Axios Seattle is reporting that Washington Tribes under The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission have asked for a pause in the planning for the offshore wind farms along the Washington coast while the tribes concerns are addressed. The Tribes are not asking for a total ban on the farms but have environmental concerns they say have not been addressed.
Worth noting is that the farms are in the very early stages of permitting by the Federal Government.
As Axios notes:
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has received two unsolicited lease proposals for offshore wind farms along Washington’s coast.
- One, from Trident Winds, would cover an area of about 315 square miles about 45 miles off the coast of Grays Harbor and Pacific counties.
- The other, from Hecate Energy, seeks to lease 403 square miles in a nearby area about 17 miles off the coast.
Both these farms are planning on wind turbines with virtually no impact on the visual look of the coast, but the concerns are more about their impacts on fishing and whales.
As stated in an earlier blog post, this blog along with the stated goals of the tribes in the article is to support wind energy projects, but “not on the backs of the tribes”. The assumption is that the wind energy companies can provide reasonable scientific backing for their proposals. The east coast has implemented wind energy farms much closer in than the proposed Washington coast project, with no signficant impacts. Some of the background on those efforts are found here:
Comparison of Environmental Effects from Different Offshore Wind Turbine Foundations (boem.gov)
The Institute for Energy Research does have this conclusion to the New England wind farms. It appears that high interest rates, which are impacting the sales of electric cars, are also impacting the implementation of wind energy. Note the concerns in bold:
While a few offshore wind projects have gotten off the ground and have started producing electricity, others have been canceled, often with developers occurring fines. Developers have canceled several projects along the East Coast, saying they were no longer financially feasible. Offshore wind projects have struggled to surmount rising construction and material costs, as well as serious manufacturing problems. In recent months, rising materials costs, high interest rates, and supply chain delays have prompted project developers to cancel or try to renegotiate power contracts for commercial-scale offshore wind facilities in the United States with operating start dates between 2025 and 2028. Offshore wind facilities are among the most expensive utility scale power projects under construction in the United States and would not have gotten off the ground without massive support from state and federal governments and pre-approved power purchase agreements. With the cancellations that have occurred, President Biden’s goal of 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030 is expected to be half that amount.
New England Is Moving Ahead with Offshore Wind Facilities, Despite Their Cost – IER (instituteforenergyresearch.org)
The wind farm built by Avingrid has started producing 68 Megawatts of power to Massachusetts since then.
A good scientific reearch paper on the subject was produced by Nature:
Reviewing the ecological impacts of offshore wind farms | npj Ocean Sustainability (nature.com)
Microsoft’s CoPilot produces this summary of it’s search on the topic:
Wind farms in New England, particularly offshore wind projects, have both positive and negative environmental impacts.
On the positive side, the development of the New England Wind lease area is projected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 4 million US tons annually, which is equivalent to taking approximately 700,000 cars off the road each year during the lifespan of the project1. The New England Wind project is expected to generate up to 2,600 megawatts of electricity, sufficient to power more than 900,000 homes with clean renewable energy23.
On the other hand, there are potential negative impacts associated with the construction and operation of wind farms. These can include disruption to marine life during the construction phase, potential collision risks for birds and bats, and changes to the seascape that can impact tourism and fishing2. Research is being conducted to prevent environmental damage4.
It’s important to note that the specific impacts can vary depending on the location and design of the wind farm, and measures are often put in place to mitigate potential negative effects. For example, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) completed an environmental review of the proposed New England Wind project offshore Massachusetts3. This review process is designed to carefully analyze the environmental impact of the proposed project3.
In conclusion, while wind farms can have some environmental impacts, they also play a crucial role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing a source of renewable energy. It’s a balance between managing these impacts and transitioning to cleaner energy sources to combat climate change.”
Sign up for Axios to support independent journalism in the Pacific Northwest.
Washington tribes seek to halt offshore wind farms – Axios Seattle
Filed under: Alternative energy., Clallam County, Climate Change, Environmental Science, First Nations, fisheries, Olympic Peninsula | Tagged: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Quinault, Wind Farm |
I see these proposals are both from spring 2022. What is the status now?
The mapped locations (Grays Canyon and the shelf edge) are exactly where lots of fishing boats congregate and where Westport Seabirds trips go to see large concentrations of albatross, shearwaters, whales, etc.
Steve I don’t have any recent update on this other than the Axios story. I must say that I am as frustrated with the green opponents of this as well as the opposition from the oil and gas industry. There is no time left to get our act together and move to renewables. Countries like Scotland, the Netherlands and others have far outpaced us in moving to wind, tide and solar. Some of it is a knee jerk reaction to *any* site that is proposed. I would ask that the green coalition including the Tribes come up with their own list of acceptable sites to propose to industries such as this, to speed the implementation of these desperately needed projects to get us off natural gas and propane. It’s unacceptable to simply sit on the sidelines and complain when the west is on fire again.
I think this is a terrible idea. Wind, currents, whales and other critters that use these waters. I expect this is not a place for construction of these towers and maintenance would be a constant problem. Fog, marine traffic another issue. No federal money should be used on such an indeavor.
well, I hope you like global warming and what’s happening all over the planet like Jasper, Canada, and Northern California with their fires because if we don’t come up with something, we are going to all be doomed. The Olympic peninsula is not immune to massive wildfires that could totally burn everything in cities like Port Townsend, there is no energy without some negative consequences. The solar panels you put on your roof were mind in China probably by slave labor. There are trade-offs to be made and I think that wind has a certainly possible minor trade-off compared to other competing sources.