> For now, the US has just two small wind farms off the coasts of Rhode Island and Virginia.
That is astonishingly disappointing. Why is that?
China and Europe have both more than 25 GW offshore windpower installed.
That is astonishingly disappointing. Why is that?
China and Europe have both more than 25 GW offshore windpower installed.
Second, the Jones act and other regulations prohibit using most of the knowledge and infrastructure that Europe has built up over two decades. We can't use their ships or sailors. We can't use many of their products while being eligible for federal subsidies. So rather than let their industry build up ours we have to start from scratch. No economies of scale, high risk, less competition, etc.
The size of the subsidies available are so large that it'll probably work eventually, and there are some discussions happening about improving permitting. But it's a bit like one department is spending a lot of money to put concrete barriers in the road and then another department is spending a lot on subsidies to install tank treads to be able to drive over the barriers. "But think of all the jobs created in the tank tread installation industry!"
Better still: do both and put up more wind power.
And, for the rigs, they are actually substantially closer to shore than turbines would be on the other coast, because, as you say, the ocean gets real deep, real fast there.
People do dislike the rigs, but new ones are banned and the ones off Santa Barbra are I think tapping a source that bubbles up on its own and washes ashore. So perhaps they are helping.
it's not that rich people don't mind oil rigs, it's that the power gradient goes oil companies -> rich people -> clean energy companies.
Either prospect smells strongly of malfeasance to me.
[1] https://owcltd.com/the-case-of-california-757m-auction-close...
[2] https://www.times-standard.com/2022/06/04/challenges-face-wi...
Europe never had that luxury. Offshore wind is our only option.
This kind of depends on where in Europe. The North of Sweden (i.e the top 2/3 of the country) is very sparsely populated, and well-suited for installing on-shore wind power.
NIMBYs keep on NIMBYing though, and many projects get killed because of their protesting.
Restricting yourself to offshore wind is a choice, not a necessity.
Yes, from start to finish in well under a year in some locations depending on whether or not they can set up a nice pipeline and start producing as soon as one of the turbines is completed. The time consuming parts: permitting, infrastructural changes to the grid, environmental assessments + possible delays, foundation work. Once the foundation is in the ground I've seen operational turbines six weeks later.
For a whole windpark from start to finish the times vary from two to eight years, with off-shore the longer part of that. There is a new option called a floating windfarm, which is self evident from the name, that cuts deployment time to an absolute minimum but has some long term risks and maintenance pros and cons. Still, it is a very interesting development.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_State...
We treat the ocean like a big dump place.
Everything thing in the ocean seems to LOVE structure. They build on our detritus as easily as rocks
Apart from the energy, an offshore wind farm would be a great sanctuary for fish. If you need to visit regularly for maintenance, bringing along a few extra FADs and the occasional marine biologist isn’t going to break the bank.
at this point the ocean temperature is a much greater risk
* https://www.ecowatch.com/marine-animals-offshore-wind-farm-h...
* https://energytransition.org/2022/02/in-europes-north-sea-wi...