The Cape is abn expensive place to build a house, but that is nothing compared to how much how much off shore wind towers cost to build there.  Last I heard it was running something like $1.7 billion for under half a GW of nominal power.  Figure the real power output is not going to average more that 150 MWs.  I am probably being generous here.  Lets see that gives us $11 billion + per GW.  How many Nuclear power plants can we build with that?  Art least3.  Figure 4 GW of reliable power for the same price that will get you 150 Mw of good old clean renewable energy.  And exactly why do the Greens call nuclear power expensive?

Charles Barton

...this will not be the first offshore wind farm in the U.S.  One is already under construction off the coast of Galveston, Texas.  However, it may be the first one built in federal waters, since Texas has the rights up to 10 miles off the coast, while most other states only have rights up to 3 miles out (the Cape Wind project is 4.7 miles out).

This is one of the reasons why the wind project in Texas got passed so quickly.

To only consider the startup capital required in calculating expense is shortsighted and irresponsible.  The cost of nuclear energy is much more than the cost of building a nuclear power plant.  Other factors need to be accounted for.  For instance, the cost to society of producing radioactive waste with a half-life of thousands of years, discharging thermal pollution into our fragile stream ecosystems, and creating the risk for disastrous meltdown and contamination need to be taken into account.  When everything is accounted for and risk assessment is quantified, nuclear power turns out to be much more expensive than at first glance.

...I imagine the costs to maintain and upgrade nuclear power plants also probably far exceed that of wind farms, even given the fact that the farms typically need to be undergo a total upgrade/replacement 'bout every 20 to 30 years or so.

Actually maintenance of off shore wind farms is quite expensive, and fuel and operating costs of reactors is low.  Plus reactors last 60 years verses 20 years for wind towers.  Also there are more fatal accidents with wind. Base power wind can never overcome its original cost disadvantage to nuclear.  

Charles Barton

A) According to Jim Gordon, the CEO of Cape Wind Associates, the project is expected to cost $1.2 billion. Not $1.7 billion. It's expensive, but then it's also the first one of its kind in the US (the project off Galveston, TX is still in the testing phase, though there's a good chance it'll go up before Cape Wind). In a few years, once we have a legitimate offshore wind industry in this country, the costs will come down just like they did in Europe.

B) Cape Wind is financed entirely by private investors (minus the 1.9 cents/KwH production tax credit). The economics clearly work out or they wouldn't be moving with the project in the first place. Compare this to nuclear. It's a mature industry and, even so, we stopped building reactors in this country when the government stopped offering them low interest loans. The market refuses to touch nuclear without a government safety net.

C) There has been one fatality in the history of modern wind power. It was an engineer out in the Pacific Northwest last year. Remind me how many people died in Chernobyl? I'm not saying that's likely to happen, but let's not spin the facts here.

We should all be happy this industry is finally making some headway. It's worked in Europe to the point that England and Denmark are each shooting to produce 50% of their electricity with mostly offshore wind. It's high time that we start taking  some initiative ourselves.

The Cape Wind has been litigated and may be litigated yet again. I suppose it's a good deal in the name of "feel good" offshore wind farms.  

All I ask is that if the project fails, all the equipment and gear be removed. All of it.

Onward through the fog

Removal at the end of life is usually the requirement for offshore installations of any kind.

Of course if it is some oil or gas production platform in the Gulf a sweetheart "rigs to reefs" deal is arranged, in which most removal costs are avoided and an opportunity for corporate greenwashing is provided.

And yeah, I feel good about nearly carbon-free power production displacing expensive coal.

...actually addressed the dismantiling of the towers, their supports, and associated procedures.  I didn't expect that they would do so, but surprisingly, they did.

Charles, what 'bout the cost of mining and transport for the nuclear fuel?  How expensive is that generally?

Syjel 1. the $1.7 figure was recently reported in the New York Times, and in fact it well may be low since the costs of steel, concrete, and wind generators and off shore construction are rising rapidly.  You ought to note that Long Island power pulled the plug on an offshore wind farm last year when the price reached eight hundred million for a 140 MW facility.  But even if we accept the $1.2 billion figure that is still a lot of money to pay for the amount of power they are getting.  The capitol costs are going to run at least $8.00 per KW or real world electricity.  Even the highest estimate of the cost of nuclear power comes in for less, and you can count on a reactor 24 hours a day.  

Wind power extremely heavily subsidized, far more so than nuclear power.  Indeed, wind power is a corporate welfare scheme for rich investors.

I think if you will carefully check, you will find that there have been 13 deaths from wind power associated accidents.  

Charles Barton

Erik Hoffner wrote: A windfarm like this one could be up and running in 3 years time. By the time your 3 nukes are built, it's 2030, and the need for their supposed "carbon free" power is gone because the climate is already cooked.

What might windpower have to do with either carbon-production or climate-crises?

Amazingdrx wrote: floating wind [...] a lot cheaper

When you make statements like these, could you please show your figures and their sources? Thank you in advance.

Does Denmark employ floating wind? If not, why not? If Denmark does not employ floating wind, would you consider that peculiar in light of your a lot cheaper claim?

Amazingdrx wrote: Floating wind is assembled in drydock and towed out to sea

Where has that ever occurred?

