Vineyard Wind is live
January 3, 2024 7:02 PM Subscribe
Electricity from the country’s first large-scale offshore wind project is officially flowing into Massachusetts and helping to power the New England grid. The Vineyard Wind project achieved “first power” late Tuesday when one operating turbine near Martha’s Vineyard delivered approximately five megawatts of electricity to the grid. The company said it expects to have five turbines operating at full capacity in early 2024.
The moment marks a major milestone for the project and the country at large, which has long struggled to build offshore wind. It also comes amid great economic turmoil and uncertainty for the industry, making the launch of the utility-scale project all the more significant. ... Another smaller project near Long Island, South Fork Wind, also began producing electricity in early December. ...
Still, even with the addition of Vineyard Wind and South Fork Wind, the country has a long way to go to reach President Joe Biden’s goal of getting 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind power flowing into the grid by 2030. Meeting this target, the administration says, will provide clean electricity for 10 million homes, avoid 78 million metric tons of planet-warming emissions and create thousands of jobs. ...
Vineyard Wind may be Massachusetts’ first operating offshore wind project, but it’s not the state’s first attempt to build one. In the early 2000s, a company called Cape Wind proposed building a 450 megawatt wind farm about five miles south of Cape Cod. Almost immediately, the project faced public opposition, including from notable politicians like the late U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. While many worried the project would harm the sensitive Nantucket Sound ecosystem, others simply didn’t want to see the turbines from the beach. ...
After winning Massachusetts’ first round of offshore wind project bids in 2018, Vineyard Wind — a joint venture between Avangrid Renewables and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners — entered the long, and at times bumpy, federal permitting process. The review was supposed to take two years, but in 2019, the Trump administration, which was hostile toward offshore wind, unexpectedly hit the pause button. ...
Around the same time, fishermen along the East Coast began to more strongly oppose offshore wind development. ... While Vineyard Wind has said it has listened to the fishing industry’s concerns — and even modified the project to better accommodate fishing boats — not everyone is satisfied. To date, there are two lawsuits from fishing groups about Vineyard Wind currently winding their way through the federal court system. One of the groups is funded by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank with strong ties to the fossil fuel industry.
With the election of Biden in 2020, things began looking up for Vineyard Wind and the dozen or so other proposed projects in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions. The administration resumed Vineyard Wind’s permitting process shortly after taking office, and committed to the 2030 goal of 30,000 megawatts.
The moment marks a major milestone for the project and the country at large, which has long struggled to build offshore wind. It also comes amid great economic turmoil and uncertainty for the industry, making the launch of the utility-scale project all the more significant. ... Another smaller project near Long Island, South Fork Wind, also began producing electricity in early December. ...
Still, even with the addition of Vineyard Wind and South Fork Wind, the country has a long way to go to reach President Joe Biden’s goal of getting 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind power flowing into the grid by 2030. Meeting this target, the administration says, will provide clean electricity for 10 million homes, avoid 78 million metric tons of planet-warming emissions and create thousands of jobs. ...
Vineyard Wind may be Massachusetts’ first operating offshore wind project, but it’s not the state’s first attempt to build one. In the early 2000s, a company called Cape Wind proposed building a 450 megawatt wind farm about five miles south of Cape Cod. Almost immediately, the project faced public opposition, including from notable politicians like the late U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. While many worried the project would harm the sensitive Nantucket Sound ecosystem, others simply didn’t want to see the turbines from the beach. ...
After winning Massachusetts’ first round of offshore wind project bids in 2018, Vineyard Wind — a joint venture between Avangrid Renewables and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners — entered the long, and at times bumpy, federal permitting process. The review was supposed to take two years, but in 2019, the Trump administration, which was hostile toward offshore wind, unexpectedly hit the pause button. ...
Around the same time, fishermen along the East Coast began to more strongly oppose offshore wind development. ... While Vineyard Wind has said it has listened to the fishing industry’s concerns — and even modified the project to better accommodate fishing boats — not everyone is satisfied. To date, there are two lawsuits from fishing groups about Vineyard Wind currently winding their way through the federal court system. One of the groups is funded by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank with strong ties to the fossil fuel industry.
