The debate continues
By Frank Carini / ecoRI News
columnist
Two days after ecoRI News published an opinion piece about
offshore wind, the staff received an email from a concerned Rhode Island reader
about this particular form of renewable energy and our coverage of it.
Not all of these projects are still in play
The May 1 email features a list of
questions and statements I thought needed to be answered and addressed. What
follows is just that, with reader questions/statements in bold.
I must say I am very confused by your stance in promoting
it and also in the process, speaking badly about those of us who oppose it.
While this issue has deeply divided people, ecoRI
News reporting has taken no sides. “We
strive to write about the issue fairly and without bias,” editor Bonnie
Phillips told the reader when she responded to the email. She noted any
comments or opinions expressed in stories about offshore wind are from sources
interviewed and not from ecoRI News reporters.
Also, reader comments don’t reflect the opinions of ecoRI
News.
In one of my columns — which also don’t reflect the
opinions of ecoRI News — about offshore wind, I did call some opponents
“gadflies” and referred to them collectively as a “mob.” I’ve been called far
worse, by family members.
Personally, my biggest concern is that there is no data
proving they will have a measurable impact on climate change. It seems
like a huge risk to take — sacrificing our ocean for an ineffective band aid.
The climate crisis is fueled by the burning of fossil
fuels. Offshore wind turbines and other renewable energy sources are needed to
significantly reduce our dependence on oil, methane, gasoline, diesel, propane,
and coal.
Offshore wind comes with costs and will impact the
environment, as do all forms of energy production. But the burning of fossil
fuels is much more polluting and damaging.
The oceans were long ago industrialized by the
exploration for and drilling of fossil fuels. There are thousands of oil
and gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico alone. Increasing the amount of
renewable energy we produce will lessen the stress on marine environments.
Europe has been opposing these for decades as well.
Speaking of which, countries like Sweden are ditching OSW (offshore wind) and
investing further in nuclear energy. This is because they are not the solution
to our climate crisis.
Utility-scale offshore wind facilities have been
generating electricity for three decades in Europe.
Earlier this year the European Commission identified 12
offshore wind projects as projects of common interest. The commission wants to
double cross-border power capacity in the European Union by 2030, by adding 87
gigawatts (GW) of offshore and onshore energy.
Last year North Sea country leaders pledged to
install 120 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030, up from 34 GW currently.
Europe installed 3.8 GW
of offshore wind energy in 2023.
While Sweden has announced plans
to build the equivalent of two new conventional nuclear reactors by 2035,
a January news story noted
“Swedish offshore wind ‘goldrush’ shows no signs of slowing down.”
Where is the data to support that the turbines will
improve global warming?
To mitigate the impacts of climate change, offshore wind
energy is part of the renewables mix required to drastically slash our fossil
fuel consumption.
How are we going to clean them up at the end of their
short 15 year lifespan?
Decommissioning bonds,
also known as reclamation bonds, are financial assurances that guarantee the
proper reclamation and restoration of the natural world when a renewable energy facility reaches the
end of its useful life.
Interestingly, there seems to be far less concern about
what happens to power plants that burn coal, oil, or natural gas when they
retire.
Research has
shown that offshore wind turbines have an approximate lifespan of 20-25 years.
EDITOR'S NOTE: In my experience, power plants, whether nuclear, coal, oil and gas, wind or solar tend to operate well-past their "sell by." Power companies tend to run them for as long as they can to maximize their return on investment, often shutting down only when market changes cut into profits. They also try to postpone decommissioning costs as long as possible. I believe that most estimates on facility lifespans reflect the secret of success: "Under-promise and over-achieve." - Will Collette
How much energy do the five BI wind turbines produce?
That data has not been made available to the public.
The five-turbine, 30-megawatt Block Island Wind
Farm generates enough
energy to power 17,000 homes; 10% of the energy generated powers New Shoreham
and the rest is delivered to the mainland.
How specifically is OSW “green” and “clean” energy?
From destroying forests in South America in order to build them
to shipping them here and installing them actually involves a very
high carbon emission cost.
Renewable energy is much cleaner than burning fossil
fuels, especially when increasingly more sun and wind power comes online. These
indirect climate-changing emissions will continue to decrease as more and more
cleaner energy is added to the power grid.
Forests are being destroyed in South America and
elsewhere to build onshore wind projects — just like forests and open space are
and have been destroyed to build power plants (Ocean State Power in
Burrillville, for example).
The amount of environmental damage created by extracting, transporting, and processing fossil fuels is considerably higher than the impact of renewable energy development.
Mountaintop removal mining for coal,
fracking for natural gas, deep-sea drilling for oil and gas, and tar sands
mining, plus all the toxic chemicals used in these processes and the toxic
wastewater created, has caused extensive damage to the natural world and human
health.