Tasermons Partner wrote: farms typically need to be undergo a total upgrade/replacement 'bout every 20 to 30 years or so.

Could you point to even a single example of a 20-year-old offshore windfarm?

Wind power extremely heavily subsidized, far more so than nuclear power.  Indeed, wind power is a corporate welfare scheme for rich investors.

Um...Charles, last I checked, nuclear was heavily subsidized as well, and many breaks and incentives are offered durin' the construction and start-up phases, which are the most expensive.  Without subsidies, most of the proposed nuclear power projects for the U.S. would probably be scrapped pretty quickly.

What might windpower have to do with either carbon-production or climate-crises?

If enough power is derived from wind and other clean renewables, then there wouldn't be a need to construct new power plants which employ "traditional" methods such as gas and coal. If we can produce enough renewable energy and enough money becomes invested in the process, then it may be possible to eventually replace most, and maybe all, of our energy sources with renewables.

Thus, our CO2 ouput would be greatly reduced.  The quicker the energy is substituted, the greater the amount of C02 prevented from release.  Since wind power can be established in certain locations fairly quickly, it has the opportunity to "mitigate" CO2 and other GHG releases fairly quickly.

farms typically need to be undergo a total upgrade/replacement 'bout every 20 to 30 years or so.

Read carefully.  I didn't say offshore farms, I said wind farms (as in general).  Most onshore wind farms have a typical lifespan of 20 to 30 years.  That is to say, after 20 to 30 years, most of the windmills are generally replaced with new ones, partly due to new technology that increases efficieny, and partly due to the fact that older windmills break down to the point that it's cheaper to get new ones as opposed to maintainin' older ones.

Most reasearch predicts that offshore wind farms will probably have slightly longer lifespans that their onshore cousins (see the EIS), since there's less turbulence over the water (even when taking into account the effect of sea-salt on the windmills).

Nucbuddy, from my perspective, that article cited doesn't really count as a wind-power related accident.  They don't know what caused the accident, only that it happened in fog.  If it had been caused by a collision with the windmill, they would've noticed damage, so it probably wasn't that.  The fact that they were doin' maintenance at the time was merely a coincidence.  It could've just as easily been a helicopter that was owned by someone else doin' something else that just so happened to crash near (but not into) a windmill.

It was most likely a mechanical failure with the helicopter, I'd think.  Wanna guess at how many oil-workers have died on helicopters that were transporting 'em out to rigs...I bet it's in the hundreds, easy (my mom's now deceased boyfriend was one).

And I personally wouldn't call coal and nuclear "the safest" power sources.  I'm not sure 'bout nuclear in the United States, but I'm fairly certain that more people have died in accidents at coal plants than in all clean renewable sources combined.  And I'm also fairly certain people who work at nuclear and coal plants have instances of cancer and other medical problems than the general population.

and there is no intergenerational waste legacy with nuclear energy.

That doesn't sound right to me (perhaps I'm readin' it wrong?).  Doesn't the waste from nuclear energy last for thousands of years (in terms of radioactivity)?  The waste can be contained, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.  The waste still lasts for generations, correct?

buried about a kilometre deep

I meant, buried at depths ranging from zero to 1 km.

Norsk Hydro is testing their floating wind machine now.

My contention that cost is lower than offshore wind that is affixed to the bottom and constructed at sea (like Cape Wind)is based on the nature of the design.  Data will be forthcoming as the tests are completed.

Underwater construction is very expensive and so is crane wind machine assembley at sea.  Disturbance of the seabed raises eco concerns.  Locating machines in shallow water visible from shore raises NIMBY concerns and pushes expensive litigation.

Mass assembley in dry docks, like the techniques used with the Liberty Ships, and modern ship building is much less expensive.  Norsk Hydro is using technolgy developed for offshore drilling rigs.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Erik Hoffner wrote: just the amount of energy it takes to build a nuke is mind blowing

How much energy does it take to build a nuke, Erik?

Immediate fatalities 1970-92 per TWy electricity:

Coal - 342 workers
Natural gas - 85 workers & public
Hydro - 883 public
Nuclear - 8 workers

Fair 'nough...though I personally don't classify most hydro as "clean renewables" personally, I imagine the industry as a whole probably does.

It says public and not workers though, which makes me think it's the result of some dam failures that resulted in flooding.  However, I'm not aware of any dam that actually used hydro power for electricity as failing recently.  I skimmed that link, but couldn't find any more info.  Do ya know which incidents those are, just putta curiosity?  

...Accordin' to those lists, the only power-generating hydro dam to fail in America since 1975 (the report was from 70 to 95) was the Teton Dam, and that killed less than 20 people.

Where do they get 883 American deaths from?

First off, two of those three links were to dam failures that didn't provide electricity.  They shouldn't include figures from dam failures in fatalities from renewable energy if the dams didn't actually produce energy.

Second, those figures also exclude deaths during the construction of the plants, and also exclude deaths associated from mining/drilling. for the plants fuel sources.

And though dams probably would make good terrorist targets, one of the advantages to solar and wind systems is that the distribution allows for part of the system (such as a few windmills or panels) to fail, but not have much effect on the overall power system.  With plants confined to generally singular locations and systems (like coal and gas), it's easier for a failure to effect the entire facility/system.