With the election of Biden in 2020, things began looking up for Vineyard Wind and the dozen or so other proposed projects in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions. The administration resumed Vineyard Wind’s permitting process shortly after taking office, and committed to the 2030 goal of 30,000 megawatts.
lalochezia: yeah, much the same thing happened in New Jersey with Ørsted, as mentioned in that Gothamist article. I'm happy for Vineyard Wind, but the setbacks elsewhere have been annoying.
posted by May Kasahara at 7:12 PM on January 3 [1 favorite]
posted by May Kasahara at 7:12 PM on January 3 [1 favorite]
Local coverage.
Woot.
More local coverage.
Woot woot!
posted by vrakatar at 7:23 PM on January 3 [2 favorites]
Woot.
More local coverage.
Woot woot!
posted by vrakatar at 7:23 PM on January 3 [2 favorites]
Wind generation alone will likely surpass coal in a few years. You can see in that chart there was already a month last year where it did (April 2023)
posted by gwint at 7:32 PM on January 3 [9 favorites]
posted by gwint at 7:32 PM on January 3 [9 favorites]
I had a very happy six top for lunch today at the restaurant, several Vineyard Wind hats. They are building a large (by island standards) building in VH, and have a helicopter set up at the airport so they can get out there in a hurry.
I wasn't born on the Vineyard but it has been a big part of my life, and I live here now, since 2013. Just the idea that more boats are moving around the island in service to this new industry brings up stories from whaling days, all the maritime history around here, and so much more... pretty cool to think that power is flowing under my house right now.
posted by vrakatar at 7:49 PM on January 3 [25 favorites]
I wasn't born on the Vineyard but it has been a big part of my life, and I live here now, since 2013. Just the idea that more boats are moving around the island in service to this new industry brings up stories from whaling days, all the maritime history around here, and so much more... pretty cool to think that power is flowing under my house right now.
posted by vrakatar at 7:49 PM on January 3 [25 favorites]
Offshore Wind has real potential to displace oil and gas, and rapidly.
It also increases Oil's labor costs--politically we are not allowed to have offshore wind in Louisiana yet, but already the wind power development in the northeast US is contracting welders and Louisiana shipyards that normally serve only oil and gas.
The capitalist press will never report on this labor conflict. But this labor conflict is central to understanding how to finally defeat the oil industry.
We cannot be so naive as to think "market forces" will be allowed to strand the assets of Exxon, OPEC et al. OPEC just seized the IPCC COP, for christ s sake. Climate change demands strong State Action and even state dominace of economies, as many capitalists, even, have been saying for a while.
This disruptive potential of Wind to 'Oil Services' is why the IRA bill was
written to limit Wind implementation. Not only are offshore leases tied to oil leases, Texas GLO and legislature moved to block transmission lines from the Gulf, limiting access to the largest consumer. Comstock et al are literally wording this as an 'invasion' against oil and gas.
“Texas must stop President Biden’s offshore wind farms from invading the Gulf of Mexico, which endanger our gulf coast by harming delicate ecologies and vital industries and further cripple our electrical grid with more unreliable power,” said Commissioner Blue Oil" is an illusion. that makes sense. But it is a huge loss to have the US Senate so leveraged against clean energy. Time is money (for Joe Manchin)
Meanwhile, to solidfy Texas' / Comstock's possession of Energy consumers, ERCOT is planning a transmission line across the South, to
consolidate fossil fuel dependence in politically convenient jurisdictions.
Perhaps I am overinterpreting signals, but maybe you will share my basic belief that the struggle to electrify the US is a labor and political struggle that is vastly underreported and underestimated.
I have said before that the US will not effectively act on climate without statewide Democratic victories in Texas.
Perhaps not, if we move to unionize Offshore Wind Power in the Gulf. Out-organize the fascists in the oilfield. The fastest way to end fossil fuels is to Buy Off 'Oil Services' workers in the Gulf. Build Wind Power without a Market if you have to, Dammit!
Last time the US invaded Texas, we declared "all slaves are free." Let^s invade again.
posted by eustatic at 8:58 PM on January 3 [16 favorites]
It also increases Oil's labor costs--politically we are not allowed to have offshore wind in Louisiana yet, but already the wind power development in the northeast US is contracting welders and Louisiana shipyards that normally serve only oil and gas.
