after govt subsidies paid for by taxpayers) to MA electric companies at nearly 50% more than current (pun intended) KWH costs. Not good. The only good things about Cape Wind is job creation for construction and the site is excellent for lots of wind.
Shakescene21
4 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2013
This article is only about OFFSHORE wind turbines. If you include land-based wind turbines, the USA actually installed more turbines in 2012 than Europe -- about 13 gigawatts. The USA has vast inland areas with excellent wind resources, and these areas have been easier and cheaper so far. I believe that Texas is our leading windpower state.
julianpenrod
3.5 / 5 (21) Feb 11, 2013
Cutting and pasting from the PNAS article doesn't mean The GhostofOtto1923 really understands what was said. Saying it in your own words shows you understand. And, frankly, what the article said is exactly what I said. "Surface winds outside the array are slowed". That's what I said when I said the turbines absorb the energy of motion of the wind. "The climatic impact of wind power is currently negligible" is also what I said, namely that if only 1% is absorbed now, eventually, it can be large. I said the overall change may not be immediate!
As for Maggnus, what proof is there, really, that man landed on the moon? That is, what actual, tangible proof is in "rank and file" hands, what proof that doesn't amount to just "scientists" ordering us to believe what they say? If you can't provide such incontrovertible proof, then there is none.
ryggesogn2
4 / 5 (21) Feb 11, 2013
Cape Wind. Affects the view from the Kennedy compound, as if I care. Salt water is not nice to things made out of metal. Cape Wind has "sold" their power (after govt subsidies paid for by taxpayers) to MA electric companies at nearly 50% more than current (pun intended) KWH costs. Not good. The only good things about Cape Wind is job creation for construction and the site is excellent for lots of wind.

I'm not saying Cape Wind is sound economically, but is was amusing to watch rich, NIMBY 'liberals' squeal.
julianpenrod
3.5 / 5 (19) Feb 11, 2013
And, as for Telekinetic attacking "yokels", "scientists" themselves invoked the idea of a butterfly in Central Park affecting a monsoon in China. That was the essence of "chaos" theory. If they don't believe in such a long distance effect at an entirely different scale, then they don't believe in "chaos".
And saying the Dust Bowl is proof that rockets from Cape Canaveral didn't affect weather in Maine is beyond ludicrous. How did an event like the Dust Bowl prove rockets didn't affect weather? It's like saying that forest fires happened naturally, so that proves that, if someone's house burned down, they couldn't have set it!
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 11, 2013
invoked the idea of a butterfly in Central Park affecting a monsoon in China.

Erm, I think you have a tiiiiiny bit of a misconception about what the butterfly effect is.
Telekinetic
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2013
If the wind could be stopped, that technology might have been helpful at the time of the Dust Bowl. But how CAN the wind be stopped, when so many are increasing its velocity with hot air?

julianpenrod
3.5 / 5 (19) Feb 11, 2013
And, as for the wind never stopping, a common means of examining a situation quickly is to look at an extreme example. Imagine there were huge windmills on every square inch of the planet, such that their moving even a fraction of an inch a second would require as much energy as a huge moving front of air. Such a situation would absorb all the energy present in the entire atmosphere. And the sun would not emit more energy to compensate. As I said, in reality, it can take longer than that, but a significant effect on atmopsheric circulation is coming.
Telekinetic
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 11, 2013
And if your clones shouted from every rooftop we would either go deaf, mad, or both.
julianpenrod
3.5 / 5 (19) Feb 11, 2013
And Q-Star can behave as oafishly as they wish, but, among other things, the New World Order would make sure proof of a faked moon landing would be hidden or destroyed. But, then, just because you may not know what was in an enveloipe floating in a puddle in Central Park in 1964 doesn't mean there wasn't one. But none of that changes the essence of the moon landing conspiracy theory, which is that there is absolutely nothing which independently proves they reached the moon. Moon rocks can be produced on earth, to match what the NWO says moon rocks should look like. Films can be faked. Photographs can be dioramas. Lasers can reflect froim robots landed there. There is nothing that proves it.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (8) Feb 11, 2013
Imagine there were huge windmills on every square inch of the planet,,,,,,,


