Really? Maybe Meyer can let Europe know that offshore wind is only an experimental fantasy that doesn't deserve serious consideration.
"The European Commission anticipated, in its 2008 Communication on offshore wind energy (EC, 2008) that “offshore wind can and must make a substantial contribution to meeting the EU’s energy policy objectives through a very significant increase - in the order of 30-40 times by 2020 and 100 times by 2030 - in installed capacity compared to today.”
150 GW of offshore wind projects are already in various stages of planning.
A total of 1,503 offshore turbines are now installed and grid connected in European waters, bringing total installed capacity to 4,336MW, spread across 56 wind farms in ten European countries.
In the first six months of 2012, 132 new offshore wind turbines, totalling 523,2MW were fully grid connected (up 175MW or 50% compared to the same period last year). Overall 13 offshore wind farms were under construction during the period. Once completed, they will represent a total installed capacity of 3,762MW."
Atlantic Wind Connection
Just to name a few...
Perhaps what Meyer meant to say is that offshore wind is not a "preferred potential renewable resource" (page 8). Although when I asked a question last week about who designates (or "prefers") certain renewable resources, he told me that DOE wouldn't be designating which resources are preferred. But yesterday, he "preferred" onshore wind to offshore wind.
Slippage! Dr. Freud? Paging Dr. Freud! Is there a doctor in the house?
If the United States ever manages to develop its incredible offshore wind resources, it won't be with the support of the Department of Energy, but in spite of it. How does this serve the taxpayers who fund DOE?