The capitalist press will never report on this labor conflict. But this labor conflict is central to understanding how to finally defeat the oil industry.
We cannot be so naive as to think "market forces" will be allowed to strand the assets of Exxon, OPEC et al. OPEC just seized the IPCC COP, for christ s sake. Climate change demands strong State Action and even state dominace of economies, as many capitalists, even, have been saying for a while.
This disruptive potential of Wind to 'Oil Services' is why the IRA bill was
written to limit Wind implementation. Not only are offshore leases tied to oil leases, Texas GLO and legislature moved to block transmission lines from the Gulf, limiting access to the largest consumer. Comstock et al are literally wording this as an 'invasion' against oil and gas.
“Texas must stop President Biden’s offshore wind farms from invading the Gulf of Mexico, which endanger our gulf coast by harming delicate ecologies and vital industries and further cripple our electrical grid with more unreliable power,” said Commissioner Blue Oil" is an illusion. that makes sense. But it is a huge loss to have the US Senate so leveraged against clean energy. Time is money (for Joe Manchin)
Meanwhile, to solidfy Texas' / Comstock's possession of Energy consumers, ERCOT is planning a transmission line across the South, to
consolidate fossil fuel dependence in politically convenient jurisdictions.
Perhaps I am overinterpreting signals, but maybe you will share my basic belief that the struggle to electrify the US is a labor and political struggle that is vastly underreported and underestimated.
I have said before that the US will not effectively act on climate without statewide Democratic victories in Texas.
Perhaps not, if we move to unionize Offshore Wind Power in the Gulf. Out-organize the fascists in the oilfield. The fastest way to end fossil fuels is to Buy Off 'Oil Services' workers in the Gulf. Build Wind Power without a Market if you have to, Dammit!
Last time the US invaded Texas, we declared "all slaves are free." Let^s invade again.
posted by eustatic at 8:58 PM on January 3 [16 favorites]
Ah, the comment window.
Reportedly, much to some of the financial woes of offshore wind developments are a result of the IRA 45Q CCS tax credits drawing investors away from wind, toward Exxon and "Blue Oil". Of course, the pandemic is blamed.
Experts at IEA have stated that "Blue Oil" is an illusion. that makes sense. But it is a huge loss to have the US Senate so leveraged against clean energy. Time is money (for Joe Manchin)
posted by eustatic at 9:04 PM on January 3
Reportedly, much to some of the financial woes of offshore wind developments are a result of the IRA 45Q CCS tax credits drawing investors away from wind, toward Exxon and "Blue Oil". Of course, the pandemic is blamed.
Experts at IEA have stated that "Blue Oil" is an illusion. that makes sense. But it is a huge loss to have the US Senate so leveraged against clean energy. Time is money (for Joe Manchin)
posted by eustatic at 9:04 PM on January 3
Also this is the bit eaten by the comment window.
“Texas must stop President Biden’s offshore wind farms from invading the Gulf of Mexico, which endanger our gulf coast by harming delicate ecologies and vital industries and further cripple our electrical grid with more unreliable power,” said Commissioner Christian.
https://www.rrc.texas.gov/news/081623-commissioner-christian-pens-letter-to-governor-abbott-and-land-commissioner-buckingham-opposing-offshore-wind-farms-off-texas-gulf-coast/
posted by eustatic at 9:06 PM on January 3 [1 favorite]
“Texas must stop President Biden’s offshore wind farms from invading the Gulf of Mexico, which endanger our gulf coast by harming delicate ecologies and vital industries and further cripple our electrical grid with more unreliable power,” said Commissioner Christian.
https://www.rrc.texas.gov/news/081623-commissioner-christian-pens-letter-to-governor-abbott-and-land-commissioner-buckingham-opposing-offshore-wind-farms-off-texas-gulf-coast/
posted by eustatic at 9:06 PM on January 3 [1 favorite]
Wind generation alone will likely surpass coal in a few years.
There’s a whole bunch of wind generation being built-out in southwest North Dakota where my parents live. Amusingly some sites are on land that was formerly a lignite strip mine that shutdown in the ‘90s — even back then the coal was considered too dirty to burn profitably.
