newell.mcdonough



Future generations will have to face the worldwide changes and problems created by global warming. Global Warming is caused by the release of green house gases into the atmosphere, and these gases keep the heat of the Sun’s energy from escaping out of the atmosphere which warms the Earth. Green house gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. The burning of fossil fuels also causes greenhouse gases to be released as well as using up the earth finite natural resources. In the last century temperature because of the large amounts of these gases produced there was a worldwide increase in temperature by 1 degree Fahrenheit and the increase will get worse every year as pollution continues. The temperature increase will cause the polar ice caps which will raise the water levels around the world as well as cause drought and more severe storms of any nature. The Earth will become more inhabitable and could possibly cause the extinction of species. An alternative to these fossil fuels that will not worsen Global Warming, and may actually help, is Wind Power. Wind is an endlessly supplied, renewable natural resource that the planet doesn’t stop producing. Wind turbines use the flow of wind to propel the blades to turn. Designed like the wings of an aircraft the turbine blades displace the wind to either side of the blade, but more to one specific side so that the wind flow will cause the blade to move in one direction. The wind turns the blades, which turn the rotor, which will then turn the generator producing electricity. These turbines can be build in rows covering acres of land and produce large amounts of electricity. To produce one megawatt of electricity you will need to use close to 60 acres of land. All of this land is not wasted though: a total of 3 of these acres will be covered with turbines and the rest of the land can be turned into farms to produce crops, no coal mines can be turned into a farm. The power of wind turbines has already been acknowledged and many countries have built wind farms. In a study the United States Department of Energy theorized that wind turbines could produce up to 5800 quadrillions BTU’s per year, saving 261 billion tons of coals or 997 billion barrels of oil per year. This is only about 20% of the United States supply of electricity, and we are currently only supplying 0.4% of the U.S.’s electricity by wind turbines. (source: Alternative Energy 329) If you look at the following two tables you will see the large jump in megawatts produced by nations around the world, and in just over 10 years the United States was able to triple it's megawatt production, and Germany was able to increase theirs by 116 thousand megawatts. This is only the start of what the world could do if we all tried to use renewable energy. In the two maps following these tables you will see the how much energy has been produced by the leading countries with wind power. If you compare the ten year difference you will see that Germany has increases by 116,000 megawatts while all other countries have only increase by a few thousand. Germany is burning significantly less fossil fuels and because of that it produces much less CO2 emissions.

**United States and State — 80-Meter Wind Resource Maps**
Click on a state to view individual state maps. [|Alaska], [|Hawaii], [|Puerto Rico], and the [|U.S. Virgin Islands] do not have 80-meter wind maps available but have 50-meter wind maps.



Air your thoughts...
 * Wind Pros and Cons, Myths and Misconceptions**

**Myths and Misconceptions**
**Myths about birds:** Turbines kill: Today, turbines are built larger and more efficiently, and as a consequence, they rotate much more slowly than earlier versions (see them spin! Link to video). Even Audubon supports the development and use of wind power. (bird mortality stats p. 155-6, Berger; also, AWEA Wind Energy Fact Sheet: Facts About Wind Energy & Birds)

A bird will collide with a given wind machine about once every 8-15 years; higher incidences may occur in locations with large concentrations of waterfowl or in areas of high migration

The only place where high mortality was found near wind facilities was Altamont (7,000 turbines), where 182 birds were found dead over a two year study. Collisions accounted for most of the deaths; the remainder were attributed to electrocutions from power lines, collisions with wires, and unknown causes

Each year, an estimated 57 million birds dies in collisions with vehicles, 1.25 million in collisions with tall structures (buildings, towers), and 97.5 million in collisions with plate glass. (1994 Kenetech Windpower study results reprinted on AWEA fact sheet.)

Contrast this with deaths from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, when more than 500,000 migratory birds perished (1,000 times the amount that die in California's plants each year); Or the 3,000 recorded bird deaths on one fall evening near a coal-fired power plant in Florida (AWEA Fact Sheet)


 * Myths about Turbines:**

Noise - Again, technological advances enable more wind to be converted to rotational torque, which results in less noise. (dB comparison from AWEA slide presentation

Unsafe - The only hazardous materials involved are small amounts of lubricating oils, and hydraulic and insulating fluids. As a result, soil contamination is minimal. Wind energy generators do, however, produce electric and magnetic fields (like all electrical generating facilities).

Expensive - Even without subsidies (due to expire in 2001), wind energy has become competitive with gas

Unreliable - while this might have been true in the 1980s, it's not true now. Modern turbines operate 98% of the time.

Unsightly - Turbines are no longer small and noisy. Far fewer produce the same if not more power. Consequently, they can be spread out over a larger area and are less unsightly. Whether one perceives them as an eyesore or a thing of beauty depends on ones values.

Fossil fuels are cheaper than renewables like wind - the real reason they've been cheaper is the subsidies coal, oil and gas receive; plus, they don't account for environmental costs (in other words, fossil fuels are artificially cheap) - a carbon tax or tax breaks (government research and development funding) would even the playing field or even tip it in renewables' direction

It's difficult to integrate wind energy into existing utilities systems (i.e., the power grid) - Utilities companies, especially those in California, have been doing this successfully since the 1980s. According to a DOE-sponsored study (year TK), operators and dispatchers say engineering issues such as intermittent availability or voltage regulation are of no concern. From an operational standpoint, utilities carry adequate energy reserves so that transmission disruptions (from turbine to supply lines, or from low wind conditions) would not result in power cuts to customers -- (from Wind Energy Weekly #680, 15 January 1996)

Photo by Bob Thresher of Searsburg, VT

=http://www.healthlink.org/windproscons37.html= = = = = = = =Cape Cod Offshore Wind Farm Approved=
 * ====**Print out this table for easy reference. Then, see __ [|Myths & Misconceptions] __ to answer wind power naysayers and inform others**==== ||
 * ==**PROS**== || ==**CONS**== ||
 * **Zero emissions** - This means no CO2, sulfur, nitrogen oxide, particulates, trace metals, or solid waste associated with global warming, acid rain, pollution, asthma, and other negative enviro/health consequences || **High initial investment** - About 80% goes to machinery, and 20% to site preparation and installation. //After that, however, there are minimal operating and routine maintenance expenses (no fuel to purchase!)// ||
 * **Renewable** - Wind is in constant supply, unlike coal, oil, and gas, which are finite natural resources || **Noise - Today's large wind turbines make less noise than the background noise you hear in your own home (45 dB versus 50 dB)! (1)** ||
 * **Free** - Because wind (not fuel) powers production, operation costs are effectively zero || **Aesthetic/visual impact -** Today's turbines are sleek and appealing to most people ||
 * **Declining costs** - As installed capacity has increased, costs have dropped 85% in 15 years to <$0.05 per kWh. The DOE has set a goal of $0.025 per kWh by 2002 (1) || Avian mortality - [|See Myths and Misconceptions] ||
 * **Creates new jobs**￉ and new businesses, strengthening the U.S. economy || **Intermittent -** Wind must blow between 16 mph and 60 mph for power generation (2). At present, wind energy cannot be easily stored. //Electricity providers are trained to divert other energy sources to meet demand, however, and storage technology (batteries) should improve markedly over time.// ||
 * **Quick installation** - Once a site has been selected and permits approved, wind turbine installation can be completed in months (compared to years for a gas, coal, or nuclear plant) || **Distribution** - Wind turbines must be situated nearby existing infrastructure (transmission lines), or else costs escalate. ||
 * **Phased growth** - You can increase production capacity as your needs grow ||  ||
 * **Mass appeal -** Opinion polls consistently demonstrate strong popular support for clean-burning, renewable technologies like wind power ||  ||
 * **Self-sufficiency** - Because it can be developed domestically, wind power reduces U.S. reliance on imported energy ||  ||
 * **Price stability** - Unlike fossil fuel prices, which fluctuate due to factors beyond our control, wind power comes with a relatively fixed price, one likely to drop considerably over time ||  ||
 * **Small footprint** - Wind turbine towers interfere little with surface activity (e.g., farming, livestock) ||  ||
 * **Low impact** - Wind turbine operation offers little threat to wildlife and natural habitat ||  ||