Yes Sir, I am with ya against that. I will write my congressman tonight and tell him: I AM AGAINST PUTTING HUGH WINDMILLS ON EVERY SQUARE INCH OF THE PLANET, put them on the moon with the Iranian Space Monkeys, but not on every square inch of the planet,,, NO.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2013
And Q-Star can behave as oafishly as they wish, but, among other things, the New World Order would make sure proof of a faked moon landing would be hidden or destroyed.


Yes Sir, (oafishly? really?) ya wouldn't want the Templars to catch ya red-handed with the proof, that would be bad indeed.

By the By: Oafishly (really? is that a bad thing or a good thing?) as "HE" wishes, not "they",, I only have enough oafishness for one person, and I'm keeping it all for meself.
julianpenrod
3.3 / 5 (21) Feb 11, 2013
antialias physorg can pretend I don't know what I'm talking about, but they only succeed in showing how little they know. The "butterfly effect" was coined by Edward Lorenz describing the fact that leaving out even tiny decimal values in many weather modeling equations can completely change the outcomes. But, then, prefacing their statement with the typical graphically rendered guttural utterance is characteristic of New World Order liars when they want to act like someone doesn't know what they're saying without actually proving it. Very telling, too, that someone actually gave antialias physorg a rating of 5 for not knowing the legitimacy of the butterfly effect. As I said, the nature of many of those who look at PhysOrg is becoming clear.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2013
Edward Lorenz describing the fact that leaving out even tiny decimal values in many weather modeling equations can completely change the outcomes.

Yes. And you completely miss the operative word in that sentence: "can". Not "must" or "will" or even "is likely to" but merely "can".

So yeah, I stand by what I said: You don't understand the meaning of the words you use.
ryggesogn2
3.7 / 5 (19) Feb 11, 2013
Edward Lorenz describing the fact that leaving out even tiny decimal values in many weather modeling equations can completely change the outcomes.

Yes. And you completely miss the operative word in that sentence: "can". Not "must" or "will" or even "is likely to" but merely "can".

So yeah, I stand by what I said: You don't understand the meaning of the words you use.

But the real point is that there will always be uncertainty in the predictions that can never be eliminated which limits the models.
obama_socks
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 11, 2013
I gave Julianpenrod a five (which is an extremely rare thing for me to do for anyone since my fives most often get diluted by a person or persons with an ax to grind against Julian or others), therefore I refrain from rating.

Julian's assessment of Theghostofotto1923/Maggnus/FrankHerbert2 is correct re: Blotto's "cut and paste" from Wiki, et al, and also the mountains of YouTube videos which are supposedly highly informative to the "know-nothings" who populate this Physorg. We know that Blotto and his dozens of sock puppets (see my Profile for names), is on a death-defying ego trip that is fueled by Blotto's DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDER.

So where is Blotto's sock puppet, FrankHerbert minus the numbers? I believe that FrankHerbert was banned, thus FrankHerbert #2, #3, #4, #5, and #6. FrankHerbert was a bad boy and finally got its comeuppance. Who knows what evil lurks in the minds of sock puppets?

Other than that, I believe that all the moon landings were genuine and happened.
DavidW
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2013
Axel Kleidon of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany, says: "Wind turbines have to be part of the solution, but it would be naive to think that they don't have an impact. Balancing the impacts of various technologies is key to tackling climate change."

http://www.newsci...ing.html
obama_socks
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2013
To be sure, almost everything can affect the wind in its travels...even an airborne sheet of newspaper affects wind velocity, wind direction, temperature, etc. However, I don't believe in the Butterfly Effect, although I did enjoy the movie, which storyline was of a different effect altogether.

