NAS study raises concern over offshore wind harming endangered whales

From CFACT

David Wojick

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a lengthy report on what is known as the “dead ocean” threat with a focus on the Nantucket region, specifically what are called the Nantucket shoals. This is a major feeding ground of the desperately endangered North Atlantic Right Whale. It is really a good case study for all major offshore wind installations.

The report uncovers something strange but true. The physics is technical, but the basic idea is simple. Wind turbines take a lot of the energy out of the air, creating a lower energy wake behind the wind turbine facility. Lower energy wind causes lower energy waves so there is much less mixing in the ocean surface layer. This depletes the oxygen level in the water, which can reduce the amount of living food sources that whales eat, which can harm the whales on a population level. This is why it is called the dead ocean effect.

The primary threat arises because the world’s biggest animals feed on the world’s smallest animals. Fifteen-ton Right Whales feed on what is called zooplankton, which are microscopic animals of various sorts. That these huge marine mammals can filter out and live on tons of almost invisible animals is a natural miracle in itself.

The dead ocean threat, to be even more specific, is that the reduced energy in hundreds of wind turbine wakes combined can greatly reduce the zooplankton population. This could lead to malnutrition or even starvation in the whales. It can also require the whales to do a lot more hunting for their food, which can also cause them harm. This is especially true if it increases the risk of ship strikes and fishing gear entanglements, the leading causes of whale deaths.

In fact, there are at least two very different wake effects that adversely affect whales. Note that the term wake effect often refers to the fact that the turbine sucks out roughly 50% of the energy in the air, so turbines have to be spaced far apart in the wind direction lest the first turbine rob the second of energy.

This energy-sucking effect can cause a reduction in mixing wave action far behind the turbines, which lowers the oxygen content of the water, which lowers the biological productivity, which lowers the whales’ food supply.

The second adverse effect has an opposite cause. The huge turbine blades create close in turbulence downwind, which stirs up the sediment, creating a suspended sediment plume that can be large and long-lasting. This opaque plume would certainly decrease biological activity. The lack of mixing would tend to prolong the plume. Moreover, turbulence takes energy, which further reduces downwind mixing.

What is most interesting is that these two adverse effects might cause the whales to avoid the area, like harassment does, pushing them into more dangerous waters. Thus, in addition to harassment, we now have simple avoidance as a potential cause of death.

Nantucket shoals is just East, that is, downwind, of nine major offshore wind lease areas. If these areas are developed as planned, it will create a wall of hundreds of enormous wind-sucking turbines. Each turbine removes roughly half of the energy from the wind that drives it. The stronger the wind, the more energy gets drawn out.

The primary conclusion of the NAS report is starkly simple: While the risk is clear, nothing is known about its magnitude. This is said repeatedly in carefully couched, highly technical, and very scientific language. There are numerous good recommendations that lay out the need for a research program that is sorely needed in order to understand the threat posed by offshore wind.

Here is a central conclusion from the NAS Report: “Given the state of understanding of the effects of hydrodynamics on zooplankton supply, abundance, and aggregation, as well as uncertainties regarding how turbines will affect the hydrodynamics of the Nantucket Shoals region, it is unclear how wind development will affect right whale prey availability in this region. There are mechanisms that could support an increase, a decrease, or no measurable change in right whale prey availability. Future research supporting observational studies and model development are needed to support accurate predictions.”

Of particular interest is the recommendation for the first two Atlantic wind facilities, presently under construction, to be heavily instrumented so as to measure their wake effect. These are South Fork and Vineyard Wind, both in the Nantucket area. Of course, it will take several years to get good data.

Oddly, the one NAS recommendation that is conspicuously missing is that construction of new major wind facilities be put on hold until this serious threat to endangered whales is better understood. This is not surprising given that NAS has also just released a report espousing the “accelerating decarbonization” of the US economy.

NAS is devoutly on board the alarmist climate change bandwagon, so their idea of how to research potential threats to marine life is the same as the Biden Administration’s: namely, first to build monster wind facilities, then assess the damage they inflict on the environment somewhere down the road.  Actually, preventing damage before it occurs, including the extinction of the Right Whale, is not part of the plan.

Given this recent NAS study detailing the clear and present danger to the already desperately endangered North Atlantic Right Whale, let’s hope cooler heads prevail.  The proper course of action is to put this research ahead of any more offshore wind construction, not after it.


David Wojick

Dr. David Wojick is an independent policy analyst and senior advisor to CFACT. As a civil engineer with a Ph.D. in logic and analytic philosophy of science, he brings a unique perspective to complex policy issues. His specializes in science and technology intensive issues, especially in energy and environment. As a cognitive scientist he also does basic research on the structure and dynamics of complex issues and reasoning. This research informs his policy analyses. He has written hundreds of analytical articles. Many recent examples can be found at https://www.cfact.org/author/dwojick/ Often working as a consultant on understanding complex issues, Dr. Wojick’s numerous clients have included think tanks, trade associations, businesses and government agencies. Examples range from CFACT to the Chief of Naval Research and the Energy Department’s Office of Science. He has served on the faculty of Carnegie Mellon University and the staff of the Naval Research Laboratory. He is available for confidential consulting, research and writing.

5 18 votes
Article Rating
27 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ronald Stein
December 2, 2023 6:29 am

The invention of Kerosene produced from crude oil in 1849 upended the whaling industry.

During the eighteen and nineteenth centuries, oil from sperm whales became the preferred method for lighting homes, with richer people also preferring candles made from spermaceti found in the sperm whale’s nose.

Sperm whales were hunted mercilessly, with each large whale producing as much as 3 tons of oil from the blubber of the whales’ head.

It’s estimated that more than 200,000 sperm whales were killed during the 1800’s for their oil for lighting homes.

If this had continued, there’s little doubt that sperm whales would have become extinct.

TODAY, offshore wind turbines that only generate occasional electricity, are threatening the whales!!!

David Wojick
Reply to  Ronald Stein
December 2, 2023 9:13 am

Good history. Ironically we are killing whales for (this time not needed) energy again.

antigtiff
December 2, 2023 7:37 am

“Right” whales were named because they were the right whale to harvest….but on the other hand….all Polar bears are left handed…a little known fact…keep it secret.

CD in Wisconsin
December 2, 2023 8:16 am

“The proper course of action is to put this research ahead of any more offshore wind construction, not after it.”

At times, governments seem to have a habit of doing things in the wrong order (if at all). Bass ackwards.

And on top of this, witness the plowing of countless amounts of $$$ into wind turbines and solar panels without any feasibility study to determine whether wind and solar were viable alternatives to fossil fuels in the first place.

The environmental movement and climate activists bark and the government jumps with no questions asked.

December 2, 2023 8:24 am

I dunno- I’m just a forester but I have doubts about this “dead ocean” threat.

“Lower energy wind causes lower energy waves…”

Seems far fetched to me. I’m no fan of wind turbines and solar panels. I hate them. But I think this argument is a stretch. And that’s what the climate nut jobs will say.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 2, 2023 8:52 am

It’s a long shot in my book also.
Significant tning is that they’ve got the thermodynamics wrong.
Wind turbines, like all turbines, all ‘engines’ in fact, work by cooling the gas that passes through them.
They do not ‘slow it down’ Picture a broken down car on a motorway – it slows down the traffic. If the normal traffic kept coming towards the breakdown, the queue would in theory become infinite and complete gridlock would result.
Somehow I don’t see one single windmill anywhere on Earth stopping all Earth’s winds as would happen in the trivial final conclusion therein.

Well, that’s wrong also.
The windmills act like classic wind-breaks = hedges or walls you might construct to protect yourself from an inclement wind.
All that’s happening there is that the wind is riding over the top of the windbreak, so you on the surface , see less wind.
Again that is a cooling effect as the wind has to accelerate to ‘climb over the obstruction’ and it gets the energy by reducing its pressure and thus: Cooling
We truly are in the dark ages here.

In any case, for tiny critters like Zooplankton, I’d imagine they’d enjoy a ‘break from the wind’. less wind over the surface of the water will allow it to become warmers and all critters like warmth. They’ll love the windmills.
Then: Feed the some soil erosion, plastic and or sewage and they’ll explode in numbers. seriously

David Wojick
Reply to  Peta of Newark
December 2, 2023 9:27 am

I don’t see the thermo playing a role but a 1,000 MW wind array at full power is definitely removing a lot of energy. It is the kinetic energy of mass in motion not heat.

Reply to  David Wojick
December 2, 2023 10:20 am

Yep. Energy is not manufactured, it is converted. It has to exist first and come from someplace else. You spin the dynamos, you extract energy from another system to do it.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 2, 2023 9:02 am

Pretty much my thoughts too. When the preponderance of the facts support your aide of the argument, don’t bring up stuff that makes people roll their eyes @@

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 2, 2023 9:15 am

Knowledge of the effects of offshore wind turbine structures on hydrodynamics is limited and primarily based on modeling studies in the North Sea that have not been validated by observations

(taken from the publication)

It’s a study based on models. So it must be correct! /s

But honestly, it has a lot of fairly detailed oceanographic data, the tone is muted and free from hysteria, the discussion and conclusions are presented clearly and logically and it’s the sort of thing that environmentalists (in fact all sane people) should take seriously enough to fund the collection and analysis of actual data from existing offshore windfarms. That would be an appropriate use of the precautionary principle, where the cost and impact of getting the data would be minimal compared to the cost and impact of building one of these blights on the seascape.

Reply to  Smart Rock
December 2, 2023 9:21 am

And it stays away from the issue of subsonic noise affecting whales’ communications, and from the disruption and disturbance pf their habitat caused by building an offshore wind farm.

Mods – edit function please!!

Reply to  Smart Rock
December 2, 2023 9:21 am

of

David Wojick
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 2, 2023 9:17 am

The wake effect is well established. It is why turbines have to be spaced so far apart. Do a Google search on wind turbine wake effect. On the science side the NAS report cites over 200 research articles. Or just scan the report.

Reply to  David Wojick
December 2, 2023 10:00 am

Sounds like 97% of oceanographers agree. 🙂

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 2, 2023 12:27 pm

Wind causes waves, high winds cause bigger waves and low winds cause smaller waves, no wind is a calm.

Reply to  Nansar07
December 2, 2023 12:45 pm

But unless the wind “farm” has many hundred turbines- I can’t imagine it’s going to lower the waves, measurably. And even if it does- that’s a tiny area in the sea. No doubt there are other ways that wind turbines will mess with whales but this complaint seems goofy to me. I also doubt that overall, the wind machines will have much negative effect on whales- and they may even have positive effects on other marine life- but, they are absurdly expensive and essentially a waste of resources- I think that should be the focus, not so much about whales.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 2, 2023 2:29 pm

Don’t “imagine” it. Calculate it. Otherwise you’re just playing the feelz like the alarmunists.

Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
December 2, 2023 3:52 pm

you imagine it!

starzmom
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 2, 2023 5:23 pm

As a biologist/environmental engineer/lawyer my suspicion is that the offshore wind farms will mess with whales on a sonic level, not a wave/oxygen level. But I have too many hats, and not enough actual knowledge. I would point out, however, that whatever the interference is, if it affects reproduction, we won’t see it for 50 or more years. There are just not enough whales, spread over too much ocean, with a low enough birth rate, that effects will not be apparent before it is too late.

Jit
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 3, 2023 1:41 am

Intuition says the wake effect should be quite small, but actual data (not just models) show that it is quite large. Then intuition says that the effect of these wakes on primary productivity should be low… but I’m not sure how much data there is on that.

Paul S
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 2, 2023 1:48 pm

The first law of thermodynamics says that energy can neither be created or destroyed, only altered in form. In this situation, wind energy is converted to mechanical energy, and then into electrical energy. It would be relatively easy to determine how much energy was removed from the wind energy stream. Subtracting that from the initial wind energy stream results in the leaving wind energy stream.

Reply to  Paul S
December 2, 2023 3:52 pm

Sure, then translate that to loss of wave energy. Should be a piece of cake.

Peter Fraser
December 2, 2023 2:01 pm

We had to kill the village to save the world. When is this madness going to stop.

December 2, 2023 6:09 pm

The rich are planning on making trillions from “climate change” spending.

They control the media and the politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike, and have brainwashed the public into believing that warming is a dangerous threat.

Even two-thirds of the Republicans under 30 want climate action and 42 percent of Republicans overall believe that alternate sources of energy should be found.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/

The estimated cost of stopping warming is $US200 trillion according to Bloomberg and other estimates are similar. The rich are planning to get a good part of that spending.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-07-05/-200-trillion-is-needed-to-stop-global-warming-that-s-a-bargain#xj4y7vzkg

MichaelMoon
December 2, 2023 10:49 pm

I do not believe this. Out at sea, there is little if any sea spray. Only when whitecaps appear could this be true. I watch Lake Michigan out of my window every day, and whitecaps appear two or three days a month.

BS

Michael

Reply to  MichaelMoon
December 4, 2023 6:29 am

Michael
After 10 min of googling:
{ […] are my comments }

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-02089-2  [on-shore wind farm wake study: decreased wind & increased turbulence 30km+ downwind, increased wind below the turbine and impaired nocturnal inversion –> local surface warming]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-22868-9  [discusses North Sea observed changes wrt modeling]: and from the Abstract:
“… Moreover, the identified offshore windfarm impacts on the sea surface climate and the introduced spatial pattern in atmospheric conditions, in particular the modeled wind speed changes, suggest potential impacts on local ocean dynamics and the structure of the marine ecosystem. This should be considered in future scenarios for the North Sea marine environment and taken into account as a structuring influence in the offshore environment.”

Maybe there could be wind farm effects on local ocean food chains. It should be studied.

Climate alarmists have gone nuts over polar bears even though their numbers are increasing. Where is the alarm when the Right whales are actually endangered?