The offshore wind farm, if built, will be the nation's first and will encompass 130 turbines.
Wed Apr 28, 2010 03:22 PM ET | content provided by Jay Lindsay, Associated Press The Obama administration has approved what would be the nation's first offshore wind farm, off Cape Cod, inching the U.S. closer to harvesting an untapped domestic energy source -- the steady breezes blowing along its vast coasts. U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced his decision Wednesday in Boston, clearing the way for a 130-turbine wind farm in Nantucket Sound. Cape Wind was in its ninth year of federal review, and Salazar stepped in early this year to bring what he called much-needed resolution to the bitterly contested proposal. "We are beginning a new direction in our nation's energy future," Salazar said. But members of the Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe of Martha's Vineyard have vowed to sue to stop Cape Wind from being built, saying it would interfere with sacred rituals and desecrate tribal burial sites. Others opposed to the project on environmental grounds also have said they'll sue. Audra Parker of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, the chief opponent to Cape Wind, said the "flawed" project would be derailed in court. "It's far from over," she said. "Nantucket Sound needs to be off limits to Cape Wind and any other industrial development." Salazar said he understood opponents' concerns but had to weigh them against the nation's need for new renewable sources of energy. "This is the final decision of the United States of America," he said. "We are very confident we will be able to uphold the decision against legal challenges." Cape Wind says it can generate power by 2012 and aims to eventually supply three-quarters of the power on Cape Cod, which has about 225,000 residents. Cape Wind officials say it will provide green jobs and a reliable domestic energy source, while offshore wind advocates are hoping it can jump-start the U.S. industry. [|**WATCH VIDEO: Parts of New York City are getting their power from underwater turbines.**]
 * Related Links:**


 * [|**The Potential of Offshore Wind Power**]
 * [|**Power of the Wind: Thinking Bigger**]
 * [|**Wide Angle: Wind Power**]
 * [|**HowStuffWorks.com: Wind Power**]

America's onshore wind industry is the world's largest, but higher upfront costs, tougher technological challenges and environmental concerns have held back the development of offshore wind farms. Denmark installed the world's first offshore wind turbine 20 years ago. China has built its first commercial wind farm off Shanghai and plans several other projects. The U.S. Department of Energy envisions offshore wind farms accounting for 4 percent of the country's electric generating capacity by 2030. Major U.S. proposals include a project in Texas state waters, but most are concentrated along the East Coast north of Maryland, including projects in Delaware and New Jersey. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick has been an enthusiastic backer of Cape Wind, pushing it as key to the state's efforts to increase its use of renewable energy. The lead federal agency reviewing the project, the Minerals Management Service, issued a report last year saying the project posed no major environmental problems. Critics say the project endangers wildlife and air and sea traffic, while marring historic vistas. The late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy fought Cape Wind, calling it a special interest giveaway. The wind farm would be visible from the Kennedy family compound in Hyannisport. Democrat U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, who represents Cape Cod, said allowing the project to move forward will open "a new chapter of legal battles and potential setbacks" for the wind power industry. "Cape Wind is the first offshore wind farm to be built in the wrong place, in the wrong way, stimulating the wrong economies," Delahunt said Wednesday. Home to some of the best-known beaches in the Northeast, Cape Cod has long been a destination for summer vacations and is famous for its small towns and homes in its namesake architectural style. The project is about five miles off Cape Cod at its closest proximity to land and 14 miles off Nantucket at the greatest distance. According to visual simulations done for Cape Wind, on a clear day the turbines would be about a half-inch tall on the horizon at the nearest point and appear as specks from Nantucket. The developers are being required to configure the wind farm to reduce visual effects on the outer cape and Nantucket Island, Salazar said. Opponents also said the power from the pricey Cape Wind project, estimated to cost at least $2 billion, would be too expensive. U.S. Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, the Republican who won Kennedy's seat this year, said the project will jeopardize tourism and affect aviation safety and the rights of the Native American tribes. "Nantucket Sound is a national treasure that should be protected from industrialization," Brown said.