Video: New School Protesters Beaten, Arrested (Again)
Restaurant Owner's Email to Staff Belongs in Tyrant Hall of Fame
Murder For A Seat On The D Train
Dude, Huge Cocaine Bust in Williamsburg Right Before the Weekend!
Foot Model Who Married Doorman Sues Co-op Over Harsh Treatment
Mayor Bloomberg took another step in introducing green ideas for New York City by announcing the city would start looking at off-shore windfarms. Or maybe those wind turbines could be a lot closer. From his speech at the Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas:
Perhaps companies will want to put windfarms atop our bridges and skyscrapers, or use the enormous potential of powerful off-shore winds miles out in the Atlantic Ocean, where turbines could generate roughly twice the energy that land-based windfarms can. Windfarms located far off our shores, some evidence shows, could meet 10 percent of our city's electricity needs within a decade.He emphasized, "We don't generate a lot of electricity in New York City. But we can work on using less. And in New York, we're determined to do what no other city has ever attempted, and that is to keep our energy usage at or near its current level even as our population grows," and added, "I think it would be a thing of beauty if, when Lady Liberty looks out on the horizon, she not only welcomes new immigrants, but lights their way with a torch powered by an ocean windfarm."
While no specific bridges or buildings have been singled out for wind turbines (and even Bloomberg admitted it wasn't a sure thing)--but the NY Times reports "the city was eyeing the generally windy coast off Queens, Brooklyn and Long Island for turbines." And Rohit Aggarwala, director of Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, tells the Times smaller building turbines can be "so small that people think they are part of the design...If rooftop wind can make it anywhere, this is a great city. We have a lot of tall buildings.”
NYU director environmental studies Dale Jamieson told the Post,"This isn't a wild idea at all. Wind energy is something we know how to do." And last month, the New Yorker's Elizabeth Kolbert wrote about a Danish community's "victory over carbon emissions," which includes using windmills.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
They can do whatever they want as long as they don't take over the land by eminent domain. However, I bet wherever the turbines go, the nearby residents will be pissssed. There's much corruption in the process of choosing. Any influential city council member will keep them away from "their" turf. I believe that Ted Kennedy proved this to be true.
Thus, a free-market solution is best. But the city is entitled to do it if they want.
This would easily win dumb idea of the day if the proposal to reduce the drinking age wasn't in the news today.
This idea is actually more practical than it sounds. There have been a few skyscraoers designed recently that incorporate helical turbines at their peaks. It looks like it's just another design element of the building and sits up where the water tanks and and mechanical works are anyway. It's not just fan blades stuck on buildings.
Screw my peer above, let's do it.
Apparently, Glenn has no qualms with funding oppressive middle east regimes through oil money.
Whether you're a greenie or not, why not produce our own energy right here in NYC?
considering how big corporate headquarters often work as big advertising for the housed corporations, I think many of them would want to brag about how 'green' they are with conspicuous windmills - people are overestimating how unattractive power generation on skyscrapers is.
offshore generation, however, is another matter. NIMBY is in full effect for people living on the adjacent shore, although I should think that windmills spinning in the distance should have a certain sublimity...
This is the stupidest idea ever floated in NYC. Harnessing the currents in the East River is even more practical and efficient. Can't wait to see one of the fan blades break free and fly into an apartment building, or take out a sidewalk full of people. Not to mention how fucking ugly - I would be happier with a Nuke Plant in Brooklyn.
I still like my idea of making Governor's Island a wind farm / solar farm.
Can't wait to see one of the fan blades break free and fly into an apartment building
There are windmill designs that don't require massive blades.
I wonder what New York's peregrine falcons have to say about this.
It's a small step but NY is in the beginning to generate some power. Right now they are testing tidal turbines in the east river. I think it powers a Gristede’s Supermarket out on Roosevelt Island.
http://www.verdantpower.com/what-initiative
The Belt Parkway along Jamaica Bay would be perfect. It's windy, not near where anyone lives, and a place that used to be city landfills. (Which by the way, I would be in favor of electric generation by incineration of garbage. Solve 2 problems at once.)
Let's replace the torch on Lady Liberty with a giant pinwheel!!
Seriously the Governor's Island park redo could also include a wind farm and solar farm.
I would be in favor of electric generation by incineration of garbage.
I would like this as well but imagine the legal fight to get an incinerator sited anywhere practical.
I have much more hope for the success of the tide power turbines being tested in the East River right now
http://www.verdantpower.com/what-initiative
Yes lets take classic NY buidings and stick windmills on them.
Bloomberg go back to Boston you shit for brains asshole.
As much as I like the idea, it's not going to happen. The biggest wind turbines to date generate about 6 megawatts. NYC eats about 12,000 megawatts at any given time. That would take 200 of those very expensive turbines to generate 10% of NYC's electric power. It would cost at least $40 billion to do that, since T. Boone Pickens' energy farm will only generate 4000 MW, is expected to cost $10 billion (assuming no cost overruns) and is much easier and cheaper to build than an offshore wind farm with thousands of miles of submerged power cables.
what the hell is wrong with some of you? seriously?
I'm intrigued by the idea of offshore wind farms, but I'm not sure how practical they are.
Pull My Finger,
I wonder if you know that you sound like a douche.
Bloomberg definitely has some money invested in green technology companies. Otherwise he wouldn't trying so hard to implement these technologies. Bloomberg has very close relations to Silicon Valley. And clean energy technology companies are very sexy to the Valley types to invest in at the moment. It would be interesting to perform an investigation of Mayor Bloomberg and his investment activities and how it relates to his green initiatives.
Of course the same environuts who want windmills now will be crying when migrating birds start geting sliced and diced in mid-air.
There is simply no pleasing the environmentalists until America returns to the stone age.
ides of march, you're a moron.
just don't talk for a while, because crap like that makes it sound as if you don't think up original, individual thoughts.
Not just birds, but noise too. What happens if one of these windmills crashes?
I believe it's better to create energy from the movement of water. Can the movement of water moving within the plumbing of a building be a good source of energy?
Wow. So much ignorance around here, so little time.
No. New York is just poorly suited for windmill farms or huge solar plants. The green enthusiasm here is laudable, but NY's contribution should be as a recycling behemoth. Build the wind farms out in the Midwest and let those communities, especially the small towns hit hardest by rising energy costs, get off the grid. That frees up a lot of remaining juice to be wheeled into NYC. Think about it, for a small town, a windmill can mean energy independence; for New York, a windmill is nary a drop in the well-intentioned bucket.
Its too bad Bloomberg wasn't more specific, as there is obviously a lot of misinformation out there about these things.
Frist, offshore wind farms are perfectly suited for the coast of LI and NJ...shallow offshore waters, relatively infrequent hurricanes, steady winds, easy access to the power grid, etc...the only real limit to the amount of power we could supply to NYC is the amount of money that is available to spend. Having wind farms in the Midwest is also important, but until several $100 billion dollars is poured into the grid to retrofit the power grid with HVDC or UHVDC transmission lines, there is no way power from the midwest can make it to the east coast without massive losses. Our only problem are the NIMBY idiots who think it'll screw up their view of the horizon from their crappy beach house. F*ck them, they should have no say in the matter, frankly. In any case, as sea levels rise and the long period of New England hurricane dormancy ends, hopefully there houses will be erased in the tide. Offshore wind turbines are NOT new technology, Siemens and Vestas have been making them for years.
And in terms of putting wind power on buildings or bridges, its entirely doable, and it DOES NOT INVOLVE STANDARD WIND TURBINES. There will be no blades or windmill-looking things,
e.g. check out www.aerotecture.com
There are several other companies with slightly different designs.
Well said, Jerky. It's good to see a comment on the issue that's not loaded with ignorance.
You're right, #26, I meant to say New York City is unsuitable for mass windpower. The shallow bays and seasides off Long Island and N. New Jersey are indeed ideal for wind farms. I think Bloomberg is proposing something farther offshore, south of NY Harbor. That proposal seems unnecessarily expensive: CNN likened them to offshore oil rigs. Another option, which is total NIMBY bait, is to revisit Shoreham. Nuclear power has got to be a part of this conversation because these plants have much more generating capacity in a relatively smaller footprint than wind...but that's another argument.