A place off Massachusetts to test wind, wave and tidal energy

Any and all SPORADIC sources of energy have little value. The grid simply can't accommodate what they provide. The only people benefiting from such schemes are the manufacturers of the equipment, bilking the ignorant taxpayer through ill conceived government provided incentive programs. It's nothing more than 21st century snake oil sales.
The only real solution is nuclear, and a shift to primarily electrically powered transportation systems. People aren't really interested in conservation anyway, the simple act of enforcing all vehicles to have greater than 30 mpg fuel consumption ratings would have huge benefits, yet it doesn't happen.

To compete in a tough global economy, and contribute to a sound environment, one of the most vital elements will be increased efficiency. Over the last 25 years, the U.S. economy has grown 110%, but energy consumption has grown by only 24%. Advocate for the operation of renewable energy projects by signing the Energy & Environment Petition at http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/takeaction/index.cfm?ID=41.

"didtheresearch" seems to have done all the research needed to solve the world's energy problems. I had no idea the solution was so simple. While I agree it appears that (sadly), "People aren't really interested in conservation...", you remind me of all the folks who once said, "If man was meant to fly, he'd have wings."
Right. The Europeans along with those from MIT etc have no business (except business) investigating new technology. Thanks for setting us straight.

Few seeking reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are candid about costs and about whether such a program would actually work. Massachusetts and California adopted goals without validating costs or feasibility. With the federal government involved, stakes are rising.

Proponents seek emission cuts of 70 percent or more or by 2050 or before. Transportation, building and industry efficiencies must more than double. Fossil-fuel electricity must be replaced. Brookline, despite its proactive approach to energy efficiency, stands exposed to heavy expenses.

A 2006 scientific review estimated 70 percent reduction over 30 years will cost the U.S. about $6 trillion, but it may not work. A major 2007 finding showed erratic climate response to greenhouse gases, with very broad risks. To narrow risks substantially, greater and faster reductions are needed.

If the program would work and other countries did their parts, the U.S. could afford $6 trillion over as little as ten years, about five percent of gross domestic product at the time estimated. At issue is whether greenhouse gas reductions can achieve climate control and whether climate control can be achieved otherwise.

The main alternative is to block a small fraction of sunlight with fine particles. Experiments, done by nature as volcanic eruptions, teach predictable responses and decay times, up to a few years until particles wash out from the air.

Scientists at a national laboratory estimated costs below $1 billion per year to maintain a particle sunshade reducing average temperature by the amount it has risen. President Obama's science adviser John Holdren confirmed the government is considering it.

While conservation remains vital to maintain resources for an eventual new ice age, a particle sunshade can work immediately, adapt rapidly to climate changes, and operate for hundreds of years at far less risk and cost than hasty, drastic greenhouse gas reductions.

Please put AppDev in a celler and keep him away from sunlight and open air.

Rudderman, the con artists capitalize on people like you who are emotional about this topic. We need real solutions, not junk science.
And...
If YOU do the research you'll see that, as I said, sporadic sources of power are of little value.
The people at places like GE that are building things like these stupid wind turbines are laughing all the way to the bank at the taxpayers expense. Another example, solar energy in Mass, give me a break, what stupidity, this isn't California, it's barely worth doing out there. Do the research before you blow your tax dollars on snake oil.

Europe is light years ahead on this one...nearly everyone contributes to the grid effectively and with varying degrees of efficiency. Govts there reimburse companies and residents for same, far more effectively as well. Tells me we CAN figure this out. In fact so successfully Germany took all nuclear off line recently. Now that's saying something.

didtheresearch -- I have to disagree. While you may be correct about these different sources of energy we won't know until we fully explore all possibilities. With regard to nuclear are you referring to current nuclear technology? i.e. fission? This process has been proven extremely dangerous thoughout its lifespan. Not mention the small run-off that it creates -- plutonium 90 -- the most dangerous chemical known in our science today. If you are talking fusion or to be sexy -- cold fusion - good luck. It has never been discovered despite many attempts. .We need to keep trying alternate sources until one comes along. While agree that the "mr. fusion" from the back to the future movie would be nice to have...we don't have it yet. But...we do have wind and solar everywhere.....it is time to utilize it.

Solar Works and Wind Works I've Installed Both Myself! Both Residental and Commerical Systems. They Both have Long ROI when Compared to Standard Cost of Energy. Neither is Standard ENERGY!!!!!! They are The Future. Lets Work Together and Stop Being So Negative and Judgemental. The Power of Positive Thinking is POWERFUL

didtheresearch is clearly a nuclear shill or works in the fossil fuel industry. In other words, the "research" is sort of like the "research" done by the tobacco industry that showed that evidence was "inconclusive" that smoking causes cancer.

Wind is not the only answer, but it has to be a big part of the solution.

Even granted didtheresearch has a point, it is only true inasmuch as we preserve the current grid. The idea that non-distributed generation cannot be the future is another way of phrasing the gist of his post. If he could imagine not only new generation, but new generation in the context of a new distribution grid, he might see the light.

I wonder if AppDev is aware that the Earth is already protected from global climate change by aerosols? Ironically, these are a byproduct of many of humanity's more perniciously carbon-emitting activities. At any rate, one wonders how many people who consider schemes such as AppDev's simultaneously deny that humans could possibly effect global climate change?

We will need different methods of creating energy if we are to make this country more self sufficient. The only problem is, the way the grid is configured right now, doesn't allow for electricity that is created in Arizona (for example) to be easily transmitted to New England. The other problem that I see is as dotheresearch mentioned sporadic sources of energy can't be used currently...you can't shut a power plant off and on to accomodate for 10-20% of electricity that is made through alternative sources and run that power through the grid. Please read the studies about Denmark and their Wind Farms. It really didn't work for them because it was very expensive and too sporatic. We need a way to create a large base of electricity that is cost effective and and the only way I know of that won't cause global warming and further dirty the air that we breathe is Nuclear power. It may not be the perfect solution, but right now, with the technology that we have it's the only one that can provide an efficient broad based souce of power.

Didthereasearch makes the core point correctly, that sporadic energy production does not tie into centralized grids very well. Only during coincident times of low grid loading and high production, be it wind or solar, do they mesh at all. It is like waiting for planets to align, especially in that wind and solar production themselves do not coincide often. (Think clear sunny day but windy, especially outside the central plains.) To alleviate the discrepancy requires large storage batteries (think heavy metal usage here including gels). Without this capacitance, the energy must be used as it is produced or dumped to another unrelated storage medium such as hot water heating. As for Europe, few homes have or use intertie inverters, but rather produce some of their own needs. This takes pressure off of the grid but does not contribute very often to it.

Wind, Tidal and Wave energy has been studied for many years. This is not new stuff. There's not much tricks to be had there. Cannot make it of any value without government subsidy.
Solar can have a impact in many areas as can better batteries. Not a surprise.
Spent nuclear recycle is probably the best, nearly ignored, technology that needs support.

What makes yo think Sporadic and remote sources need to transmit energy as electricity? Offshore windfarms could convert the energy to hydrogen which would easily plumb into out natural gas infrastructure.

I am happy to see this site so much. It is always nice to hear such good news as your site.

Submit in comment or elsewhere?