Wind in ND is becoming a second energy boom — landowners are receiving $10-20k/yr per turbine as a lease fee. Adds up quickly when you own a a few square miles of marginal pasture that has prime wind conditions.
posted by nathan_teske at 9:15 PM on January 3 [16 favorites]
There’s a whole bunch of wind generation being built-out in southwest North Dakota where my parents live. Amusingly some sites are on land that was formerly a lignite strip mine that shutdown in the ‘90s — even back then the coal was considered too dirty to burn profitably.
Wind in ND is becoming a second energy boom — landowners are receiving $10-20k/yr per turbine as a lease fee. Adds up quickly when you own a a few square miles of marginal pasture that has prime wind conditions.
posted by nathan_teske at 9:15 PM on January 3 [16 favorites]
Perhaps I am overinterpreting signals, but maybe you will share my basic belief that the struggle to electrify the US is a labor and political struggle that is vastly underreported and underestimated.
I certainly agree with that statement, eustatic. I also find the dynamic you highlight, about offshore wind snapping up skilled labor from offshore oil and gas, very interesting.
Even if the playing field for competition between renewables and fossil fuels is not as level as it would be in an ideal world, the competition is definitely happening, and it's intensifying.
We are seeing how the Biden administration's focus on boosting renewables, rather than trying to throttle or penalize fossil fuels, is playing out. I mean, they did try to throttle fossil fuel leasing on federal lands and in federal waters, but the courts severely hampered those efforts. And Manchin simply wasn't going to allow a carbon tax, or other significant anti-fossil-fuel measures, to pass the Senate.
Turbocharging renewables is moving them toward a market position where they'll be able to exert dominance over fossil fuels purely thru competition. Of course I'm well aware that fossil fuel interests don't actually believe in free and fair market competition -- thus their moves to hamper offshore wind in the Gulf, among other things. Still, having hundreds of billions in private capital flowing into renewables is shifting the energy landscape in significant ways.
Higher interest rates have taken their toll on offshore wind in recent months, of course. And there are ongoing issues with labor shortages, as well as shortages of the types of specialty ships needed for turbine installations (it takes time and money to build those ships -- and before that, it takes time and money to build the factories to build the ships).
Add to that mix the perennial scourge of NIMBYism... like South Jersey MAGAs suddenly discovering a passion last year for "saving the whales" as a way to sabotage offshore wind projects (biologists say the turbines won't hurt the whales at all, actually).
But the offshore wind projects that developers have bailed out of recently will be rebid before long, at rates that are more realistic in light of current market conditions. And the money is flowing that will bring the workers, and build the ships, in due course. So the long-term outlook for offshore wind is still positive.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:35 PM on January 3 [6 favorites]
I certainly agree with that statement, eustatic. I also find the dynamic you highlight, about offshore wind snapping up skilled labor from offshore oil and gas, very interesting.
Even if the playing field for competition between renewables and fossil fuels is not as level as it would be in an ideal world, the competition is definitely happening, and it's intensifying.
We are seeing how the Biden administration's focus on boosting renewables, rather than trying to throttle or penalize fossil fuels, is playing out. I mean, they did try to throttle fossil fuel leasing on federal lands and in federal waters, but the courts severely hampered those efforts. And Manchin simply wasn't going to allow a carbon tax, or other significant anti-fossil-fuel measures, to pass the Senate.
Turbocharging renewables is moving them toward a market position where they'll be able to exert dominance over fossil fuels purely thru competition. Of course I'm well aware that fossil fuel interests don't actually believe in free and fair market competition -- thus their moves to hamper offshore wind in the Gulf, among other things. Still, having hundreds of billions in private capital flowing into renewables is shifting the energy landscape in significant ways.
Higher interest rates have taken their toll on offshore wind in recent months, of course. And there are ongoing issues with labor shortages, as well as shortages of the types of specialty ships needed for turbine installations (it takes time and money to build those ships -- and before that, it takes time and money to build the factories to build the ships).
Add to that mix the perennial scourge of NIMBYism... like South Jersey MAGAs suddenly discovering a passion last year for "saving the whales" as a way to sabotage offshore wind projects (biologists say the turbines won't hurt the whales at all, actually).