Perhaps someone can give me a clue as to the position of each windmill...as to whether or not the top with the blades revolves to catch the wind from every direction...or do the blades remain in a fixed position and don't turn to meet the wind. If they don't turn to meet the wind and the wind direction shifts, I suppose that the blades stop turning. Is that correct?
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2013
But the real point is that there will always be uncertainty in the predictions that can never be eliminated which limits the models.

So? The amount of uncertainty in a model is quantifiable. (if you're able to read graphs you may know what error bars and standard deviations are)
That you have SOME uncertainty in a method is not the same as saying it is ALL uncertain.

Example: Toss 10000 coins. The chance of getting EXACTLY 5000 heads/tails is rather low. So there is SOME uncertainty from the expected value. However, the chance of being in an interval that is very close to the 5000/5000 split is very high (e.g. predicting that the result will be in the 4900 to 5100 range either way is already more than 95% assured)
So a model that predicts an outcome in that interval -despite having some uncertainty as to EXACT outcomes - is already very useful.

And in climate studies the margins of error are given. Always.
Telekinetic
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2013
And here's the refutation of Kleidon's jive:

http://thinkprogr...obile=nc
djr
5 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2013
"Perhaps someone can give me a clue as to the position of each windmill...as to whether or not the top with the blades revolves to catch the wind from every direction...or do the blades remain in a fixed position and don't turn to meet the wind"

Pretty basic question there sox - surprises me that you would be commenting on this kind of article - and not at least know that much. A quick primer for you - horizontal axis turbines HAWT (like the big three blade turbines we are becoming very familiar with) have to face the wind. In the old days turbines had a tail - that responded to the wind - and kept the blades into the wind. Today they put lidar systems on the turbines - and have a control system with a motor on it that keeps the blades into the wind. These days they are connecting the turbines together electronically - and using the lidar systems to coordinate the turbines, and trying to optimize the output of the entire farm.
Egleton
2 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2013
Australia has lots of coal. Australia has lots of gas. Australia will never build another coal or gas fired power station.

Wind costs $67 per kW hr.
Gas costs $120 per kW/hr
Coal costs $145 per kW/hr
When the sunk costs reach the end of their lives they will be history.
localcooling
3 / 5 (8) Feb 12, 2013
And, which so few mention since they seem to have been brainwashed not to consider it important, they erode the quality of scenery! People have the right to have a pleasant landscape to look at. To condemn that sentiment entirely is to suggest how far from human-like "science" devotees behave.


Depending on where the wind-park sits, I wonder how such a destruction of sight(seeing) compares to endless of huge holes into the ground, slag mountains, shaved of land to get coal, uranium ... not to mention oil-rigs off shore, high rise power-stations etc. ??
obama_socks
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2013
Thanks, djr...while my engineering skills are vast and complete and benefit my employment in the aerospace industry, I have never once looked into the workings of windmills, or rather wind turbines. I also found this site after posting: http://uk.answers...3AAV6Jal which was also somewhat informative although lacking technical information. I assume Doppler LIDAR is utilized in wind turbines, which presumably makes the main computer's commands quite accurate as to wind direction.

In re: to land and offshore wind turbines, I would have preferred the compact fins that are housed in a dome-like metal structure that do not require the turning of any part of the fins and its housing to face the wind, as is the case with the huge blade turbines. The compact fins would turn no matter in which direction the wind hits the fins. There would be less maintenance involved as with huge blades, and far less of a threat to birds.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2013
not to mention oil-rigs off shore

With the occasional oil spill. Or the wastelands that fracking and oils shale extraction leave behind.
shaved of land to get coal, uranium

And the occasional couple of hundred square kilometers off limits for future generations

Seriously - I look out my window here and I can see 9 or 11 windmills on the horizon (2 of which I'm not sure whether they're just high voltage electricity pylons). And it detracts not one bit from the landscape (actually fells quite good seeing these things turn. You're reminded that with every turn the air you'll be breathing is just a little bit cleaner)
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2013
The "butterfly effect" was coined by Edward Lorenz describing the fact that leaving out even tiny decimal values in many weather modeling equations can completely change the outcomes.


