Rooftop Turbines vs. Offshore Wind Farms
by Brian Merchant, Brooklyn, New York on 08.28.08
Photo: Søren Krohn via windpower.org
It was good news for eco-conscious New Yorkers (and a joke to others) when Mayor Bloomberg suggested the installation of wind turbines atop city buildings and bridges or wind farms a ways offshore. The question is: which would be more effective? And which is more feasible? Let’s break down some of the pros and cons of the Big Apple’s wind power options.
Offshore Wind Farms
There’s much more space offshore, obviously, than in a crowded metropolitan area like Manhattan. Turbines in a wind farm are typically spaced out and angled strategically to maximize the energy potential of the wind.
This is how an extensive wind farm off the coast of New York could provide up to 10% of the city’s needs, as the mayor said. Wind is stronger, and blows more consistently over the ocean.
However, much of the land off the coast must be leased from the federal government, as a New York Times article on the mayor’s wind power plan pointed out. This could be highly discouraging to potential private investors in wind energy, and the bureaucratic process that would ensue for those who are interested may make for a long wait before we see any actual spinning blades offshore.
Finally, it would be incredibly expensive to build wind farms offshore—up to 50 to 100 percent more expensive than building onshore or inland farms, according to some estimates.
Rooftop Wind Turbines
There are problems with building in the city, too. Most people probably wouldn’t be too happy with wind turbines popping up on their roofs, jutting out atop neighbor’s buildings, or altering Manhattan’s classic skyline—even if they were made in a subtle eggbeater turbine design and “integrated into the spires atop the city’s tall buildings.” (NY Times)
Plus, there’s far less room to adequately angle and space the turbines, and they’d be much less effective. And there would still be plenty of red tape to wade through in order to broker a leasing process between interested companies and NY landowners. But it would be less expensive, and every little bit could help—like this already-suggested plan to install turbines on the Queensboro Bridge.
Whichever Way the Wind Blows
It’s tough to say what the best course of action would be from here on out, but the successful installation of a few minor onshore turbines might encourage larger, more effective (and expensive) projects like the proposed offshore wind farms.
More on Wind Turbines and Wind Power:
New Wind Power Record in Spain
Queen of England Buys World’s Largest Wind Turbine
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Creating New Jobs By Investing In Renewable Energy And Energy Efficiency
- Subaru Wants Wind Power For Your Plug In Car
- Wind Power Beats Nuclear & Clean Coal, Other Renewables As US’s Best Energy Option
- Will there be farms in New York City's skyscrapers?
Greener Flying? Renewable Aviation Fuel Being Developed by Swift Enterprises
|
Slow Food Nation’s Sustainable Movement Strolls into San Francisco This Weekend
|
Who said anything about versus? On and off shore wind are not mutually exclusive, nor are wind and solar, or biogas and nuclear, or whatever pair of energy technologies you choose to name. Why do we have articles with titles like this, instead of focusing on wind of all kinds vs. fossil fuels?
Why does everyone talk like it is a one or other option. Is there a reason both can't be done? Wouldn't that provide just that much more power?
There are some benefits to rooftop turbines. From what I have read and understand, if the power generated on the rooftop were primarily used by the building which it is mounted on, it would be a more efficient use of that power since less of it would be lost in transmission.
I have long thought that if solar and wind generation were to become common fixtures on individual buildings, both commercial and residential, that having such a massively distributed system of power generation / supply would not only be much more efficient, but quite a boon for national security as you would eliminate some points of failure that could take out entire regions.
But hey, what do I know?
Vertical rooftop turbines would be strictly supplemental. You need big industrial offshore to produce any decent amount of electricity.
I like treehugger, but sometimes I am surprised about the lack of knowledge about renewable energy issues:
Urban wind is a red herring. Wind conditions in cities are poor.
In cities there is less wind and it is very turbulent. Most urban wind turbines produce less electrical energy than was needed the produce them. It is a waste of time and money.
Big windturbines in the country give you the most kiloWatthours per buck. Even with technology improvements this will not change.
Stop kicking this dead horse!
Since there is a high cost on just making the off shore bases for the wind turbines and running transmission power lines to shore. What if we combined renewable technologies with the wind farm? If there is wind there is also waves that can be harness by the use of Pelamis Wave Energy concept that is tied to the wind towers. Also the base of wind towers is large enough to support the use of underwater turbines using the sea currents. This will produce an higher power output and have a bonus value to the site from three different sources.
@Pieter,
I'll give you "a great deal of" and would even go so far as to include "most", but there are limited situations in which urban wind is positive. They have a fairly large wind turbine in a city park in Toronto, if I remember correctly it powers 400(+) homes.
@JSDyer
I'm in agreement on the supplemental, and visible supplemental urban wind power can have positive environmental PR effects.
Most people probably wouldn’t be too happy with wind turbines popping up on their roofs, jutting out atop neighbor’s buildings, or altering Manhattan’s classic skyline...
Have these people live without electricity for a week.
My guess is they'll care less about a "classic skyline" and more about generating their own power.
What an insulting argument!
I think these types of micro-generation should be mandatory where ever possible.
I think in a way these two options are mutually exclusive, especially in the context of Mayor Bloomberg's speech. Unfortunately, the city of New York has unlimited funds to spend on renewable energy. They have to choose.
Also, I think rooftop wind farms would work in New York city if they were in the right places because as most New Yorkers know many streets are often closed due to dangerously high winds. Why couldn't we harness that power?
The article makes a misleading comparison, saying that wind turbines on buildings would be cheaper. Yes, a few hundred kW of building-mounted turbines is cheaper than a few 10s of MW of offshore wind turbines. But per kW or per kWh, an offshore farm is going to be much cheaper.
This post correctly identifies angling, spacing, and wind speed as concerns about urban wind applications. I recently read about a company in NE Ohio called "Green Energy Technologies" that has a new technology (with patents) called a Wind Cube. These Wind Cubes turn on servos so they are always oriented into the wind.
They also have a shroud structure that supposedly doubles the wind speed going into the cube so that it makes reliable electricity at lower wind speeds than other designs. Spacing is also less of an issue, as these machines are stackable.
A final thought- Birds are always a concern. These Wind Cubes are screenable without significantly impacting their power output. Cleaner, more localized power generation in urban areas (and elsewhere) that does not impact wildlife just seems to make sense to me.
New York City's best source of renewable power is tidal water...no city has better access to tide power...and the new two-way turbines are remarkably efficient...they generate power both on the inflow and the ebbing tide...and they are fish friendly
The idea of an aesthetic objection is silly. New York rooftops have a lot of things on top of them, most notably little water towers and HVAC equipment. One more thing won't make a bit of difference.
Let's keep the hype down and facts abundant. The last thing any of us need is to make claims that are weak on science but warm and fuzzy. I refer in this article to the lack of reference to line loss - the further the energy production is from the point of consumption, the less and less efficient it is. So if windmills in the sea make sense (which they do) then bring the city along with it. What we are coming to realize is that our great cities have reached and in many cases exceeded - their useful life. We are at an exciting junction in time where we need to begin thinking about the future habitats.
Let's keep the hype down and facts abundant. The last thing any of us need is to make claims that are weak on science but warm and fuzzy. I refer in this article to the lack of reference to line loss - the further the energy production is from the point of consumption, the less and less efficient it is. So if windmills in the sea make sense (which they do) then bring the city along with it. What we are coming to realize is that our great cities have reached and in many cases exceeded - their useful life. We are at an exciting junction in time where we need to begin thinking about the future habitats.