Recent Comment
Share
The Netherlands' Society for Nature and Environment recently commissioned a plan for a super ring of wind farms in the North Sea that could generate 13,400 terawatt hours of electricity.
The company responsible for the design, OMA, sees the wind farm serving all seven countries that surround the sea, leading to energy independence for Europe. The amount of energy that the proposed wind farm would create would allow Europe to forego oil imports from Russia and the Gulf states by 2050.
Other highlights of the plan include a ban on fishing within the wind farm site, which means the farm would create a protective barrier for the area's marine life. Also, the project would include a new international institute for renewable energy that would oversee the project and hopefully offer expertise to the rest of the world.
The society said that large, long-term investments in renewable energy are needed over many short-term incentives and I agree. When scientists and designers come up with an idea that could effectively replace large imports of oil, it's worth betting on. I truly hope that this idea makes it past the drawing board. The world needs a great example of true energy independence.
To download a PDF of the OMA plan, click here.
via Treehugger
Hits: 6282
Comments (17)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by EV, January 22, 2009
Interesting. It doesn't mention how they are going to develop electric cars and charging stations that would be required to completely replace oil.
-
- +0
-
-
written by RV, January 22, 2009
Kerhoffer, why do you say Nuclear is totally reliable? Where would you store the nuclear waste? Nobody wants it.
-
- +0
-
-
written by wind4me, January 22, 2009
Wind is going to be the clean solution du jour whether you want to beleive or not, its the ONLY NON FUEL energy source with ROI
http://www.Wind4me.com
http://www.Wind4me.com
-
- +0
-
-
written by David Ahlport, January 23, 2009
1. How do you run a Liquid Fuel car on Wind Energy?
2. For UK and surrounding areas, why not 24/7 Ocean energy, at a fraction of the cost.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/renewableenergy/3535012/Ocean-currents-can-power-the-world-say-scientists.html
2. For UK and surrounding areas, why not 24/7 Ocean energy, at a fraction of the cost.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/renewableenergy/3535012/Ocean-currents-can-power-the-world-say-scientists.html
-
- +0
-
-
written by Nadja, January 23, 2009
the problem with wind is, it doesn't blow nice and steady as we need our energy. Peak load, is all I am saying. So, as long as we don't have the necessary technology to store that energy, we still need a backup system for the not so windy days/hours.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea, particularly the one with the protection area, two (or even more good effects) for the price of one! I'm just saying, there's a lot that still needs to be done, besides the huge investment...
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea, particularly the one with the protection area, two (or even more good effects) for the price of one! I'm just saying, there's a lot that still needs to be done, besides the huge investment...
-
- +0
-
-
written by Chris, January 23, 2009
Do you have any meteorological expertise to back up your accusations? I mean of course it will influence the climate, the climate is really complex. But on which scale? Are there any studies, which give us an answer? Everything we build influences the climate on some scale. A deforested area has a different albedo than a forested area. Cities develop air pressure differences, because of there surface materials. A Nuclear power plant increases the temperature in the rivers that it uses for cooling. We leave wherever we go footprints. Now please tell me which ones are the deeper ones?
-
- +0
-
-
written by EV, January 23, 2009
RV,
Use re-enrichment to recycle ~90% the waste and then the mines the uranium ore came from to store the waste.
Use re-enrichment to recycle ~90% the waste and then the mines the uranium ore came from to store the waste.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Aphrael, January 23, 2009
This stuff makes me so proud to be Dutch :). For all the people who worry: OMA, along with lots of other architects, has a history of being a bit provocative. They usually have great ideas, that's not the problem. It's more that the ideas are sometimes quite unconventional and/or too large-scale to be used. So even though this might be a great idea, I don't think the chances of it actually being used on this scale are big. But with the quality of work OMA delivers, and the clarity of the proposal, what it will do is spark some debate and hopefully get some other [smaller] projects off the ground.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Alastair, January 23, 2009
What of speculation that Windmills are causing great disturbances to the natural wildlife in the area? The blame for this is the sound that windmills make, and methinks that acoustic disturbance could be further enhanced by water.
Does anyone know anything about this issue?
Does anyone know anything about this issue?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Chris, January 23, 2009
"Use re-enrichment to recycle ~90% the waste and then the mines the uranium ore came from to store the waste."
Wow, did you come up with that yourself? What a great plan. Now please answer me the following questions.
How do you make those mines secure for a million years? How do you prevent radioactive material from seeping into the ground water?
Finding a solution to store radioactive waste isn't that easy. If it was, they would already have a solution. So far there is no final storage solution available. Of course you could just dump the barrels in the uranium mines, and bury them. After a while, rainwater will decompose the barrels, then the radioactive material will solute in the water, seep into the groundwater and disperse all over. Somewhere it will come back up to the surface as a river that people might use as a drinking water supply or irrigate their fields.
