Offshore Wind Power Project

On the second link, it mentioned that the cable would be made out of copper. Most transmission lines are made out of aluminum. By making the Aluminum cable much thicker than the copper equivalent, the resistance is reduced to a low level, but the cost is still much less than the copper version. Anyone have an insight into what the case is here?

 

One of the advantages of doing it offshore is that fewer governmental entities may be necessary to get it done--multiple state regulators needn't be consulted and no eminent domain powers have to be used to site the cables.

 

Most likely it's because they are dealing with an undersea transmission line. Durability becomes a big issue.

Tom

 

I take a rather cynical approach to this all. There is no reason that these things need to be so far offshore. It took Kennedy dieing to allow cape wind to get approved. Its time for the federal and state governments to be as wind friendly as Texas.

Building the back bone is a step in the right direction though. It just will be slower and more expensive than it needs to be.

 

I think its pretty clear that they want to be beyond the 3 mile limit for political reasons. Beyond that the article wasn't clear- is the distance because of NIMBYism? Or is it because that's where the wind is? Anyone know?

 

There really isn't any technical reason that the US can't generate 20% of its power from wind in the next 20 years. NREL has even estimated that there is enough wind offshore to generate 4x more electricity than is in the grid right now. Compared to other pork spending, wind is cheap. There are political impediments, and many of these come from the federal government. This project does go in the right direction though.

 

I'm not so sure. Here are some possiblities:

1) Noise - Just because you cannot see them does not mean that you can not hear them. Distance matters greatly in this regard.

2) Radar interference - If you can get the worst of the radar reflections below the radar horizon offshore, then the FAA objections are probably greatly addressed.

3) Interference with shipping traffic - Just offshore would be right in the local shipping lanes creating lots of navigational hazard infrastructure costs.

 

Makes sense. If a trawler or something cut the insulation, the Aluminum is going to corrode a lot farther and faster than the copper.

 

Good summary. For those without an idea of what a wind farm looks like, or the legitimate problems in those in Nantucket were fighting against watch this video

Jason Jones 180 - Nantucket - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 8/7/2007 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

There is a great deal of federal politics as the prime sites are in federal waters off the east coast. Cape wind has a more expensive cost per kwh because of some of this federal politics. Noise pollution even 3 miles out is non-existent compared to other ocean sounds. Because Texas joined the union it has different rules and controls the coast until 10 miles out. There is a plan for a 300 MW wind farm around Galveston, that doesn't have to play with national politics. The issue of distance on that wind farm is whether the blades will kill birds if it is too close to land, and they are studying this.

 

max rpm on the Vestas v1.82 turbine is, I believe, 14 rpm. That's a pretty small turbine these days, with a nameplate output of 1.65MW. These offshore beasts could be lower than that. One thing to remember about ships is that they are not maneuverable. Keeping shipping away from offshore wind farms is of prime importance. You don't want a disabled, 250K tonne container ship drifting through a farm during a strong storm. The windage on those ships is massive. Even under power, they have to work hard when conditions are bad. Through in waves and an adverse current and you would be wise to take shipping into account when siting a farm.

 

Absolutely, shipping lanes, environmental concerns, and property rights should all be taken into account. But these are overblown. NREL estimates for 10% of the United States electricity needs only 1%-2% of the best offshore wind sites would be needed. Eminent domain should step in on federal lands as it does in texas if the chief complaint is that the wind farm covers up the view from your multimillion dollar home to 1% of the ocean. Some places are ideal for wind farms 40 miles out while some are much closer to the coastline. Its a strange world when the so called environmental members of congress seem to be stonewalling some of the progress. The BLM is trying to make some of these projects move forward but there are many hold ups from the legislative branch.

 

I was not talking about EMI. I was refering to radar returns off the rotating blades. This is a significant issue on any wind farm within the coverage area of an airport or ATC radar.