Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Alternative energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Triffin who wrote (2617)	1/26/2006 3:01:40 PM
From: Rock_nj	Respond to of 16955

I think the NIMBYISM for off-shore wind is overblown (no pun). I go to the beach every summer, and quite honestly I barely even notice ships 10 miles off shore, I have to strain to see them. The wind mills would just blend in and not bother anyone. They should make sure they don't interfere with fishing and boating, but that seems like they can work around it. The California solar dishes are just the beginning. 1 GW will provide electricity for about 500,000 to 600,000 homes. The California project might expand to 2 GW, or over 1 Million homes. That's nothing to sneeze at. I see the day when the American SouthWest or even Mexico is a solar farm harvesting the suns energy, perhaps using other technologies such as hydrogen as a storage medium for use when the sun isn't shinning. Another thing about solar, technological breakthroughs will soon make solar much more efficient and perhaps bring the cost down as well. Nanotechnology and material breakthroughs that take advantage of a wider light spectrum will finally bring solar up to a new level of practicality as conversion efficiencies increase.

To: Triffin who wrote (2617)	1/26/2006 5:52:42 PM
From: Bill on the Hill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16955

Triff, Mount the generators a ways offshore in the water. Large counterweight under the surface of the water with anchors to hold in place. Run the electrical cable to shore along the bottom of the ocean. To service the towers simply raise the counterweight to allow the tower to rotate down to the deck of the ship. That would reduce the maintenance costs associated with terrestrial mounted equipment. Blades strength may be a problem. But if they used carbon blades they may be able to get around that. This would also help to stop the death of birds as most seabirds are along the coast and not as highly populated offshore. Just a thought. ChillyWilly

To: Triffin who wrote (2617)	2/26/2006 10:18:08 PM
From: Glenn Petersen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 16955

A proposal from an Alaska Congressman may kill the Cape Cod wind farm: Hill Action Could Kill Planned Wind Farm, Backers Say Foes Worry About Offshore Energy Project's Impact on Shipping, Fishing, Beachfront Views in Mass. By David A. Fahrenthold Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, February 26, 2006; A08 BOSTON -- A proposal before Congress that would limit the construction of wind turbines near shipping lanes could effectively doom plans to build the country's first offshore wind farm near Massachusetts, the project's supporters say. Officials at Cape Wind Associates LLC say that the rule, being considered as an amendment to a bill in a House-Senate conference committee, would rule out so many crucial sections of Nantucket Sound that there would not be enough space for their 130-windmill complex. "This is a dire moment for us," said Mark Rodgers, a Cape Wind spokesman. He said the rule "would be totally fatal" for the project. The Cape Wind project, begun four years ago, has proved consistently controversial: Though environmentalists have praised it for providing a renewable source of energy, Cape Wind has determined opponents who are concerned about its impact on fishing, navigation and beachfront views. Those against it are a powerful and bipartisan group, including Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). The latest move against the wind project has come from Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. In a letter to his colleagues that was released by Cape Wind officials, Young has called for an amendment banning all wind turbines within 1.5 nautical miles of shipping and ferry lanes. He said the ban was based on research in Britain, which found that the turbines' massive blades could interfere with shipboard radar. In the letter, Young singled out the Cape Wind site -- which is surrounded by sea routes between Cape Cod and the islands of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard -- as particularly unsafe. "The Cape Wind proposal provides in some places only a 1,200-foot separation" between sea lanes and wind turbines, ". . . threatening loss of life, injury and pollution," the letter says. A spokesman for Young did not respond to calls for comment about the letter. Officials at Cape Wind call the concerns about navigation a pretext for killing the project. They noted that a risk assessment completed by a contractor for the Army Corps of Engineers in 2003 found that "the presence of the Wind Park . . . is not expected to create negative impacts to navigational safety." The project has been closely watched because it is one of the most advanced proposals to build a wind farm in U.S. waters. The country has numerous windmill farms on land, but experts believe offshore turbines could take advantage of strong sea winds and the ease of transporting electricity to nearby coastal cities. Its supporters say that, in normal wind conditions, the Cape Wind project could provide three-fourths of the power needed by Cape Cod and the nearby islands. After a tortured history in the federal bureaucracy, the federal Minerals Management Service is scheduled to render a final verdict on it early next year. Supporters said that the move to stop the project was particularly galling in light of President Bush's recent push for the development of alternative and renewable energy sources such as wind. "This is sort of backdoor politics at its worst, for the worst possible reasons," said Nathanael Greene, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council. © 2006 The Washington Post Company washingtonpost.com