Every breath ya take is causing either drought, a hurricane or a blizzard,,, shouldn't ya be holding it?

But, then, prefacing their statement with the typical graphically rendered guttural utterance is characteristic of New World Order liars when they want to act like someone doesn't know what they're saying without actually proving it.

The Templars are scooping up all the proof, ya said so yourself. Maybe they took his proof before he could give it to ya.
Q-Star
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2013
The "butterfly effect" was coined by Edward Lorenz describing the fact that leaving out even tiny decimal values in many weather modeling equations can completely change the outcomes.


Every breath ya take is causing either drought, a hurricane or a blizzard,,, shouldn't ya be holding it?

But, then, prefacing their statement with the typical graphically rendered guttural utterance is characteristic of New World Order liars when they want to act like someone doesn't know what they're saying without actually proving it.


The Templars are scooping up all the proof, ya said so yourself. Maybe they took his proof before he could give it to ya.
El_Nose
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2013
@gblaze

you might want to research the facts of oil and coal subsidies

http://www.source...ubsidies

n June 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said $557 billion was spent to subsidize fossil fuels globally in 2008, compared to $43 billion in support of renewable energy. In a July 2011 EIA report on federal fossil fuel subsidies, coal was estimated to have tax expenditures (provisions in the federal tax code that reduce the tax liability of firms) with an estimated value of $561 million in FY 2010, down from $3.3 billion in FY 2007.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (19) Feb 12, 2013
"Perhaps someone can give me a clue
I don't believe this is possible.
as to the position of each windmill...as to whether or not the top with
Unfucking real. You expect people here to look something up for you that you can do for YOURSELF?? You really that fucking LAZY you drone?
Pretty basic question there sox - surprises me that you would be commenting on this kind of article - and not at least know that much.
-And feeding trolls is almost as bad as being one.
never once looked into the workings of windmills, or rather wind turbines
-because... it's just... too hard...
Saying it in your own words shows you understand
Sorry Julian, quoting experts is done all the time. It is more honest than making stuff up without posting a source. Why don't you provide any sources for the stuff YOU post?

But ok I'll try... 'Offshore turbine farms have no appreciable effect on the local environment.' And I've already provided the sources for you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (24) Feb 12, 2013
Such a situation would absorb all the energy present in the entire atmosphere.
Turbines are shaped such that there is always distance and gaps in between. And the wind rarely hits them straight on, allowing for lateral movement. And as AA pointed out, convection generates vertical movement. And the majority of the atmosphere is above the turbines, where it is free to move. Etcetc.

Try this thought experiment - imagine the atmosphere on a very cold planet where all of it is condensed and frozen on the ground. This is where you would have no wind.

Those are my own words.
Estevan57
3.6 / 5 (28) Feb 13, 2013
"-And feeding trolls is almost as bad as being one." - Otto

Well put. As you should know. Thanks for the quote, I'll put in my documentation profile page.
Maggnus
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 14, 2013
antialias physorg can pretend I don't know what I'm talking about


No no, no pretending necessary!

I only have enough oafishness for one person, and I'm keeping it all for meself.


Oh, I see, a selfish oaf!

Oh and look, I been called a sock! OMG I don't know what to say! You like me! You really like me! I'm blushing!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (16) Feb 14, 2013
"-And feeding trolls is almost as bad as being one." - Otto

Well put. As you should know. Thanks for the quote, I'll put in my documentation profile page.
Estevan, Champion of lazy trolls, bigots, stalkers, vandals, liars. Estevan, who NEVER comments on anything but otto posts. Estevan, who shows up every day to 1/5 every post otto makes, without fail. Estevan, who lies, stalks, and posts foulness directed at no one else BUT otto.

Estevan, who doesn't seem to care whether the world sees his sickness or not; rather, he seems proud of showing it off.

