Researchers studying a potential offshore wind farm on the Virginia coast have reached the halfway point of their work but already have come to a solid conclusion: The clean-energy project is realistic and doable.
"We're not seeing any show-stoppers," said Larry Atkinson, an oceanographer at Old Dominion University in Norfolk.
While plenty of environmental and logistical questions remain, including potential conflicts with the Navy, "it's definitely viable, and really seems to make sense," Atkinson said.
A team of university scientists and industry experts has narrowed its sights on an initial project - about 100 wind turbines installed at least 12 miles off Virginia Beach, costing more than $250 million.
The whirling turbines, each about 300 feet tall, would not be visible from shore, researchers said, and would take advantage of strong, consistent winds found in that part of the Atlantic, especially during winter.
One expert involved in the study described the subject area off Virginia Beach as "probably the best place, all-around, of any site on the East Coast."
Wind speed, relatively shallow water, low prevalence of hurricanes and close proximity to electric-power infrastructure in Virginia Beach were all factors in that slam-dunk assessment.
"Virginia Beach is, by far, the best location we looked at," said the expert, Neil Rondorf, vice president for maritime operations at Science Applications International Corp., a local consulting firm. Rondorf has studied wind energy on and off since the 1970s.
While much of the economic-benefits part of the study is unfinished, researchers said an offshore wind farm would create jobs, lure spinoff businesses and manufacturers to the region and could even promote tourism.
"They run tour boats out to the turbines in Europe," Rondorf said, "and they apparently do quite well."
The envisioned project is modeled after one in Denmark, known as Horns Rev, which started producing about 160 megawatts of electricity a year for the Scandinavian country in 2002.
That much electricity is about one-third of what a proposed coal-fired power plant in Wise County in southwestern Virginia would generate annually, a plant that environmentalists are protesting in court and political circles as a major step backward in the drive for greener energy.
Offshore wind in Virginia, by contrast, so far has the support of environmentalists, including critics of proposed wind farms atop Appalachian mountain ridges in the western part of the state.
"If wind energy development in the eastern U.S. is going to make a real rather than symbolic contribution to solving our energy and air pollution problems, it will certainly be offshore development," Rick Webb, a University of Virginia scientist, wrote in an e-mail.
Webb is fighting an approved wind farm in Highland County, as well as prospective mountain turbines in other neighboring counties, arguing their environmental impacts would outweigh any economic gains.
In studying offshore sites from southern Maryland to northern North Carolina, researchers from four universities and several local consulting firms have spent the past year trying to answer some basic questions about a possible project:
What wind resources are available off the coast? Is there enough wind to make private investment and development worthwhile? Would Navy training and operations be compromised? Is the ocean bottom strong enough to handle 300-foot-tall turbines? How would the energy reach the power grid onshore?
The answers, in order, are: plenty; yes; probably not; yes; and by constructing a long transmission line on the floor of the ocean to an undetermined point in Virginia Beach.
The study, involving ODU, Virginia Tech, James Madison University and Norfolk State, is part of a $1.4 million state commitment to developing alternative energy sources in the commonwealth.
Wind is a major focus of the two-year commitment, as is research seeking to convert algae into biofuel, a project spearheaded by ODU scientists.
Offshore wind researchers are preparing a progress report for Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and the General Assembly. Their summary, expected out in a month or two, will describe the Virginia Beach site as the best option, several scientists said.
Their overall study is expected to extend to July 2009, and will more fully examine the economics and potential conflicts with the Navy, the Wallops Island space port, sea birds, fisheries and marine mammals.
However, more than environmental obstacles, some scientists fear state budget cuts might fall on them and the wind analysis.
The study comes as offshore wind projects are taking off on the East Coast, if some still are stumbling.
This summer, a company called Bluewater Wind Delaware LLC signed an agreement with Delmarva Power to sell up to 200 megawatts of power from a wind farm to be built 11.5 miles off the coast of Rehoboth Beach in Delaware.
It would be the first offshore farm on the Atlantic coast.
Plans are drawn for wind turbines off New Jersey, though the project has been delayed for several years now, in part for lack of federal rules governing how such farms can be permitted and regulated.
Another private initiative is under way off Rhode Island, where a consortium of fishermen is collaborating with Bluewater Wind to develop a farm near Block Island.
In Massachusetts, meanwhile, the long-delayed Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound remains caught up in political and regulatory problems.
A proposal to permit a wind farm off Virginia's Eastern Shore died in 2003 after much debate about potential impacts to migratory birds, Navy training and sensitive, coastal barrier islands.
The nail in the coffin, however, was a lack of electric-transmission capacity on the Eastern Shore.
Such capacity issues are not a problem in Virginia Beach.
Clay Bernick, Virginia Beach's director of environmental services, said he and several other city staffers have met with the offshore wind researchers about their study, and came away impressed.
"I think it does hold promise," he said, "especially when you consider the clean aspect of it and the sustainability side of it."
Researchers said the biggest obstacle to the project is probably the Navy, which has voiced concerns about drilling for oil, offshore wind and other ocean developments that might interfere with training and operations.
"If we can show them that we're going to stay out of their way, I think we'll be fine," Rondorf said.
Scott Harper, (757) 446-2340, scott.harper@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
actually tigs
they have all the wind they'll ever need... it's just blowing too low for any windmill to pick it up ;-)
hypocrites
"Plans are drawn for wind turbines off New Jersey, though the project has been delayed for several years now, in part for lack of federal rules governing how such farms can be permitted and regulated."
"In Massachusetts, meanwhile, the long-delayed Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound remains caught up in political and regulatory problems."
Can anyone say "Kennedy" and "Corzine"? Democrats want all the wind they can get......as long as its not in THEIR backyard! Keep sucking up to the special interests guys!! And thanks for helping our energy crisis to start getting off oil. Just words.....just speeches....blah blah blah
MostlyConfused ... Read the entire articles and several others
So, let me get this straight; you are saying that over four months; ethanol was responsible for creating world hunger when the world has surplus of grain to feed the world ten times over and the land to grow it.
his Conservative augment is reprehensible and was propaganda put out by the oil companies to stilt this temporary solution until we could achieve greater resolve to our dependence on fossil fuels. However, this story is about alternatives sources of energy and the question of Subsidies was the issue at hand, just had to speak on it.
A Few Comments
Here are a few comments: 1. all energy industries are subsidized that is why our gas is cheaper than Europe's and that is why the Federal Government is paying for the application fees of nuclear power projects this year, 2. offshore wind energy has to be financially feasible but it is also about producing our energy domestically too and that is why offshore wind and offshore drilling both need to work together and not against each other, and 3. there are two commercial size wind turbines at the North end of Atlantic City which is a tourist city just like Virginia Beach and the residents are proud of it and I am proud to patron a city that is willing to host them.
Go for Wind
Go for wind power. We need a combination of power sources for the future. Go solar, wind, nuclear, bio fuels (not grain based ethanol), drill for more oil, and energy conservaton/efficiency measures. There is no magic bullet at this point in time. The important thing to remember is; we need oil and natural gas to make things. Petrochemicals, polymers, and many other useful items are made from oil and natural gas. They are limited resources and should not be burned in the future. Burning is a one time use.
Go to http://www.bluewaterwind.com/de_photos.htm to see accurate representations of wind power as viewed from shore. Many other interesting facts about offshore wind are on their site as well. If visible at all, offshore turbines are distant specks on the horizon.
Liberals and Democrats "tilting at windmills" again
Windmills as a solution are far off at best, impossible at worst. Look at the attempt to create windfarms up north--who stopped it? David Letterman, the Kennedy family and luminaries such as Walter Kronkite. Why? It's the NIMBY (not in my back yard) syndrome. Put the windmills where the "peasants" live--but not where they might be visible in my million-dollar view.
Here Here GSW
And let's not forget that SAIC is actually based out of San Diego with Federal contracts ALL OVER THE WORLD. Not just a local consulting firm... Looks like this reporter could have used a few readers to source and edit the article before writing it ;-)
Yes, those terrible subsidies . . .
People forget that nuclear power WAS originally subsidized by the government, that the first working nuclear plants that provided power for communities were built by the government (Arco Idaho, the first community in America that had its power provided by a nuclear power plant: the Navy's test, training and research facility at the Idaho Nuclear Engineering Laboratory - INEL). American railroads - our transcontinental lines - were subsidized by the U.S. Government through land grants. That powerhouse of new technological developments, NASA: subsidized by our tax dollars. Government subsidies are a powerful way of creating incentive for innovation. Corporations concentrate on making things that will make an instant profit - and rarely if ever these days look long term for new innovations. Government subsidies for research are what have driven much of American scientific innovations in the past and should be used to continue to do so.
User
You're focusing too much on the specifics of the example and missing the principle. When the Congress decided to encourage ethanol use with a subsidy, the idea that it would cause hunger in the third world occurred only to a handful of economists.
But that is the point, there are always unanticipated adverse consequences when we distort the economy with tax policy or subsidies. We don't need to identify them ahead of time so long as we know that every time we meddle in the market, someone will get hurt, and usually everyone is hurt to some extent.
So, as a matter of principle, subsidies are bad practice.
As far as encouraging entreprenuers is concerned, name one that matters that received a subsidy. Subsidies only keep bad ideas alive longer, good ideas don't need them.
Silly
Ethanol is mainly produced from animal feed corn in the US, as in “Iowa corn-fed beef.” Because this crop isn’t intended for human consumption in any country, directly linking ethanol to global food supplies is nonsense.
That's about the worst argument I've heard yet. The plant isn't the resource. The resource is the land. If that land is being used to produce fuel then it is not being used to produce food. It's not like a particular field can only grow feed corn.
