You didn't think they would catch on in the ocean or on land? I drove through rural Minnesota and South Dakota on a road trip last week and was amazed at how many turbines are out there these days. Xcel energy in Minnesota offers a program for customers to get their energy from wind sources (obviously it still comes from the grid but I assume they offset any coal generation). We've had it for a few years and the average cost has been ~ $6/month. $6/month to support the local economy and the development of renewable energy production is a great deal considering the environmental and social costs of coal generation. Frankly I wish they would make it opt out rather than opt in.

I also caught the start of an interview yesterday about how the state of the national grid is a major limitation in our ability to consume these forms of energy (http://www.npr.org/2016/08/22/490932307/aging-and-unstable-t...). Hopefully our elected official will start working on that problem soon rather than bickering about bathrooms and building walls...

I didn't know that they were so prevalent, though I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised; my current energy plan does a wind-offset thing right now.

I'm not sure how accurate the data is but the USGS have a GIS map of turbine locations - http://eerscmap.usgs.gov/windfarm/. This website (http://www.awea.org/resources/statefactsheets.aspx?itemnumbe...) also states that "Every state in the United States has either an operational wind energy project, a wind-related manufacturing facility, or both. Approximately 1,000 utility scale wind projects – which represent 74,512 megawatts (MW) and over 48,800 wind turbines – are installed across 40 U.S. states plus Puerto Rico and Guam. There are also more than 500 wind manufacturing facilities spread across 43 states."

>> 75% of this planet is difficult/impossible to live on; why not use it for a clean form of energy?

Because of that 75 74.999999 of it is too deep to be practical. The cause of so much conflict is the need for these turbines to stand in the relatively shallow water, often within sight of expensive ocean-viewing residential properties. If we could place them just anywhere, they'd be just over the horizon from everywhere.

The real issue isn't lack of viable location but the legions of old people for whom a windmill in their view is an ugly reminder that times change. In europe they are part of the landscape. Where I am (BC Canada) they are fought against tooth and nail by retired landowners who blame them for everything from night terrors to cancer. Vancouver has _one_ visible turbine and even that rarely actually turns. It's more disney ride than power generator.

https://www.grousemountain.com/eye-of-the-wind

I had figured there were technical limitations and my question wasn't meant as "why don't they get off their lazy asses and do it" but more of a "I think it'd be really cool if we figured out how to put them all over the ocean", though I realize now how my wording could be confusing.

I would so love it for the US to adopt them more, but we have reality-star presidential candidates that are telling us their an eyesore with huge applause.

There are floating wind farms. The world's largest (according to [0]) is due to be built off the north east coast of Scotland next year.

Incidentally, this is not far from the site of another offshore wind farm which a certain Donald Trump waged a lengthy legal battle to try to prevent, because he thought it would spoil the view from his golf course[1].

Bear in mind that you can already see large numbers of offshore oil rigs off the coast of parts of north east Scotland.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/16/worlds-l...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_International_Golf_Club_...

Which brings up the great physics question: Does a floating turbine need to be anchored, or can it harvest enough energy to keep itself stationary? Does the turbine create enough energy that it can overcome its own drag? Enough to have some spare energy for moving around?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzGCYaJbf0A

It already caught on in EU, just not in USA yet. We just need to get it built for Americans to see it is not a bad thing and who "cares" about seeing it in your vision (ref to Cape Wind).

Also, land windmills is already taking off slowly as mentioned in the article:

> If that sounds ambitious, consider that the country has installed some 50,000 wind turbines on land over the past two decades. They now supply roughly 5 percent of the nation’s electric power, a figure that reaches double digits in particularly windy states like Kansas and Iowa.

> The technology has been proved in Europe, where offshore wind farms as large as 300 turbines are being developed, with each turbine costing up to $30 million to build, install and connect to the power grid.

Please call them wind turbines. Wind turbines don't mill anything.

I thought the consensus at this point was that "windmill" basically meant "wind turbine", at least colloquially, in the same way that a "battery" really should be called a "cell".

I'd got the impression that "windmill" was the deliberately wrong use of terminology by people opposed to wind power to trivialise or ridicule it. But that may just be me reading the Telegraph.

In my particular case, it wasn't meant to be offensive or dismissive at all; I think wind turbines are very cool.

I'm not part of that consensus. A mill mills.

Please don't be so pedantic. It's quite clear what GP was talking about and strongly likely that they're also aware that nothing is being milled by the structures. Jumping in with an unnecessary correction to terminology doesn't add anything to the conversation.

The distinction is important when the Dutch patent trolls show up and demand a licensing fee.

The patent troll(s) in the the industry are mostly German and Danish.