-And esai calls ME a troll? 'I own you!' -says the ankle biter.
ryggesogn2
3.6 / 5 (20) Feb 14, 2013
And it detracts not one bit from the landscape

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
If a socialist majority disagrees with you, tough.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (17) Feb 14, 2013
And it detracts not one bit from the landscape

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
If a socialist majority disagrees with you, tough.
I think I've found the riggysoggy homestead
http://www.youtub...a_player

-You're the old guy on the left, right?

Ben would love oil derricks on the horizon but hate wind turbines.
VendicarE
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2013
In the Libertarian vision, if the private land owner disagrees with you... Tough.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." - RyggTard

http://www.youtub...Gqai2PxI
Virem
5 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2013
So depressing. It is not perhaps these simple foolish souls, the foot soldiers, who are the most disheartening aspect of climate change opposition, it is the ceo's of the industrial complex which has created them. Such unbridled selfishness in them is almost beyond comprehension. Just what becomes of a social system where the most ruthless, selfish and sociopathic become the most asset rich, the most influential! ... nothing at all good I suspect.
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2013
So depressing. It is not perhaps these simple foolish souls, the foot soldiers, who are the most disheartening aspect of climate change opposition, it is the ceo's of the industrial complex which has created them. Such unbridled selfishness in them is almost beyond comprehension. Just what becomes of a social system where the most ruthless, selfish and sociopathic become the most asset rich, the most influential! ... nothing at all good I suspect.
-Virem

Whether or not there is a reality of climate change will need a lot more study from UNBIASED researchers. So far, there have been too many instances of intentional false statements made by climate scientists who are now viewed by the public in many countries as unscrupulous liars and conspirators who probably had much to gain either materially, monetarily, or an expectation of some other reward for making such false statements. (contd)
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2013
Since that is but ONE aspect of those climate scientists who would fool the public, perhaps for substantial gain, is it not too far-fetched that the same type of problem could be occurring within the industrial complex for similar gain and awards? No matter in which area of concern, be it science, business, and even in the life of private individuals, there are some, or many, who cannot resist making false statements, committing fraud such as insider trading, and a myriad of other sins and/or criminal activity. Why, even some college students have been caught cheating on their tests.

False statements of any kind is an age-old problem and manipulation of stock markets and climate data are just two problems brought to light. Everyone may wish to be honest, but there is always the potential for dishonesty according to the degree of temptation and any rewards forthcoming.

Why, even in this Physorg there are some who enjoy lying about other people falsely, and they do so with impunity.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (14) Feb 16, 2013
Whether or not there is a reality of climate change will need a lot more study from UNBIASED researchers
Translation: 'I just HAVE to say something about something, even if it is something I know nothing about. Because I am bored or something.
Since that is but ONE aspect of those climate scientists who would fool the public, perhaps for substantial gain, is it not too far-fetched that the same type of problem could be occurring within the industrial complex for similar gain and awards?
Yes because, as we know, climate science preceded industry and investment banking.
Why, even in this Physorg there are some who enjoy lying
Oh come on you are willing to deny you said something, in the very same thread as you SAID it. Per your zero growth/zero birth idiocy.
Virem
2 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2013

Whether or not there is a reality of climate change will need a lot more study from UNBIASED researchers. So far, there have been too many instances of intentional false statements made by climate scientists who are now viewed by the public in many countries as unscrupulous liars and conspirators who probably had much to gain either materially, monetarily, or an expectation of some other reward for making such false statements. (contd)

I trust you believe what you say.
I can not counter with science ...since it is biased.
You have an internally consistent paradigm, reinforced by a community of like minded individuals and web sites.
Your position can not change when you adopt this paradigm. It masquerades (barely) as rational inquiry and is in fact a (cynically created) rigid belief system (resting on cherry picked facts and over valued ideas ).
If you are lucky your great grand children wont blame you for the delay anyhow, history will identify your masters.