By David Wojick
Prior to approving offshore wind development NOAA routinely authorized the loud noise harassment of large numbers of whales under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). New research by Professor Apostolos Gerasoulis shows that this harassment is causing a lot of whale deaths.
For example it is known to cause deafness which can easily be deadly. But harassment need not cause deafness to cause death. Offshore wind arrays that occupy a hundred square miles or more are typically built in low ship traffic areas with high traffic nearby. Harassment can simply cause the whales to avoid the low traffic area and spend more time in heavy ship traffic leading to an increase in deadly collisions.
The same is true for lightly versus heavily used fishing areas where avoidance leads to increased entanglement. Ship strikes and entanglement are the two leading causes of whale deaths. Ironically the wind defenders say that increased ship strikes and entanglements show that wind is not causing increased death rates when they are actually strong evidence against wind.
The clear solution to this killing of whales is to severely constrain the number of harassment authorizations. With these very limited authorizations very few new offshore wind projects can be built. Nor should they be since they are killing whales. Each project requires a large number of authorizations so drastically reducing their number drastically reduces the number of offshore wind projects and the number of whale deaths.
The simplest way to do this is to cap the total number of wind authorizations that will be issued for a given exposed population. This is analogous to capping the emission of dangerous pollutants. One could even have a cap and trade program where developers bid for authorizations just as they now bid for leases. The 1990 cap and trade program for power plant sulfur dioxide emissions is an obvious analog.
If the cumulative harassment were limited to say 10% of the exposed population of a given species of whale this would severely constrain offshore wind development. As it is now the cumulative authorized harassments of multiple projects often add up to many times the exposed population. This is a striking example of BOEM and NOAA’s stubborn refusal to do cumulative environmental impact analysis.
This is especially true of the severely endangered North Atlantic Right Whale which has an estimated population of just 340, all of which are exposed to all of the Atlantic offshore wind development because they migrate along the entire coast. Ten percent of this population is 34 harassments and some projects approach this number individually.
As part of this harassment capping program the numerous existing authorizations for projects that are not yet under construction should be revoked and made subject to the cap. The cap could also apply to projects under construction that have yet to exhaust their authorizations.
The cap should also apply to all endangered and protected species not just whales. These authorization numbers can be much higher than those for whales. For example Dominion’s huge project off Virginia is authorized to harass over 50,000 dolphins and is two years from completion.
There are a couple of other harassment points of interest here. First, all of the authorizations to date are for harassment during construction. No grid scale project has become operational at this point and NOAA claims that there will be no operational harassment. Others have argued that there will be operational harassment and if there is then the cap will constrain operation.
Second the floating turbine wind array development sites that have now been leased off California, Maine and Massachusetts create a new form of deadly harassment that needs to be either drastically constrained or simply prohibited. This is the incredible 3D web of hundreds to thousands of mooring lines that fill the ocean to keep the hundreds of giant turbine floaters in place. The MMPA defines harassment as anything that causes a behavior change in protected mammals and these mooring line webs certainly do that. They also pose an entanglement threat.
In summary the solution to wind project harassment killing endangered whales is simple. Cap the allowable harassment.
Simply banning offshore wind until the developers certify no harm to whales would be turnabout on The Green Blob. That sort of EIR condition has been used on projects the Blob opposes, so imposing it on their precious would be karma.
Similar to banning onshore until developers could certify no harm to raptors or other protected/endangered species
Here in Wokeachusetts, there will be very little new wind or solar “farms” built on land since nobody likes them and there is a lot of opposition. There will be more solar on buildings and parking lots but that won’t come close to getting to net zero, which state law now requires by 2050. So, most new “green energy” will have to come from wind at sea. I only wish somebody would come up with a number- how many wind turbines will be required by this state to reach net zero? 1,000? 10,000? Where will they all go? I bet the governor and her staff aren’t able to answer this question. And if the federal government stops supporting green energy- this state is going to be in trouble now that it’s closed all its nuclear and coal plants and is trying hard to close natural gas plants too. Unfortunately, there are as of the moment, very few climate skeptics in this state. There will be when the price skyrockets and Obama promised.
MA already buys 60% of its electricity from out of state. Ironically the nearest net exporting states are PA and OH both of which burn coal. But hey for net zero just import it all. More solar and wind not required.
How the Rush to Net Zero is Accelerating the UK Industrial Decline
?itok=sgpzYYce
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/how-the-rush-to-net-zero-is-accelerating-britain-s-industrial .
by Sallust of Daily Skeptic
.
It’s basic economics, the price of any commodity or service is determined by the relationship between supply and demand. The less there is of anything, the higher its price will be, depending on the level of demand.
.
.
Electricity consumption map of Europe
Nothing could exemplify the lack of industry in the UK better than this image
Restricting the supply of energy, whether by design or circumstance, or by artificially increasing the price by rules, regulations, taxes, fees and surcharges, is bound to reduce demand.
That debilitates any modern economy.