Wow, did you come up with that yourself? What a great plan. Now please answer me the following questions.
How do you make those mines secure for a million years? How do you prevent radioactive material from seeping into the ground water?
Finding a solution to store radioactive waste isn't that easy. If it was, they would already have a solution. So far there is no final storage solution available. Of course you could just dump the barrels in the uranium mines, and bury them. After a while, rainwater will decompose the barrels, then the radioactive material will solute in the water, seep into the groundwater and disperse all over. Somewhere it will come back up to the surface as a river that people might use as a drinking water supply or irrigate their fields.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Pam, January 23, 2009
One of the reasons why groups like wind farms on the ocean / lakes is that you find more undisturbed wind patterns. You don't have the problems of wind being filtered by tall buildings, forests, and mountains which offers longer wind reliability.
Another idea to take into mind is that the generator on wind tubrines are set to a regulated speed. Turbines can't spin faster than ... 35 mph (I think) this is to keep the blades from flying off AND to make sure that the local avian population won't become mulch.
And I haven't heard anything about the acoustics. In Cleveland, OH we are looking at our own feasibility study on an off shore wind farm that has looked at everything from climate changes, and for the fish and birds populations. The officials / scientists are still looking and double checking results but at this time the dangers are not substantial enough to cancel the program.
of FYI- I'm not a scientist myself, but an avid reader on the findings in my backyard. just my two cents.
Another idea to take into mind is that the generator on wind tubrines are set to a regulated speed. Turbines can't spin faster than ... 35 mph (I think) this is to keep the blades from flying off AND to make sure that the local avian population won't become mulch.
And I haven't heard anything about the acoustics. In Cleveland, OH we are looking at our own feasibility study on an off shore wind farm that has looked at everything from climate changes, and for the fish and birds populations. The officials / scientists are still looking and double checking results but at this time the dangers are not substantial enough to cancel the program.
of FYI- I'm not a scientist myself, but an avid reader on the findings in my backyard. just my two cents.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sonia @ EcoToaD, January 23, 2009
I am a big supporter of wind, solar and geothermal.
They truly are the energies of the future and we should research them in greater depth and take more advantage of the great renewable energy sources that the earth makes available for us.
Wind is also big in Spain, where I am from, supplying almost 15% of the country's electric power.
I hope that Obama will invest more in wind and solar-Just yesterday they finally passed the Cape Cod Wind plan!!!
Good stuff!! :D
They truly are the energies of the future and we should research them in greater depth and take more advantage of the great renewable energy sources that the earth makes available for us.
Wind is also big in Spain, where I am from, supplying almost 15% of the country's electric power.
I hope that Obama will invest more in wind and solar-Just yesterday they finally passed the Cape Cod Wind plan!!!
Good stuff!! :D
-
- +0
-
-
written by Tom, January 23, 2009
This sounds great, and OMA sounds like a very interesting organization. I can't wait to see how this pans out, and how much it will influence other countries. There was a race to get to the moon last century, now it's the race to energy independence. And that's a good thing.
-
- +0
-
-
written by RecycledBottle, January 24, 2009
Sounds interesting. I'd like to see it done on a small scale first. One un intened consequence will be eye pollution. Coastline real estate values will probably suffer - and we all know how real estate is important to the economy. Maybe they could incorporate the turbines with some thing else like bridges. Imagine a bridge across the channel lined on both sides with wind mills. And don't overlook that it will take a forest of wind mills to replace the oil we consume. It is a lose of real estate even if it is ocean right of way and vacation vistas.
-
- +0
-
-
written by David Ahlport, January 25, 2009
By the way, that whole "Uranium reprocessing reduces the waste 90%"
It's 90% by volume, but almost 0% by radioactivity.
And the limit to storage is radioactivity.
Reprocessing does almost nothing to reduce the high level waste.
http://www.fissilematerials.org/ipfm/pages_us_en/documents/documents/documents.php
_
The only reason for reprocessing is if there was a scarcity of Uranium 235. And there isn't one.
It's 90% by volume, but almost 0% by radioactivity.
And the limit to storage is radioactivity.
Reprocessing does almost nothing to reduce the high level waste.
http://www.fissilematerials.org/ipfm/pages_us_en/documents/documents/documents.php
_
The only reason for reprocessing is if there was a scarcity of Uranium 235. And there isn't one.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Gerald from France, February 04, 2009
This project is unrealistic. Electricity cannot be stocked and the production must meet the exact demand in real time. So when the wind stops you must start oil or coal production in the same power output as the wind farms immediatly. So in fact each time you build a wind powerstation you must also build same dirty version powerstation.
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Nuclear is the only way to produce clean and totally reliable energy without spiking the local climates.