As I’ve mentioned many times before on this site, renewable sources of energy will only achieve widespread use in this country when they are cost competitive with fossil fuels. In many parts of the country, wind power is already cost competitive, and provides a significant amount of electricity. A prime area where this technology has not been exploited, however, is in the mid- and North Atlantic states, where offshore wind turbines could provide a large amount of clean, affordable energy. This technology is already used to great effect in Northern European countries. Denmark, for example, currently gets 25% of its electricity from wind power, and some estimates suggest that this number could rise to 50% in less than 20 years. Pretty impressive.
You’d think that this affordable, clean, efficient, and, perhaps most importantly, carbon-free alternative to fossil fuels would be appealing to the environmentally-conscious liberals of the northeastern blue-states. But this has not been the case. One proposal, the Cape Wind Project in Massachusetts, has encountered stiff opposition from locals, including prominent left-wing environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. You see, these turbines could damage the view from his Cape Cod mansion (never mind that the turbines will be several miles offshore). If you’re a Kennedy, I guess it’s fine to call for sacrifices to improve the environment, so long as you don’t have to make any of them yourself.
Fortunately, citizens of Maryland and Delaware seem to be more open-minded about this issue. According to a recent Baltimore Sun article, Bluewater Wind has proposed several large offshore wind farms that would provide enough electricity to power hundreds of thousands of homes – all with no carbon emissions. The fact that the turbines will be faintly visible on clear days irks some coastal residents, but others seem to recognize the importance of moving away from fossil fuels, and think that the sacrifice is worth it. Public officials in these states also seem open to the idea. I say this is a good thing. Maybe the answer really is blowing in the wind.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 16th, 2007 at 3:44 pm and is filed under Alternative Energy Technology, Climate Change, International Environmental News, Politics/Government . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
For the full story of the Cape Wind saga, including how the Kennedy Caln tried to work the back rooms of Washington to protect their sailing waters, check out Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Class, Politics and the Battle fo America’s Energy Future.
Wendy Williams
October 24th, 2007 at 12:33 am
To say that wind farms provide electricity with not carbon emissions isn’t technical wrong, but it is wrong in the practice. The reason is back up energy. Wind, even in the best locations is intermittent. There must be some electrical generation ready to pick up the load when the wind dies. In Maryland 56% of the electricity produced in the state is from coal and 2% from natural gas. In Delaware, 60% is from coal and 22% is from natural gas. When these fossil fuel plants are backing-up wind electricity, they have to be kept at high-temperatures, which does not result in reductions of carbon dioxide. A coal-fired power plant takes days to warm up, so it is difficult for wind-powered electricity to actually reduce actual carbon dioxide emissions by displacing coal.
September 20th, 2008 at 3:40 am
compare cialis viagra levitra viagra compare levitra cialis