-Advertisement-
Wednesday, May 1, 2024
-Advertisement-

Our Fragile Oceans: Is It Too Late to Rethink Floating Wind Turbine Power Off Our California Coastline?—OP-ED

The following is an op-ed authored by Fort Bragg resident Jeff Wyles who holds a Ph.D. in Biology.


A new study from Sandia identified tension leg platforms as the most promising floating wind design for VAWTs. [Illustration by Josh Bower and sourced from Energy.gov]

On January 24, 2024, Democrat Congressman Jared Huffman gave a speech in Humboldt County applauding the securing of $426 million federal grant dollars for the establishment of floating wind farming turbines off the Humboldt County coastline. Local leaders, commissions, private and public businesses, and the indigenous community seemed to be onboard. And, indeed there appears to be millions of dollars allocated to pacify any criticisms of the development. Foremost among these approvals are claims that the project will generate thousands of jobs for the region. Additional monies would also be earmarked for build out of new recreational facilities along the coastline. Similar, even larger, offshore wind power projects are in the works for Morro Bay and the Diablo Canyon areas further down the California coast. Does this mean that our precious Mendocino coast will also soon be considered for this type of offshore wind power development by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) that licenses the leasing of these ocean areas for such projects? And, if so, shouldn’t we question why counties in similar wind power grant affected zones in Oregon are getting significant pushback from the public? The dissent has been so much in Brookings, Gold Beach and Coos Bay, Oregon, that these projects have at least been temporarily cancelled due to public discontent and mistrust of the projects. Specifically, Monica Samayoa in the Oregon Capital Chronicle (January 4, 2024) reports that the county commissioners of Coos, Curry and Douglas counties have all passed proclamations against these offshore wind turbines. Albeit true that we all want cleaner air and more efficient and less polluting sources of electrical generation for an expanding population, but is it worth the cost to our environment and local economies?

To witness, all abalone harvesting off of our California coast has recently been prohibited indefinitely. The fragile balance between the abalone, sea urchins, star fish, kelp beds, and fisheries is well documented. Currently the resource is so damaged that it may take years to recover. That said, the government just awarded upwards of $60 million dollars this past year to rehab the salmon habitat to restore that resource. Even though that sounds like a lot of money, is it even enough to save the stream habitat statewide and improve it such that it will be commercially viable long-term here in California? Once vibrant fishing streams like the Klamath River in Northern California are seriously in danger of total salmon depletion and extinction. Local efforts like the fish weirs on Caspar Creek are helpful, but is enough being done to increase the number fingerlings that make it back out to the ocean? Commercial fishing operations by foreign countries with processing plants in situ just over the border in international waters also must be having a negative impact on the natural resource.

Now, when floating wind powered turbines are thrown into the mix, what is the potential harm of these developments on our oceans? Proponents of wind power argue that it will help combat global climate change. Maybe at some level this is true, but what about the local weather changes when these wind turbines alter the normal wind cycles, usual wind directions, and intensities along our coastlines? Another significant factor is the upwelling of nutrients and a myriad of organisms from the ocean floor caused by the action of these wind turbines. Baleen whales, porpoises, dolphins, and millions of birds and fish species and other marine life are dependent upon these resources to maintain healthy ecosystems. When you disrupt those natural processes and equations, the balance of nature is destroyed and efforts to get it back to equilibrium and normality may be difficult if not impossible. Few studies have been adequately done to assess the overall biological impacts of these wind turbine technologies on marine biology and specifically ocean biomes and ecosystems. Instead, these grants, which are part of the recently approved federal infrastructure bill, are advertised as engineering marvels of “clean electricity” at supposedly cheap prices that will make everyone happy and not harm the environment. Internet resources in places like Wyoming claim that only 214,000-368,000 birds are annually killed by wind powered turbines. However, these inland studies were done on songbirds and passerines. What about areas here along the Mendocino coast where we also have many pelagic species of birds and are a major part of the Pacific Flyway? Pelicans, geese, cormorants, seagulls, puffins, common murres, bald eagles, and a host of shore bird species are vulnerable to being ultimately killed by these turbines. Marine mammals are also sensitive and negatively impacted by them. Particularly along our coastline Gray and Humpback whale migrations are at risk whether these wind turbines are located here or further up or down the Pacific coastline. Thousands of tourists come to our area every year and these natural resources are a boost to our local economy.

