Offshore Wind Farms

Britain is going to dramatically increase its use of offshore wind farms over the next two decades. When I first heard the story, I had to even wonder what an offshore wind farm was; turns out, it's exactly what it sounds like -- windmills mounted on land underneath the ocean. The expectation is that the UK will generate enough electricity this way by 2020 to meet the current needs of every household in Britain. Of course, by then, there will be more households and the average household is likely to consume more electricity, and this does not account for industrial or commercial electricity, but still, that would be a significant achievement if they could pull it off.

Here in the U.S., wind farms are considered unsightly by many people, and so we don't have a lot of them. This is both wrong and short-sighted of us. Windmills, especially the thin-bladed modern variety, are actually quite lovely to look at, and they have a calming, hypnotic feel to them. Moreover, they're a very clean and efficient source of electricity, something that we badly need. The environmental impact of windmills is as close to zero as it gets -- a few birds get killed by them, and there is some waste generated in their manufacture.

A friend mentioned the other day that the wind farm in nearby Tehachipi generates more than enough electricity to power Los Angeles. But the contribution from that wind farm to L.A.'s power consumption is quite small. The reason is that the power is generated in Tehachipi, and then transmitted by power lines that go for about sixty miles to be routed from Pasadena to other points along the grid. The resistance of the wires to the electricity generates huge amounts of heat and thus a lot of the energy is lost along the way. I don't independently know if this is true or not, but it made for a pleasant discussion.

We theorized that if a more efficient conductor of electricity could be found than copper wire, substantial upgrades to the nation's power grid might not be needed, because we'd have a surplus of electricity. A warm superconducting substance would be ideal, of course, but simply reducing resistance would be a big step up.

But, this seems unlikely to happen, at least at the levels of economic efficiency that would inspire someone to supplement and eventually replace the millions of miles of existing copper wiring with a newer, more conductive substance, whatever that might be.

Of course, a windmill doesn't generate any electricity when there's no wind. But there are places where there is usually wind, and those are good candidates for wind farms. If the wind farm can be placed offshore, it doesn't render any land unavailable for other uses, either.

And generating more power is still something we'll need to do. Coal plants (oil is now used almost exclusively to power vehicles rather than generating electricity) still provide the bulk of electricity used in the U.S. Nearly everyone I know agrees that we need more nuclear power plants and the time to start building them is now.

Which brings me to my final thought for the evening -- why is it that only Hillary Clinton is talking about our nation's infrastructure? This is kind of important.

The summer blackout of 2003 and the winter blackout of 2005 should amply demonstrate that our electricity-generation and distribution system is fragile. Think for a second about the number of pipes under a typical city -- water, sewer, storm drains, electrical conduit, telephone cables, and so on. Not to mention if the city has underground transit. We've become utterly dependent on the internet and a high-speed communications infrastructure. How many tens of thousands of people make their living maintaining all of the elaborate machinery and equipment necessary to keep these systems working smoothly?

Then there's our transportation network. Our roads and highways are falling apart. A drive in Europe will convince you of that -- they maintain their roads in a way that puts us to shame. Aside from a series of commuter trains that run up and down the Atlantic Seaboard and a few cities with regional transit systems, we have functionally no passenger rail transit in this country. If it only took an hour to commute from Las Vegas to downtown Los Angeles, wouldn't that really ease the burdens on our freeways? Europe and Japan long ago made substantial investments in their rail transport infrastructure and they are reaping the benefits of those investments today; Americans have failed to do the same and now there are lots of people who would like to travel (and provide stimulus to the economy) find themselves electing not to do so because of the fuel costs involved. Yes, I'll be voting for the high-speed rail bond measure next election. It is my hope that one day I'll be able to take an hour-long train ride to visit my friend in San Francisco, or another hour-long ride to play in Las Vegas or marvel at the Grand Canyon, all for less than $100 round trip. An overnight ride should take me to visit my parents in Tennessee, and that should cost about what a plane ticket does.

We live in a complex world with a complex economy, and it takes a complex infrastructure to keep it all working. It's never going to get any easier or cheaper to update that infrastructure. The Brits are doing it. We should, too.