But the offshore wind projects that developers have bailed out of recently will be rebid before long, at rates that are more realistic in light of current market conditions. And the money is flowing that will bring the workers, and build the ships, in due course. So the long-term outlook for offshore wind is still positive.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:35 PM on January 3 [6 favorites]
And out west, Pattern Energy has finished permitting and financing for the largest single renewable project in the US with 3.5 GW of wind in New Mexico connected over a new HVDC line into the CA/AZ Grid.
Excited to see more offshore wind projects in CA too.
posted by CostcoCultist at 11:40 PM on January 3 [6 favorites]
Excited to see more offshore wind projects in CA too.
posted by CostcoCultist at 11:40 PM on January 3 [6 favorites]
So glad that the USA has finally built one. We're still slammed from building anything offshore in the Great Lakes near Ontario, but that may move when Doug moves on.
>
That's the biggie. I was working in wind energy while Cape Wind was a thing, and it was painful to hear the "but I can SEE them!!1!!" screeching. It's not just TFG who complains about offshore wind farms. Maybe I was being overly puckish, but very eco friends in Guilford, CT freaked the fuck out when I sent them an offshore wind farm visualization I made for a (fictional) project just past The Thimbles. Literal quivering and burbling about property values ensued. Another friend who works in the US Dept of Environment and is officially green AF sidled up to me once wondering if offshore turbines meant he should revise the bid he was making for a beach house downwards. I 3d printed him a tiny scale flat turbine you can stick on your thumbnail, hold at arm's length, and you get the (extremely smol) scale of the thing in your viewshed. He hasn't bugged me about it since, and bought that beach house.
→
Oh fuck, not that again. There was some lovely work put out in the early 2000s "clean coal" era when CCS hadn't yet been utterly debunked. I remember the fake ad for clean coal with vox pops from faux-clueless people with quotes like “Electricity … comes from the walls of my apartment”. It's almost as bad as Alberta's “Ethical Oil”
posted by scruss at 5:28 AM on January 4 [3 favorites]
>
others simply didn’t want to see the turbines from the beach. ...
That's the biggie. I was working in wind energy while Cape Wind was a thing, and it was painful to hear the "but I can SEE them!!1!!" screeching. It's not just TFG who complains about offshore wind farms. Maybe I was being overly puckish, but very eco friends in Guilford, CT freaked the fuck out when I sent them an offshore wind farm visualization I made for a (fictional) project just past The Thimbles. Literal quivering and burbling about property values ensued. Another friend who works in the US Dept of Environment and is officially green AF sidled up to me once wondering if offshore turbines meant he should revise the bid he was making for a beach house downwards. I 3d printed him a tiny scale flat turbine you can stick on your thumbnail, hold at arm's length, and you get the (extremely smol) scale of the thing in your viewshed. He hasn't bugged me about it since, and bought that beach house.
→
"Blue Oil"
Oh fuck, not that again. There was some lovely work put out in the early 2000s "clean coal" era when CCS hadn't yet been utterly debunked. I remember the fake ad for clean coal with vox pops from faux-clueless people with quotes like “Electricity … comes from the walls of my apartment”. It's almost as bad as Alberta's “Ethical Oil”
posted by scruss at 5:28 AM on January 4 [3 favorites]
This is great.
I was a little sad to hear that the wind turbine at the tip of Hull has reached it's end-of-life. There's been a turbine out there since the 1980s, and when the current one was built in 2001 it was the first large-scale, modern wind turbine in the region and it could be seen all up and down the coast around Boston. It probably won't be replaced because newer off-the-shelf wind turbines are much larger and they would interfere with the approach paths to Logan Airport.
At least Hull's other turbine is still going strong.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:35 AM on January 4 [3 favorites]
I was a little sad to hear that the wind turbine at the tip of Hull has reached it's end-of-life. There's been a turbine out there since the 1980s, and when the current one was built in 2001 it was the first large-scale, modern wind turbine in the region and it could be seen all up and down the coast around Boston. It probably won't be replaced because newer off-the-shelf wind turbines are much larger and they would interfere with the approach paths to Logan Airport.
At least Hull's other turbine is still going strong.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:35 AM on January 4 [3 favorites]
As a New England resident, I am delighted that there's more wind energy coming online.
