LOL! We'd only need 144,000! Piece of cake! The article fails to mention that the largest wind farm in the world, off the coast of England, has fewer than 200 turbines. There is, of course, a reason that they haven't exactly caught fire anywhere yet.
The article twice mentions cost as a limiting factor, but it does not state what that cost might be. This omission represents journalistic bias/stupidity/dishonesty at its worst. The story comes from NBC news, so no surprise there.
Per Wikipedia, "According to the US Energy Information Agency, offshore wind power is the most expensive energy generating technology being considered for large scale deployment".
I tried to research the cost of these large offshore turbines, and came up short. The information seems to be buried. I did, however, find information about the Ross Island Wind Farm. Its three turbines, which produce 333 kW and save 120,000 gallons of diesel annually (about $500,000), cost $7.4 million dollars. The 144,000 turbines discussed in the article below are almost certainly larger turbines, costing far more.
I also found that the turbines themselves are just half of the total cost of building a wind farm. Maintenance costs, including expenses associated with damage following storms, are astronomical.
As usual for liberals such as this article's author, practical matters aren't of much importance. After all, they reason, the money comes from somebody else.
The article also discusses but does not elaborate upon the hypocrisy of wealthy liberals. It notes that the only significant opposition by a community to offshore turbines comes from Nantucket Island, specifically from the wealthy Kennedy family. This is so typical of liberals. They're all for "green" projects -- but not in THEIR backyards.
| 