East coast fishermen recently have been battling the establishment of wind powered generators along their coastline. Many claim that these wind turbines will effectively ruin the oceanic fisheries along the east coast of the United States. Environmentalists have also argued that multiple deaths by beaching of cetaceans may be due to sounds emanating from construction sites of permanent wind turbine installations. Others have debunked that idea, but who actually knows the truth? Here on the West coast, the Coos Bay fishermen are dependent upon the crab and shrimp harvests, and they are saying that the floating wind turbines which would be situated in their fishing grounds would make it virtually impossible for them to continue a successful fisheries industry. The original offshore licensing area for these developments in Oregon comprised over 1,000,000 acres, but has been pared down currently to 200,000 acres. Who knows what the BOEM will eventually do in light of the Oregon county commissioner proclamations against it. Perhaps it will end up in court as a conflict between the federal government and state’s rights.

Finally, one wonders about the cost/benefit ratio of establishing these proposed wind turbines off the coast of California, Oregon and Washington. From the internet it appears that the typical wind turbine is 2-3 Megawatts (MW) and costs about $2-4 million dollars each to construct. One might also ask where are these turbines made? Many of the components are manufactured undoubtedly in China and the Humboldt County operation appears to also have at least an engineering and analytical component from Norway. Maybe we need to know how many of these wind turbines would be made right here in the USA and create jobs for our own people. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs range from about $42,000-$48,000 each as of a few years ago. Available data on the internet suggests that one of these MW wind turbine units can power about 940 homes for a month. But, since these turbines are wind determinant, they are not running continuously and when wind speeds get too high, they must also be turned off to prevent damage to the generators. Our coastline is also subject to tsunamis and king tides, so how many of these turbines will become damaged or destroyed and have to be taken out of service? Additionally, internet sources suggest that PG&E estimates are $1billion to $4.5 billion to connect the electrical generation from these turbines to the grid. Presumably that would be to inland connections in Humboldt County or by cabling along the ocean floor to hubs in the proposed Morro Bay and Diablo Canyon. Sources also say that large commercial battery storage of this generated energy along the coast is not yet technologically advanced enough to be a feasible alternative.

- Advertisement -

One also must question the ultimate expanse of such an infrastructure rollout. Currently, it appears that as few as 100 units in the Humboldt district and another 300-400 in the Morro Bay Diablo Canyon areas are estimated to be installed. That said, my preliminary ballpark calculations (with a continuous high level of efficiency of the turbine units) could only provide a range of 0.7% to 3.0% of the needs of California households (under the current grants) and that would exclude any commercial usage. And, not mentioned, what will the eventual actual cost be per kilowatt hour for this source of electricity passed on to consumers? It is entirely possible that the total costs to build, maintain and replace units every 20+ years (at end of service) would be prohibitive compared to other sources of energy. Beyond these cost considerations, sources indicate that the turbine blades cannot be recycled and are piling up in landfills. Fossil fuels will also still be needed to maintain the lubrication of these units, and what about potential for spillage?

Maybe it is time for our Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, our local commissioners, indigenous leaders and the Noyo Center for Marine Science to take up this issue and take a stand (one way or another) on this topic.

- Advertisement -
ClarkesTreeServiceVersion2
ClarkesTreeServiceVersion2
ClarkesTreeServiceVersion2
ClarkesTreeServiceVersion2

22 COMMENTS

    • I agree completely with the article but one thing was left off and that was the earthquakes that commonly occur. I am the only candidate for State Assembly Dist.2 that is against the project. Remember the grants are a subsidized and the companies are not paying for the structures but take any of the profit and can sell electricity to the highest bidder. The ocean is the life of the world and we can’t destroy it but there are too many environmentalists who believe “clean energy” is the greatest need instead of the ocean.