There’s also a high emissions cost to shipping
construction materials and components and building fossil fuel power plants and
their associated infrastructure.
Can we explore other options that are low or even zero
carbon emissions?
We are and we have. Nuclear energy comes
with its own disadvantages, from concerns about nuclear weapon proliferation to
radioactive waste that contains highly poisonous chemicals that can be
extremely toxic for tens of thousands of years.
Since the 1950s, a stockpile of 250,000 tons of
radioactive nuclear waste has been accumulated and distributed across the
world, with 90,000 metric tons stored in the United States alone.
Hydrogen energy, at
least at the moment, is an unrealistic one-to-one replacement for fossil fuels
because of how expensive and energy intensive it is to create.
About 96% of the hydrogen used today is gray. This type
of hydrogen costs less, but its impact on the environment is severe, as it
requires 22 pounds of carbon dioxide to create 2.2 pounds of gray hydrogen.
Hydrogen is also difficult to handle, and has a low
ignition point, so it doesn’t need to get very hot to catch fire.
Fusion energy offers
a potential long-term energy source that uses abundant fuel supplies and
doesn’t produce greenhouse gases or long-lived radioactive waste. But a 2023 study highlighted
the engineering and economic challenges of fusion energy.
What is the effect of EMFs from the cables that will
be running through the ocean and through our communities? What sorts of
problems can this cause on the health of marine species and on human life?
Marine scientists are and have studied this and they
haven’t yet found significant cause for alarm. The same concerns and more could
be said about the impact fossil fuel infrastructure has had and is having on
marine and human life.
What about the impact of acoustic vibration on marine
life and on human life? They are not too far offshore from us.
Offshore oil and gas development requires conducting
geological and geophysical surveys to understand the location and extent of
deposits and the geological formations around them.
This seafloor exploration includes seismic airgun surveys
that can have acoustic impacts on marine species. Seismic testing involves
blasting the seafloor with high-powered airguns every 10 seconds and measuring
the echoes to map offshore oil and gas reserves.
In marine mammals, the blasts — which reach more than 250
decibels and be heard for miles — can cause hearing loss, disturb essential
behaviors such as feeding and breeding, and mask communications between
individual whales and dolphins, according to the Center for Biological
Diversity. The blasts also reduce catch rates of commercial fish.
Also, there are countless polluting fossil fuel
facilities significantly closer to millions of people. Of the 329.3 million
people in the contiguous United States, 10% (33 million) live within 3 miles of
one or more power plants, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
The population living near power plants is comprised of
53% (17.5 million) people of color and 34% (11.2 million) low-wealth
individuals. According to 2020 Census data, the overall U.S. population is
comprised of 40% people of color and 30% low-income individuals.
For comparison, the Revolution Wind facility
is about 17 miles southeast of the Point Judith shoreline.
Does ecoRI believe that these turbines will save the
climate in fifteen years?
Ending the burning of fossil fuels is the top priority
when it comes to mitigating the climate crisis. Offshore wind, here and
elsewhere, is part of the energy mix needed to drastically curtail our use of
fossil fuels.
Only 1/18 of the energy from these projects off of
our coast is going to RI — the rest goes to NY, CT, and MA.
In 2022, Rhode Island generated 83% of its electricity
from natural gas, the second-largest share of any state after Delaware,
according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
All of that methane comes from out of state, including
from hydraulic fracturing in Ohio, which last year approved fracking
for oil and gas in state parks and designated wildlife areas. It’s delivered to
Rhode Island via natural gas infrastructure that includes more than 3 million
miles of pipeline, according to the EIA.
Fracking, and horizontal drilling, are used to go after
hard-to-reach pockets of methane and oil.
Hydraulic fracturing is linked to an
array of health impacts, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, asthma, and
birth defects.
In 2006 a spill of nearly a million gallons of fracking
wastewater into the Yellowstone River in North Dakota resulted in a mass die-off of fish and
plants. Cleanup of that spill was still ongoing at the time of another spill in
2015 of nearly 3 million gallons of briny, saltwater waste that flowed to the
Missouri River and contained chloride concentrations high enough to kill any
wildlife that encountered it.
Every wind company installing the turbines is actually a
fossil fuel company such as: Shell and BP (remember them?) Big Oil is Big Wind
and they’ve funded Southern New England institutions with millions of
dollars.
Many but not all offshore wind developers are part of the
fossil fuel industry. While the greed of CEOs and industry profits and lies are
disturbing, those employed by these corporations know how to build energy
projects. Would you rather have journalists or animal control officers building
our energy infrastructure?
Last year Shell reported a
profit of $28 billion, down 30% from the previous year’s record, but it still
allowed the corporation to increase its dividend by 4% and extend its share
repurchases. BP reported a 2023
profit of $13.8 billion.
