NASA satellites show offshore wind potential

NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory released images on Wednesday depicting offshore wind energy potential around the world.

Gathered from almost 10 years of satellite data, the wind maps can be used by offshore wind energy developers to measure which sites have the best resource.

Red and white colors indicate high wind energy is available while blue color reflects lower energy.

(Credit: NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.)

The best sites, depicted in red, have a steady and high wind speed for most of the year. Offshore wind turbines have the advantage of not having wind blocked by buildings or land formations.

Wind energy could supply 10 percent to 15 percent of the world's electricity needs, said Paul Dimotakis, chief technologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Dimotakis said offshore wind turbines could produce electricity cheaper than solar energy could.

There are no offshore wind farms in the United States, but many expect that it's a matter of time before one will be built. New types of turbines are being developed so that they can be anchored farther offshore.

The Cape Wind project, though highly criticized, is moving forward in its approval process. And a project led by Bluewater Wind off the coast of Delaware was recently approved by the state legislature.

Earlier this week, oil prospector T. Boone Pickens announced the Pickens Plan, which set the goal of getting 20 percent of U.S. electricity in 10 years from land-based wind turbines in the middle of the country

[rcrusoe]

Cape Wind is a great idea, but considering all the rich and politically connected NIMBY's (not in my backyard) that oppose it, I doubt if it will ever happen.

They don't want it to restrict their view, but considering how far away would be, I don't think that should be a factor. http://offshorewind.net/Images/CapeWind/cotuit.jpg

[3tire]

agreed rcrusoe. knowing that part of the country as I do, those NIMBY's are also the loudest complainers about "war for oil" , stripping the amazon rainforest, global warming and any other fashionable tirade. The point is, they are the people who expect everyone else to suffer the consequences and bear the responsibilities while they drive about in their mammoth suv's and consume inordinate amounts of energy in their outsized homes.

[demmlae]

Well said! They must feel superior to we little people. Too bad, they sure talk a good talk. Obviously, we will need to pursue many solutions to the energy problem: wind, biofuels, nuclear, geothermal, solar, etc...lets get on with it!

[atici]

I completely disagree with some of the comments here that the solution will come from conservation and taking away some liberties (such as suvs). As more people in developing countries start to live modern lives the consumption will increase exponentially. With conservation you can obtain very limited savings compared to such increase in consumption. Granted one should not strive to screw the environment but it's not and will never be a crime to waste energy.

People are free to do whatever as long as they pay for the costs. The costs of the harm to the environment should be built into the pricing of energy. And that would hopefully happen through the carbon derivatives.

Similarly the path to alternative energy should be left to free markets not to the bureucrats and those emotionally attached to some fantasies. Otherwise the taxpayers would pay the burden for ideas that would never become a reality and pay for this unfair advantage handed over to some segments (such as wind energy but not clean nuclear energy).

[leenaree]

Instead of complaining about supposed obstructionists, how about talking about solutions? The free market isn?t free and never has been moneyed and powerful interests have always been able to get the scales tipped in their favor. Atici, you must be reading a different federal budget than me. Nuclear has been receiving hefty subsidies, loan guarantees and liability coverage at taxpayer expense since the 40?s. One would think that a technology as ?mature? as this one could by now survive on its own. The tax credits and grants that wind, solar, geothermal and biomass receive together are a pittance compared to the billions lavished on nuclear.

SUVs are not a liberty. Any practice that drains away resources and pollutes common resources such as air and water must be discouraged and controlled. It is irrational to say that if a person is wealthy enough to ?purchase? the ?carbon cost? of something he/she should be allowed to. We will all still pay for it.

Capitalism and the theory of markets are just that, theories, not science, not religion, and they certainly have not raised all boats. We have increasing poverty and wealth/power inequities, all based on greed. The worst period of pollution, class warfare, and political turmoil has been since the industrial revolution and Adam Smith and the tyranny of private property rights law.

The earth is a closed system. We cannot operate on a theory of 4% growth every year, no matter what economists tell us. Limitless growth is the defining characteristic of a cancer. cell. Resources are finite, and must be conserved. Every technology must be examined for impact on the planet, no matter what its financial cost.

Number one is everyone using less. If that means rationing of certain resources such as gasoline or electricity usage, so be it. We are the most irrational, selfish, wasteful culture that has ever existed. It?s time we all started tightening our belts, and thinking about solutions to problems, not solutions that are financially attractive investments.

We cannot afford to squabble over minor concerns such as aesthetics when it comes to energy production. We cannot afford to wait for creation of new energy corridors and major improvements to the grid. We cannot afford to wait for solutions to become ?attractive? to financial investors. Nuclear was never attractive to financial investors, and required huge subsidies and liability protection before anyone would invest in it. As it is, Wall Street still balks at it. We need solutions that can be implemented globally, locally, incrementally and immediately. Wind and solar, particularly are capable of this. Nuclear is not, for financial, environmental, and infrastructure reasons. Offshore wind turbines have been used in Europe for decades. They are now starting to erect deep-water rigs that erase the aesthetic arguments. Let?s assess the impact of each project for effectiveness and environmental impact and make them happen.

[atici]

Great comment! We primarily disagree on the axioms.

Note that in remarks such as "Resources are finite, and must be conserved. Every technology must be examined for impact..." or "It is irrational to say that if a person is wealthy enough to ?purchase? the ?carbon cost? of something he/she should be allowed to", you implicitly assume an application of force by a powerful / central entity which in itself knows what it's doing.

This force has traditionally given more power to a select few -- and has almost never worked to the benefit of people. "The rich and politically connected" in the comment of rcrusoe has been created by the people themselves through the political system.

It is easy to complain about the choices of the people in power today. However most of the solutions proposed are only about replacing these people in power with some others that are biased towards these alternative energy technologies.

I'd agree that in the past nuclear energy might have received unfair support from the government. And I'd have been against this for the same reasons. We can't solve something unfair by introduction of some other incentive that is unfair.

In the end, if anyone can predict whether wind/solar/nuclear is going to be successful, they should bet their own money on it (like Boone Pickens in the article) by investing into it -- not the taxpayers' money.

[netgogoer]

I'd agree that in the past nuclear energy might have received unfair support from the government. And I'd have been against this for the same reasons. We can't solve something unfair by introduction of some other incentive that is unfair.