  1. Installing turbines will generate jobs by mostly out of area workers but once installed they won’t create new jobs for very many people.

  2. I would love seeing Wind Turbines over the ocean be successful. Maybe the smaller start up will provide data to alieviat the concerns. … There are so many critical what ifs in this article, I honestly wondered if the author is partially promoting his services. I worked as a commercial sea urchin diver from 1990 to 2010, … and perceive the decline of those acres of kelp beds, and much of the variety of sea live underneath em, … as directly related to a warmer more acidic ocean, from global warming; that made all those kelp stacks anchoring to the rock too soft to keep holding em. I think projects that provide cleaner energy deserves our support (unless I see convincing info. to the contrary. …

    • There are sources of clean energy that are far cheaper than offshore wind. Apparently you are willing to squander your tax money.

  3. Mr. PHD in biology has obviously not been to sea off the coast of Northern California. Sure, put them in and with the first good storm the wreckage will scattered on the beach.

  4. I agree that a rigorous cost estimate of building and maintaining offshore windmills is needed before we decide to spend our tax dollars on it. The fact that windmills are in the ocean and need seagoing vessels to build and maintain is not small thing. Very different than driving a truck to the job site. Just because it produces non fossil fuel energy doesn’t make it an acceptable project for addressing climate change. We need to be smart with our tax money in addressing climate change. Thanks for the article. It’s good to ask questions.

    • Offshore wind cannot pass any rigorous cost-benefit analysis. It is way too expensive relative to onshore wind and solar. Even.new nuclear plants are cheaper than offshore wind on an unsubsidized basis.

      • In your dreams. And you know it. Newest nuclear power plant in US is Vogtle 3&4 which cost $36 Billion (with a “B”) for a Diablo Canyon sized plant in the utility loving State of Georgia. That will raise Geogia Power customer rates by 35%.

        Offshore wind in California will be done faster and at lower cost than any new nuclear plant connected to the Western grid.

        • Let’s talk after we see how much the first floating wind project is completed.

          Today the offer prices for East Coast offshore wind projects are in the range of $150 per MWh. Add another 42 percent to back out the federal investment tax credit get the unsubsidized cost. That’s more than the unsubsidized cost of the NuScale modular reactor. Vogtle is not representative of the next generation of nuclear reactors.

          • What is the unsubsidized cost of the NuScale modular reactor, since it hasn’t been built yet?

            Gotta love nuclear fanboys. It’s never about past failures. It’s always about that next whimsical nuclear technology just over the horizon. Trust us. We know what we’re doing. Ha!

            • What is the unsubsidized cost of floating OSW in California (since it hasn’t been built yet)?

              The last unsubsidized cost estimate for NuScale was about $120 per MWh. Compare that with the federally subsidized LCOEs for two New Jersey offshore wind projects that were just approved:

              Leading Light Wind: $139.53/MWh

              Attentive Energy: $165.14/MWh

              Gross those costs up by 42 percent to strip out the federal Investment Tax Credit and we are up to (and even beyond) $200/MWh! And note that these projects are fixed sites in shallow water. Floating OSW will cost substantially more.

              NuScale has a lot of head room for the cost to grow into and still be competitive with floating OSW.

              • Yet the market is speaking. In spite of the $100s of billions in nuclear subsidies, investors in NuScale bailed bailed in March and is laying off 40% of its workforce. The utilities who wanted to buy its power bailed too because of the high cost of SMR power. Hard to argue with the facts.

    • From the article there is $426 million of our tax dollars dedicated to such a project in Humboldt County. We shall see what comes to fruition. If turbines are indeed installed it will provide much data on cost/benefits/impacts, etc.

Join the Conversation

MendoFever Staff
MendoFever Staff
Editor's Note: Whenever an article's byline reads "MendoFever Staff", the contents of that article were not composed by any of our reporters. Types of writing that will be attributed to "MendoFever Staff" include press releases, letters to the editor, op-eds, obituaries— essentially writing that is not produced by a reporter.

Today's News

-Advertisement-

News from the Week

Discover more from MendoFever – Mendocino County News

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading