Wind turbines are a "feel good" technology, that, in fact, are a dead end technology. It takes 2,000 wind turbines to generate the same amount of power as a moderate sized nuclear reactor. Further, the turbines are noisy and an obvious eyesore, although locating them offshore might provide some relief from these objections. To see what a disaster wind turbines can be, one only need visit Portugal, which prides itself on generating more energy from wind than any other European nation. In fact, Portugal has destroyed its once pristine and beautiful seacoast by plastering it with ugly, noisy wind turbines. That Portugal is in a precarious financial situation is not a coincidence. In contrast, France, which fully committed to nuclear energy circa 1976. is one of the strongest economies in Continental Europe. France exports electricity to Germany, Italy, and London. If we had done the same in 1976, we certainly would have avoided our present dependence on foreign oil, and might have avoided all of our present economic difficulties. We ought to be looking to expand and replicate the successful nuclear facility at Calvert Cliffs. It is a proven technology that will promote energy independence and relief from related economic worries.

It'll be interesting to see if they include the huge subsidies that are ponied up every year for nuclear and fossil fuels when they do this analysis. And take Jerry's comments with a grain of salt. He talks of Portugal's destroyed seacoast from those horrible wind turbines, yet says nothing about the damage being done every day from our unsustainable reliance on fossil fuels. I'll take a clean and efficient offshore wind farm over another coal-fired power plant or insanely expensive nuclear power plant (and we still have no idea what to do with all that nuclear waste) any day. It's a new world, Jerry. Embrace progress, don't run from it.

I was present at the Wind Forum, and I think this article misses the point somewhat. Yes, several audience members expressed concern over the costs of the proposed offshore wind project. But most were very supportive, realizing that the small additional cost to add offshore wind would be less than the costs of other power sources (due to rising fossil fuel prices). The audience opinion became clear when almost everyone applauded Mr. Lapham's statement, which was asking the politicians for a more complete economic analysis precisely because it would show that offshore wind power would cost LESS than the alternatives in the long run; he was NOT questioning the economics of the offshore project, as the article implies.

Would someone please identify all the components that make up the wind turbine and identify which components could be manufactured in Maryland? Its a simple exercise but no one has yet to present this information. This would provide accurate information on the number of potential Maryland manufacturing jobs that might result from this project.

A very recent study determined the true price of burning coal to generate electricity. This summary is from "Think Progress" from April 17, 2011 posted by Matthew Yglesias

The study was done by Dr. Paul Epstein, Director of Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment.et. al., “Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal”

Each stage in the life cycle of coal—extraction, transport, processing, and combustion—generates a waste stream and carries multiple hazards for health and the environment. These costs are external to the coal industry and are thus often considered “externalities.” We estimate that the life cycle effects of coal and the waste stream generated are costing the U.S. public a third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually. Many of these so-called externalities are, moreover, cumulative. Accounting for the damages conservatively doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh generated, making wind, solar, and other forms of nonfossil fuel power generation, along with investments in efficiency and electricity conservation methods, economically competitive. We focus on Appalachia, though coal is mined in other regions of the United States and is burned throughout the world.

Coal-fired electricity is cheap for roughly the same reason that pulling a dine and dash at a fancy restaurant is a cheap way to get a nice dinner.

The other Steve, above, has it exactly right. (Thanks, Steve). When one compares the costs of building offshore wind turbines to other power generation options (like nuclear), then offshore wind looks very good. And let's include a FULL accounting of the economic costs (emergency room visits for asthma; environmental cleanup; disaster insurance), as recommended by the panelist Brenda Azfal of Physicians for Social Responsibility (who was not mentioned in the news story).
The French government built nuclear power plants to a standard design, and learned from each construction, and now have a record of safe, reliable plants. In the USA, private utilities built all sorts of different designs, hugely expensive, some of which resulted in disasters. Fate of nuclear waste--unsolved.
I want the "free market" when I go to buy a pair of shoes, but not when tens of millions of dollars will be spent on Public Utilities. The electric companies were happy to shed the "power generating" side of the business when they were de-regulated in Maryland. Now the ball is in the court of public policy. Let's do it right. Go wind! -- Steven Sellers Lapham

I echo the first comment by Jerry.