Read more by opening top URL
FLOATING OFFSHORE WIND SYSTEMS IN THE IMPOVERISHED STATE OF MAINE
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind…
World Offshore Wind Capacity Placed on Operation in 2021
During 2021, worldwide offshore wind capacity placed in operation was 17,398 MW, of which China 13,790 MW, and the rest of the world 3,608 MW, of which UK 1,855 MW; Vietnam 643 MW; Denmark 604 MW; Netherlands 402 MW; Taiwan 109 MW
Of the 17,398 MW, just 57.1 MW was floating, about 1/3%
At end of 2021, 50,623 MW was in operation, of which just 123.4 MW was floating, about 1/4%
https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-repo…
Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and “academia/think tanks”, in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!
.
Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.
.
Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for:
1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and
2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.
.
Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)
Read more by opening top URL
I did a lot of research on Maine’s floating folly:
https://www.cfact.org/2024/09/23/maines-massive-floating-wind-folly-my-report/
But happily the program is dead for now as the federal DOT declined Maine’s request for half a billion dollars to build the floater factory. I pointed out to DOT that that funding was illegal.
As I recall, Biden ordered it.
Cue the Godfather Theme….
I had a video to post here, but it wouldn’t work. Check out
“OFFSHORE NIGHTMARE: The Collapse of Texas Tower 4” on YouTube, to get an idea of how difficult it is to put anything offshore in the North Atlantic.
I’ll try the link again, but am not hopeful.
https://youtu.be/yal0RZvzW-0
Of the three floating wind leases just sold by BOEM just one is for Maine while two are for Mass.
David, can you tell me where that’s documented? I could use it to rub their noses in it.
In EIA but I do not have the links and they have become hard to use. Sales are around 50 million units (I think kWh but do not quote me it might be MWh ) while production is about 20 million. Asking Google for each might do it.
Petroleum saved whales from extinction only for them to be killed off by environmentalists.
I’ve noticed that if the cause – ie offshore wind – is judged to be “noble” then the negative consequences must be blamed on something else… like shipping.
“””WWF’s Shipping and underwater noise report profiles 10 global hotspots where shipping-generated underwater noise is having a significant negative impact on whale and dolphin populations, many of which are listed as vulnerable or endangered. Many of these locations have experienced recent growth in ship traffic, with further increases expected in the coming decades.”””
https://wwfwhales.org/news-stories/increasing-shipping-traffic-a-growing-risk-to-whales-warns-wwf
Phew! For a moment I thought they might include offshore wind. They didn’t, but offshore oil drilling is.
Same for Greenpeace. Saving the planet via green industrialization requires looking the other way in a lot of ways.
Limiting Harassment Authorizations of marine life for Offshore Wind is just like limiting (aka allowing) Raptor Take for Onshore Wind. Either way protected species are being Killed and government turns a blind eye in the name of protecting the greater good
Not really. The suggested 10% limit would knock off almost all offshore wind development. It has a much better chance of meeting the inevitable court challenge than a ban does. This is something that Trump can actually get away with.
Since you are so in favour of saving whales, you would support reducing the major cause of whale deaths and injuries, shipping? A quarter of ship movements are moving fossil fuels. Getting rid of fossil fuels would mean saving a lot of whales. And that is causing impacts all year, every year all across the world and increasingly in the Arctic. Construction on wind farms is for a limited time in specific locations. https://www.newsminimalist.com/articles/ship-collisions-become-leading-cause-of-whale-deaths-worldwide-study-finds-8cf08cfe
You got all of that tripe from the link?
“Getting rid of fossil fuels would mean saving a lot of whales. “
BS alarm is going off.
According to the article, reducing the ship movements 25% is not mentioned, but the analysis leads to the conclusion that it would be insignificant.
“The research found that shipping activities overlap with 92% of whale habitats, yet only 7% of high-risk areas have management strategies to reduce collisions.
“The study highlights that managing just 2.6% of ocean areas could significantly lower the risk of whale-ship strikes. “
And you continue to set off the BS alarm.
“Construction on wind farms is for a limited time in specific locations.”
The link does not even address that.
If you actually read what was posted here, the marine life harassment is not limited to construction only.
See above.
No because unlike offshore wind we need shipping (and fossil fuels). Offshore wind is pointlessly destructive.
And if the wind turbines are turning , they produce monotonal low-frequency sound.
Low frequency sound is what whales use to communicate.
You are proposing the deliberate censoring of whale communication.
Disgusting . !
Sorry David, That was meant as a reply to sukstwofeathers.
A song for Keir
https://youtu.be/vXKVPVbbDAk?si=DgWQqO_XlIivVFWw
Meanwhile, in the southern hemisphere– “Humpback whales often display strong site fidelity to specific breeding grounds, but with notable exceptions.” Kalashnikova, E, et al., 2024. Interbreeding area movement of an adult humpback whale between the east Pacific Ocean and southwest Indian Ocean. Royal Society Open Sci.11241361
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.241361
Humpbacks are amazing. One group annually migrates between Alaska and Hawaii.
Wind onshore or offshore is not a substitute for fossil fuel and nuclear. There is no reason to endanger whales, dolphins or any other species for a system that can’t fulfill requirements, is short lived, expensive, requires massive government assistance, is unsustainable and ugly.
Unfortunately the coastal States disagree with you re offshore wind. State targets range from 3,000 MW TO 25,000 MW and they seem ready to pay the ridiculous prices. I am actively trying to stop them.