In northern Minnesota, when I am out that way to see family, I see wind turbines all around the taconite mines -- and I love those, too!
posted by wenestvedt at 5:41 AM on January 4 [4 favorites]
In northern Minnesota, when I am out that way to see family, I see wind turbines all around the taconite mines -- and I love those, too!
posted by wenestvedt at 5:41 AM on January 4 [4 favorites]
[The original link I provided about the fate of Hull's turbine was to an archive of a Boston Globe article on a website that is actually anti-wind. I've since replaced it with an archive.org link to the actual Boston Globe article]
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:46 AM on January 4 [2 favorites]
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:46 AM on January 4 [2 favorites]
In a very small comment on a tv feel good article about New Bedford and NYC offshore construction (omg those blades on the wharf are huge, hard to get a real feel for size) it mentioned that a dozen(ish?) other projects all along the North East coast had been "canceled for cost reasons".
That was dropped by an executive developer type and I've wondered about the actual backstory.
posted by sammyo at 6:01 AM on January 4
That was dropped by an executive developer type and I've wondered about the actual backstory.
posted by sammyo at 6:01 AM on January 4
Add to that mix the perennial scourge of NIMBYism... like South Jersey MAGAs suddenly discovering a passion last year for "saving the whales" as a way to sabotage offshore wind projects (biologists say the turbines won't hurt the whales at all, actually).
If the US decides to genuinely accelerate the build-out of renewable energy, off-shore and on-shore both, permitting rules will need to be adjusted to reduce the power of local neighbors, local jurisdictions, and outside groups to block or tie up project development. Any political deal to make that happen is almost certainly going to loosen permitting for oil and gas development also, so it may be a tough pill for some people to swallow. But for big projects that span multiple jurisdictions (like transmission lines, off-shore projects, and the biggest on-shore projects) those NIMBY delays are a huge factor.
(omg those blades on the wharf are huge, hard to get a real feel for size) i
Where I work, you see the on-shore turbine blades coming by on the highway pretty often and they look big when you are driving next to them. But, if you ever have a chance to walk around a blade that has been unloaded and is sitting on the ground, it really brings out the true scale, and makes you feel pretty small.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:03 AM on January 4 [5 favorites]
If the US decides to genuinely accelerate the build-out of renewable energy, off-shore and on-shore both, permitting rules will need to be adjusted to reduce the power of local neighbors, local jurisdictions, and outside groups to block or tie up project development. Any political deal to make that happen is almost certainly going to loosen permitting for oil and gas development also, so it may be a tough pill for some people to swallow. But for big projects that span multiple jurisdictions (like transmission lines, off-shore projects, and the biggest on-shore projects) those NIMBY delays are a huge factor.
(omg those blades on the wharf are huge, hard to get a real feel for size) i
Where I work, you see the on-shore turbine blades coming by on the highway pretty often and they look big when you are driving next to them. But, if you ever have a chance to walk around a blade that has been unloaded and is sitting on the ground, it really brings out the true scale, and makes you feel pretty small.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:03 AM on January 4 [5 favorites]
NIMBY will be the defining issue for this current phase of the energy transition to renewables in the US. High interest rates, supply chain, and fossil fuel resistance are also relevant, but NIMBYism and the permitting laws that allow near-endless delays will be the blocker that needs to be addressed. The technology is there, the cost per kWh is competitive, the need is obvious. The good news is this is one of those areas where "normal citizens" can make a difference when one of these projects comes to your area. Show up at the townhall meetings, write in when public comments are open, etc.
posted by gwint at 7:45 AM on January 4 [6 favorites]
posted by gwint at 7:45 AM on January 4 [6 favorites]
Why is this upsetting to the fishing industry?
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:28 AM on January 4
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:28 AM on January 4
People are garbage, but “I only believe in solving climate change if it doesn’t impact the view from my beachfront property.” is just Olympic-level sociopathy.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 9:52 AM on January 4 [8 favorites]
posted by Horace Rumpole at 9:52 AM on January 4 [8 favorites]
Can I volunteer for a house swap with these NIMBY property owners? I'd love to be able to look out the window and see offshore wind turbines in the distance - I'd feel like I was living in a better future. Also they look cool.
posted by Gerald Bostock at 10:24 AM on January 4 [11 favorites]
posted by Gerald Bostock at 10:24 AM on January 4 [11 favorites]
Why is this upsetting to the fishing industry?
Fishing is the most dangerous occupation in America. Fishermen have been on the ropes since the cod collapse in the 1990s. They've had to make peace with a probable permanent closure of George's Bank.
They are extra nervous about anything that inflicts risk on what they have left. Of all the voices against east coast offshore wind, they deserve the most sympathy.
posted by ocschwar at 10:32 AM on January 4 [1 favorite]
Fishing is the most dangerous occupation in America. Fishermen have been on the ropes since the cod collapse in the 1990s. They've had to make peace with a probable permanent closure of George's Bank.
They are extra nervous about anything that inflicts risk on what they have left. Of all the voices against east coast offshore wind, they deserve the most sympathy.
posted by ocschwar at 10:32 AM on January 4 [1 favorite]
What is the risk? I cannot find what the fishing industry's objections actually are, and your answer doesn't include that either.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:41 AM on January 4 [1 favorite]
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:41 AM on January 4 [1 favorite]
So they close this George's Bank because of the wind turbine? Gotta Google more I find this to be a missing piece here.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:02 AM on January 4
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:02 AM on January 4
this link helped a little
Despite these lofty projections, a dark storm of opposition brews over the project. Four lawsuits have been filed against Vineyard Wind thus far, all of which claim that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management failed to adequately evaluate the project’s potential impact on local fishermen and marine mammals such as the endangered North American right whale. These lawsuits cite reports from fisheries scientists that outline how repeated construction blasts into the ocean floor could contribute to massive “fish kills”, as the sound waves produced by blasts can cause stress for marine animals and ultimately disrupt their feeding and spawning habits. Additionally, construction of extensive trenches to connect turbines to onshore transmitters could lead to increases in the amount of suspended sediment near the ocean floor — which likewise interferes with reproductive and feeding behaviors of aquatic life — and the permanent loss of juvenile cod habitats.
Loss of livelihoods and lack of compensation for commercial fishermen is another major concern of the project’s opponents. Scott Lang, the former mayor of New Bedford, Mass., stated that “The great majority of the people who rely on going out to fish will be squeezed out of the industry. This is going to be the final nail.”
In response to the lawsuits, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management claimed that it had conducted a thorough, cumulative impact analysis before approving the project. This included the removal of six initial turbine locations to accommodate fishing traffic and the establishment of agreements restricting vessel speeds, limiting construction noise, and stopping construction during migration season to protect the right whale. Vineyard Wind developers also added that they installed bubble chains to absorb sound during foundation installation, laid down subsea cable corridors to avoid sensitive benthic habitats and eelgrass beds, and aimed to minimize sediment dispersion and dredging with the use of jetplows.
Nevertheless, it seems that certain “concerns” over marine life and the fishing industry disguise ulterior motives. Investigative sources including HuffPost and Fast Company have found that several opponents of offshore wind farms across the Northeast are funded by the fossil fuel industry. For example, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which represents five fishing companies and the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association in a lawsuit against Vineyard Wind, has a long history of attacking solar and wind energy projects and promoting fossil fuels. The foundation is sponsored by major oil and gas companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips. Likewise, Fast Company tracked funding for local nonprofit Nantucket Residents Against Wind Turbines to the Caesar Rodney Institute, which receives donations from fossil fuel industry groups like American Energy Alliance and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:05 AM on January 4 [6 favorites]
Despite these lofty projections, a dark storm of opposition brews over the project. Four lawsuits have been filed against Vineyard Wind thus far, all of which claim that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management failed to adequately evaluate the project’s potential impact on local fishermen and marine mammals such as the endangered North American right whale. These lawsuits cite reports from fisheries scientists that outline how repeated construction blasts into the ocean floor could contribute to massive “fish kills”, as the sound waves produced by blasts can cause stress for marine animals and ultimately disrupt their feeding and spawning habits. Additionally, construction of extensive trenches to connect turbines to onshore transmitters could lead to increases in the amount of suspended sediment near the ocean floor — which likewise interferes with reproductive and feeding behaviors of aquatic life — and the permanent loss of juvenile cod habitats.
Loss of livelihoods and lack of compensation for commercial fishermen is another major concern of the project’s opponents. Scott Lang, the former mayor of New Bedford, Mass., stated that “The great majority of the people who rely on going out to fish will be squeezed out of the industry. This is going to be the final nail.”
In response to the lawsuits, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management claimed that it had conducted a thorough, cumulative impact analysis before approving the project. This included the removal of six initial turbine locations to accommodate fishing traffic and the establishment of agreements restricting vessel speeds, limiting construction noise, and stopping construction during migration season to protect the right whale. Vineyard Wind developers also added that they installed bubble chains to absorb sound during foundation installation, laid down subsea cable corridors to avoid sensitive benthic habitats and eelgrass beds, and aimed to minimize sediment dispersion and dredging with the use of jetplows.
Nevertheless, it seems that certain “concerns” over marine life and the fishing industry disguise ulterior motives. Investigative sources including HuffPost and Fast Company have found that several opponents of offshore wind farms across the Northeast are funded by the fossil fuel industry. For example, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which represents five fishing companies and the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association in a lawsuit against Vineyard Wind, has a long history of attacking solar and wind energy projects and promoting fossil fuels. The foundation is sponsored by major oil and gas companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips. Likewise, Fast Company tracked funding for local nonprofit Nantucket Residents Against Wind Turbines to the Caesar Rodney Institute, which receives donations from fossil fuel industry groups like American Energy Alliance and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:05 AM on January 4 [6 favorites]
The impact of fossil fuels on the ocean is WAY more of a concern on fishing, to me, then this project. And, you know, fishing itself.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:06 AM on January 4 [5 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:06 AM on January 4 [5 favorites]
The impact of fossil fuels on the ocean is WAY more of a concern on fishing, to me, then this project. And, you know, fishing itself.
This. It's necessary (and required by law) for the developers to honestly describe and analyze the project impacts, but it's also ok for a project to have impacts (just like a highway has impacts, and gets built anyway). The public interest question underlying approval is basically, do the benefits outweigh the costs? For these big renewables projects, the overall answer to that is clearly "yes," but it's also true that the impacts are mostly borne by locals, and the benefits are shared much further afield. Look for much more intense NIMBY-type battles in the coming years both from off-shore wind projects in the gulf and west coast, and also from on-shore projects that are starting to be proposed closer to population centers.
posted by Dip Flash at 11:13 AM on January 4 [3 favorites]
This. It's necessary (and required by law) for the developers to honestly describe and analyze the project impacts, but it's also ok for a project to have impacts (just like a highway has impacts, and gets built anyway). The public interest question underlying approval is basically, do the benefits outweigh the costs? For these big renewables projects, the overall answer to that is clearly "yes," but it's also true that the impacts are mostly borne by locals, and the benefits are shared much further afield. Look for much more intense NIMBY-type battles in the coming years both from off-shore wind projects in the gulf and west coast, and also from on-shore projects that are starting to be proposed closer to population centers.
posted by Dip Flash at 11:13 AM on January 4 [3 favorites]
For example, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which represents five fishing companies and the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association in a lawsuit against Vineyard Wind, has a long history of attacking solar and wind energy projects and promoting fossil fuels.
LOL. The fossil fuel industry likes to highlight the mini-coral reef/fish habitats that appear attached to oil platform legs. Their concerns should not be taken seriously.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:30 AM on January 4 [3 favorites]
LOL. The fossil fuel industry likes to highlight the mini-coral reef/fish habitats that appear attached to oil platform legs. Their concerns should not be taken seriously.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:30 AM on January 4 [3 favorites]
Very excited to see this!
posted by doctornemo at 12:23 PM on January 4 [1 favorite]
posted by doctornemo at 12:23 PM on January 4 [1 favorite]
the struggle to electrify the US is a labor and political struggle
I think education comes in here.
We graduate students who will go on to work in these fields, for one.
We also teach students who will work in management and politics, overseeing and shaping decarbonization.
We've got to be better about it.
posted by doctornemo at 12:25 PM on January 4 [2 favorites]
I think education comes in here.
We graduate students who will go on to work in these fields, for one.
We also teach students who will work in management and politics, overseeing and shaping decarbonization.
We've got to be better about it.
posted by doctornemo at 12:25 PM on January 4 [2 favorites]
« Older It's true... 1984 was 40 years ago | DOS Before DOS Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by lalochezia at 7:09 PM on January 3