The vast majority of that wealth was acquired because of
our relentless burning of fossil fuels.
ecoRI News is most certainly not one of the alleged (and
nameless) southern New England institutions that have received millions from
Big Wind or Big Oil.
Our electricity costs will go up — OSW companies
admit that we should expect a major adverse impact on economics.
The climate crisis — i.e., the burning of fossil fuels —
is having a “major adverse impact” on the economy, from health care costs to
property and infrastructure damage. The recent flooding, again, of
Houston is just one example.
BOEM advises that turbines alter temperature
stratification of the ocean and impact ocean currents.
The burning of fossil fuels is already doing that and
much more at a far larger scale.
Ninety percent of global warming is occurring in the
ocean, causing the water’s internal heat to increase since modern
record-keeping began in 1955, according to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
Heat stored in the ocean causes its water to expand,
which is responsible for one-third to one-half of global sea level rise,
according to NASA. The past 10 years were the ocean’s warmest decade since at
least the 1800s; 2023 was the ocean’s warmest recorded year.
Besides sea level rise, the effects of ocean warming
include thermal expansion, coral bleaching, accelerated melting of the planet’s
major ice sheets, intensified hurricanes, more frequent severe weather, and
changes in ocean health and biochemistry.
And yes, they are killing whales. This can no longer be
denied. I can share endless data with you if you’d like.
To prove offshore wind is killing marine mammals, the
email included a link to a Robert Bryce video.
From October 2007 to February 2008, Bryce was a fellow at
the Institute for Energy Research,
a nonprofit backed by fossil fuel interests and known for its role in
advocating against tax subsidies for renewable energy and against the EPA’s
proposed limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
The Institute for Energy Research also commissioned and paid for a bogus anti-wind energy study released in 2009 by a Danish think tank, according to DeSmog.
The rebuked
and withdrawn study falsely claimed Denmark exaggerates the amount of wind
energy it produces, questioned whether wind energy reduces carbon emissions (it
does), and asserted that the United States should choose coal over wind because
it’s cheaper (it’s not when you count the public and environmental health costs
associated with mining for and burning coal).
In April 2010 Bryce, an author and journalist, joined
the Manhattan Institute as
a senior fellow. The Manhattan Institute is a policy think tank that has
received significant funding from both ExxonMobil and Koch Industries. It is known for obscuring
science that supports human-made climate change.
Bryce has been unwilling to
answer questions about the funding the Manhattan Institute receives from the
fossil fuel industry.
Vessel strikes and entanglements with fishing gear are
the leading causes of whale mortalities, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. A cruise ship recently arrived at the
Port of Brooklyn with a 44-foot-long corpse of an endangered sei whale sprawled
across its bow.
As for offshore wind’s impact on whale deaths, NOAA
hasn’t found one.
“We work with our partners to analyze and understand the
causes of death when we are able, following the science and data,” according to
the federal agency. “At this point, there is no scientific evidence that noise
resulting from offshore wind site characterization surveys could potentially
cause whale deaths. There are no known links between large whale deaths and
ongoing offshore wind activities.”
I cannot imagine such an invasive industrialization
of our oceans would not adversely impact the ecosystem in some way.
Sacrificing our oceans is too high a risk without actual proof of environmental
improvement.
The “invasive industrialization” of the world’s ocean
began with freighters, cruise ships, oil and gas platforms, trawlers, fish
processing vessels, marine diamond mining, deep-sea mining, megayachts, naval
fleets, nuclear submarines, and military training exercises. They all have a
significant impact on marine health.
Offshore wind development would help stop the further
industrialization of the ocean by new fossil fuel infrastructure and lead the
way to a slow process of decommissioning oil and gas rigs.
Reducing fossil fuel burning would have a huge impact on
“environmental improvement.” Land-based renewable energy alone likely isn’t
sufficient to provide global energy demand in a post-carbon world.
I hope as human beings, we can come up with better
solutions.
Annual global energy consumption is estimated to be
580 million terajoules. One terajoule equals a million megawatt-hours. Global
annual energy consumption corresponds to the amount of energy released from the
Hiroshima nuclear bomb every four seconds. A Boeing 737 can cross the Atlantic
Ocean on 1 terajoule.
Eighty-three percent of that annual energy comes from
fossil fuels. Since 2000, global energy consumption has increased by about a
third, and by 2040 it is projected to increase by 30% to 740 million
terajoules.
The continued burning of that much fossil fuel will
drastically alter life on this planet, including our own. It already is.
Renewable energy, including offshore wind, needs to
become the dominant form of energy until something cleaner is developed. The
continued burning of enormous amounts of fossil fuels can’t be an option.
Note: Hundreds of the world’s leading climate
scientists expect global
temperatures to rise to at least 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees Fahrenheit )
this century, blasting past internationally agreed targets and causing
catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet.
Frank Carini can be reached at frank@ecori.org. His opinions don’t reflect those of ecoRI News.