Chesapeake Light Tower
How many of you can see it from shore during the day?? Rarely! I believe it is around 200ft at the tallest part. Also as small as these things are in diameter it will be very hard to see them. I am a boat Capt and Ill tell you this, paint them haze grey and you will NOT see them at all! There is a distortion on the water that will not allow you to see things that far away unless they are massive. A fully loaded container ship will dissappear about 10miles away and the superstructure is way more massive than these things.
There's a difference
Mr.Tabor, using ethanol as an example is comparing apples and oranges, ethanol is made from a product we depend on to feed ourselves, where as wind is a natural resource that supports no other industry than the one we utilize it to support. Your theory would also prohibit the un-accomplished entrepreneur from growing into a successful business. With your logic implemented, only the wealthy would be able to start new industry because they have the capital on hand to do so. Our country would not be a leader in many industries, if subsidies did not exist.
Wm D Tabor DDS .. Too much Fox news
(Ethanol is mainly produced from animal feed corn in the US, as in “Iowa corn-fed beef.” Because this crop isn’t intended for human consumption in any country, directly linking ethanol to global food supplies is nonsense.) Read outside of your normal places where you gather knowledge
http://www.amateureconomists.com/view_articles_detail.php?aid=91
Wind Power
The reporter should get his facts right. Science Applications International Corporation is hardly a local consulting firm. It is international in scope, traded on the NY stock exchange and has almost 50,000 employees. SAIC is an international firm with a local Hampton Roads office.
Would love the diving
Oil rigs near Texas have some of the best diving around, except for maybe Cuba... I know, I live in GTMO right now...
But at 12 miles the would be barely visible... You're comment jarred my head about all the neigh sayers about Oil Rigs... and even those that don't want to see windmills... the only thing is at 12 miles and out you'll be lucky to see them at all...
mikedlong your math is correct
Your math is correct. So at 12 miles, the windmills will be very visible at 300 feet in height. But I am not complaining about seeing windmills. It's a great proposal and project. Not to mention the fishing and diving structures the windmills will provide.
No subsidy for oil or nuclear either
I don't know how to make it more clear, ALL subsidies distort the marketplace and reduce the overall efficiency of the economy to our detriment.
Subsidies are essentially bribes to do something you know better than to do if you acted rationally. There is no benefit to trying to balance a series of irrational acts against each other with offsetting subsidies.
Government should act as an umpire, preventing the use of force or fraud in the marketplace, but otherwise allow the economy to function based on the rational decisions of its participants.
If someone can make a buck on windmills, nuclear, biofuels or whatever, good for them, but we do great harm when we encourage irrational choices. Look at the hunger caused by subsidies for ethanol. You can't always anticipate where subsidies will come back to bite us but they always do.
This is not new science.
Wind generated power is being used successfully throughout Northern Europe and elsewhere. It does not completely mitigate the need for traditional power plants. But it replaces extremely expensive new power plant construction with less expensive and more flexible generation capacity closer to where it is needed. There's less energy loss during transmission, and at various times of the day wind energy generating regions can be so productive that they meet their own needs and have a surplus to sell to the national power grid, further offsetting local energy costs. Like any piece of machinery, windmills require maintenance. But the methods for doing this, whether on sea or dry land, have all been worked out.
So, We're Subsidizing Oil?
Mr. Tabor, Under your rational, we should not be subsidizing oil! But yet we are, in the form of billions of dollars including State and Federal taxes for each gallon sold! Would you at least agree that we are also spending our nation's treasure and taxing our DoD to defend it to keep it flowing from the Persian Gulf? Wind and solar provide free energy after ROI and is renewable! Would we not be wise to tap into these alternatives? We subsidize the air industry, rail, roadways, health care and now we are even subsidizing our banks! I give you credit for clean coal, but don't believe that for one minute that the industry won't be asking for subsidies to burn clean coal in modernized boilers! You can't put a valve on the wind, or big umbrella to block the sun and these are renewable energy sources! Oh yes, I forgot about the environmental wackos who don't want more refineries. Guess what? The Industry does not want more subsidizided refineries because that will keep up the supply in a crisis. Watch this upcoming Hurricane movie again and let's see how much our gasoline energy subsidities make a difference on our return on investment for this non-renewable resource.
Yes to Subsidies
Nuclear,Oil and Coal are all subsidized, think where we would be, if they were not. Saying no to subsidies is saying NO to a new industry that could bring jobs and revenue to our area. In these economic times, there is no entity within the energy, transportation or retail sector that could bring jobs and economic vitality to an area without a subsidy. The return on investment is far greater than the cost of the subsidy. Our area should not be left behind, while other areas prosper for assisting new industry in it's start up. Use wind energy and subsidize those small businesses who are looking into the future rather than holding us back via short sided thinking.