A New Tutorial on Wind Farms

At the end of 2012, the European market boasted 55 offshore wind farms and the U.S. had absolutely none. The question arises: “What’s the holdup?”

There are a wide variety of answers to that inquiry. However, many are cleared up by Cleantechnica.com’s new report, titled “Where Do I Put My Offshore Wind Farm?,” a two-page synopsis on the present status of wind farms in the U.S. as a source of alternative energy.

This short analysis links readers to a vast wealth of information on this emerging industry and touches on such diverse issues as initial funding, siting, wind speeds, water depths, federal vs. state waters, transmission lines, hurricane risk, and public opinion.

Ironically, the political factor is not highlighted in this assessment. With new drive for America to invest in energy independence, it seems that future development of offshore wind farms has the solid political support of many governors – especially those on the East Coast.

The Department of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management recently announced the release of $168 million in
funding for offshore development. According to Cleantechnica, the states that will share in these funds include Texas, New Jersey, Ohio (Lake Erie), Oregon, Maine, and Virginia.

Read the full report at www.cleantechnica.com.


There is no remedy that can possibly avert disastrous Climate Change and Global Warming unless we first address the problem of world population size and growth, and its impact on the size of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.That means that we need to address the population size and growth of each nation, which together make up the world total.

World population, now over 7.3 billion, is predicted to rise to 9 billion by 2050, an increase of almost two billion, or 23%, in the short space of only 34 years from now.In the highly unlikely event that per capita greenhouse gas emissions could possibly be decreased by an equal percentage in such a short space of time (a blink of an eye) the total amount of worldwide emission would remain the same!

From this simple illustration it would appear that without drastically reducing the size of world population, there is no solution to the problem.None at all.So then why do our world leaders pretend that there is one?What is to be gained by pretending rather than by proposing a solution that would solve the problem – a reduction in the size of world population to not more than 1- 2 billion?
Like and Share:

, ,

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial