Offshore Wind Development Will Not Cause 'Major Environmental Damage,' Federal Review Finds

BALTIMORE (AP) — Offshore wind farms from New Jersey to Virginia took a big step closer to reality with the completion of a review that showed the renewable energy source would leave no major environmental damage, officials said Thursday.

Obama administration Interior Secretary Ken Salazar also said his department also was trying to speed up the process for issuing renewable energy leases. Wind projects off the coasts of Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and New Jersey are being studied.

"There are a number of developers who are very interested in developing offshore wind here and our goal is to hold the auctions and be able to issue the leases now, in 2012," Salazar said. "So, this is not something that's going to be waiting around."

The Mid-Atlantic lease proposal follows the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts that was given the go-ahead in 2010 after years of federal review. That project is still in development and Salazar said the department had learned from that experience.

"No developer should have to wait nine or 10 years," for approval, Salazar said.

Dominion Virginia Power is interested in building up to 400 wind turbines in Atlantic waters as soon as they are open for development, officials with that state's largest electric utility told The Associated Thursday.

The Interior Department said before the waters would be opened, the public would have a chance to comment on the projects.

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who appeared at the announcement with Salazar, said his administration had contacted Defense Department officials to discuss the possibility of the military using offshore wind energy.

O'Malley, a Democrat, and Salazar both described the decision as a major step forward for offshore wind, and environmentalists agreed.

Environment America Clean Energy Advocate Courtney Abrams said "tapping into the power of offshore wind along the Atlantic coast is vital to getting the region and the nation off fossil fuels without creating more pollution."

Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., said the decision "just makes sense."

"It is a reliable, clean energy resource that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, curb harmful air pollutants, and create good paying American jobs in manufacturing and construction," Carper said.

___

Associated Press writer Steve Szkotak in Richmond contributed to this report.

.

Also on HuffPost:

Comments

[mejohndoe]

01:38 AM on 02/06/2012

And besides that, wouldnt it suck to spend billions of dollars installing these only to have greenland melt and cover them with 25 feet of water!.

[dumocraps]

02:51 PM on 02/05/2012

Sounds like a viable project, lets get going.

[Jtt]

10:48 PM on 02/04/2012

Offshore wind farms, especially those outside migratory routes make good sense. They need to be supplemented with grid updates and other clean generating methods or too much power gets wasted and they become excuses for more environmentally destructive natural gas.

[Jtt]

11:07 PM on 02/04/2012

A potential problem being much of our renewable technology is manufactured in china in manufacturing centers using coal power. Little environmental oversight also means these plants pollute a good deal. Around one third of households in china still use coal for heat and cooking. Care needs to be taken to ensure these turbines and supports are manufactured responsibly or really they are not that "green."

Its kinda silly for us to buy advanced technology from a country where 70 percent of its population use hard fuels for indoor cooking.

[Jtt]

11:23 PM on 02/04/2012

Also I see a number of comments on the bird issue. Actually birds are rather good at avoiding newer wind turbines if care is taken to shut them down in migration areas at certain times and not have lights around them. Bats unfortunately have a good deal of problems with them in some places but offshore (and probably not in the GOM.) thats not an issue.

One of my main concerns with wind and all intermittent power sources is that power not be wasted, without updates to the grid and no inexpensive and trusted storage technology easily available, I fear too much wind power as is, is wasted.

[Genders]

07:42 PM on 02/05/2012

Can't believe I'm agreeing with you on this one ;)

Even on land, buildings, cars, can cats kill 100's of millions of birds, windmills: a couple thousand?

But you are right about the bats, and they don;t venture offshore much. Migratory routes are also mostly onshore.

[Treehuggindirtworshiper]

10:35 AM on 02/04/2012

This is fascinating! I look forward to seeing how it will progress.

[Genders]

11:36 PM on 02/03/2012

Offshore wind has better capacity factor than on land, and has none of the environmental problems. In fact it creates artificial reefs.

[markkocaldo]

11:36 AM on 02/04/2012

Actually scares the hell out of whales and produces almost all its energy comes from its GHG and deadly air polluting gas backup.

[Genders]

07:48 PM on 02/04/2012

No marc, only during construction, and bubble walls are already proving successfull at eliminating that problem., Nice try though.

[Artemesian]

03:00 PM on 02/05/2012

Why do we need artificial reefs? The ones we already have are just fine. Any sunken piece of metal will grow barnacles on it, but whether it's good for the marine life, I don't think anyone knows. There are no actual numbers from what I've read.

[Genders]

07:47 PM on 02/05/2012

Sadly because we are destroying many of our natural reefs.

But look up offshore wind artificial reefs

and you will find plenty of actual numbers.

http://www.nrgenergy.com/pdf/bww/havvindm_korr_16nov_UK.pdf
http://www.stateofgreen.com/Newsroom/Lobsters-are-looking-forward-to-Anholt-Offshore-Wi
http://www.renewablepowernews.com/archives/1001

I know it's hard to believe anything humans do is actually good for the environment, but this seems to be one of the times.

[artleads]

03:02 PM on 02/03/2012

A wry comment I received on HP suggested that we not oppose offshore windfarms. The idea is to give big energy something to do where environmental damage is less than with windfarms on land. Otherwise, big energy and the associated big banks will make trouble, and prevent the rest of us from developing benign point-of-use systems, like solar panels on every roof.

[June25]

03:42 PM on 02/03/2012

That's mighty considerate of you.

[shankapotomus]

03:44 PM on 02/03/2012

Like Solyndra's?

[artleads]

05:49 PM on 02/03/2012

Didn't Solyndra just manufavture solar panels? Forgive me. I haven't been following Solyndra.

[Genders]

11:35 PM on 02/03/2012

Solyandra installed more solar electricity than it cost. didn't ya know?

[PlayTOE]

11:54 AM on 02/03/2012

The way off of coal/oil dependance is not a carbon tax, it is getting alternatives available and producing power that is non-polluting green and far safer than what our grid is now powered by.

[artleads]

03:05 PM on 02/03/2012

Part of the trouble for that is that the needed subsidies for clean energy are going instead to fossil fuels. Bid fossil and associated Big banks own the politicians who could change that.

[markkocaldo]

11:39 AM on 02/04/2012

Actually far more subsidies in the US for not so renewables than fossils. 99% of fossil subsidies are in third world countries.

The fossil subsidies are necessary as the wind/solar/gas backup scam gets most of its energy from the gas.

[PlayTOE]

03:14 AM on 02/05/2012

subsidies to the fossil fuel industry should be seen as immoral, just as subsidies to big tobacco would be ...

[Silken17]

12:19 PM on 02/04/2012

The solution is closed fuel cycle Gen IV nuclear power (IFR and LFTR).

[Jtt]

11:14 PM on 02/04/2012

There is no way out of this mess without nuclear power. Id like it to be as safe and efficient as possible.

[PlayTOE]

03:12 AM on 02/05/2012

check out thorium as a nuclear fuel.
the one big problem with nuclear is that countries only want reactors that make bomb grade waste material.

Hopefully we will see a range of solutions including wind and solar that are proven to be competitive if made at scale.

[JScott]

11:27 AM on 02/03/2012

Better wind turbines than oil rigs.

Seems to me tho ships would have to be more on the ball to keep from crashing into them.

[bluecatb]

09:39 AM on 02/03/2012

HalleluYAH! Finally good paying clean energy jobs. People should be lining up to learn the skill of building and assembling them in manufacturing. Great work America, a giant step forward for Independence and a cleaner future for OUR citizens and children.

[Towmotor]

06:22 AM on 02/03/2012

I like the barge based concept the best. Closer to the water (better for the birds), potential for a "squirrel cage" design rather than the massive blades, towable to shore for repair/maintenance, and low profile for minimal eyesore affect. Just make the things with American parts and American labor.

[ThinkCreeps]

07:46 AM on 02/03/2012

The only viable device is the horizontal axis turbine. All the others are less efficient.
You need to be away from the water to avoid turbulence. You need a large cross section to capture the energy.

There are no american producers. Take out a license with the germans or the danes.

[Towmotor]

08:16 AM on 02/03/2012

Thanks for the lesson. Obviously I need to study this more (as you have) but I would still like to see a go forward path to try and harness some of this free (i.e. non-arab/non-big-oil) energy.

[Chipher]

06:03 AM on 02/03/2012

The first fifteen minutes of 'shekhinah' in the Gulf of Hormuz will eclipse Exxon Valdez and BP Gulf, combined. Nobody cares. Opponents of offshore wind farms are professional greenmaliers, that's all.

[BSDebunker]

02:31 AM on 02/03/2012

I just can't fully trust this article. If, "the renewable energy source would leave no major environmental damage," does that not imply there would still be some kind of environmental damage? What damage wold this be? Whose judgment was used to define 'major'? There is no mention of it at all, which makes me suspicious. I seem to recall that hydraulic fracturing also 'would cause no major environmental damage," and that was totally false.

[Just4theHalibut]

07:25 PM on 02/03/2012

When in doubt, read the EIS. All this information is public.

[Sumocat]

11:04 AM on 02/06/2012

Everything we build damages the natural environment in some way, be it the house you live in or the computer you're posting from. The best we can do is minimize the damage.

[old soil guy]

01:05 AM on 02/03/2012

I drive through the Columbia River gorge a couple times a year. Sure doesn't seem like they spin all that fast that most birds couldn't easily avoid them, and sometimes the wind is really blowing. I suppose up close they do spin faster than they look from the road. But some of them aren't that far away. I think the bird issue is more of a fossil fuel industry propaganda.

[Sunwyn Ravenwood]

04:24 AM on 02/03/2012

Pet cats kill millions of birds a year, so if people really want to protect birds hey should sterilize all the cats. Wind turbines kill a few 100 at most.

[HennoK]

09:38 AM on 02/03/2012

Sterilize their cats? So the cats shag the birds to death? What kinda cats you got over there Ms Ravenwood?

[Just4theHalibut]

07:18 PM on 02/03/2012

Maybe the wind industry could do some "Mitigation" and donate a certain amount for cat sterilization. Thank you for bringing this up. I am so mad at cats right now, lying in wait for the few remaining songbirds at my feeders, I am about to change from a water pistol to an air pistol.

[ThinkCreeps]

07:47 AM on 02/03/2012

The bird issue is BS.
Birds have some issues flying into fossil fuel plant exhausts too.
See the cat comment below.

[bluecatb]

09:44 AM on 02/03/2012

I know. Birds get smacked by car windshields also. All that sky and trees, yet they swoop down and get smacked by passing cars. Happens and perhaps if we wouldn't have waited so long, (4 decades) the birds would have had the pattern by now. It will take a few years of them getting used to flying over and the ones that don't will be the lesson to the leader of the flock, who will avoid them during the next migration.

Nature can adjust to this technology. Put a few rest reefs along the areas for them to nest or rest, and they will not try to land on the blades when tired.

Case solved.

[JScott]

11:25 AM on 02/03/2012

Yeah was there any research done in Holland when there were windmills all over it?

[Frank-Landfield]

12:28 AM on 02/03/2012

Wind and solar are the ways to go.
I got free solar from, www.solarcity.com!
:-)

[bluecatb]

09:49 AM on 02/03/2012

I'm LEED Green Associate and am working on the natural composting for urban and rural garden fertilizer. What I use works great for plant growth and increases soil health.

I learned that even if you just put a few panels on the roof with solar, 35% savings from annual utility is a huge chunk of change these days. But imagine if the whole roof did 99% and charged batteries for night usage? WE can do this, YES WE CAN!

NASA uses solar and it's time we used our technology from our departments to further prosperity for the citizens that paid for NASA.


America is back, and baby you ain't seen nothing yet.

[Artemesian]

10:40 AM on 02/03/2012

Wow, that's great. :)

[eyeinthesky1221]

12:11 PM on 02/03/2012

NASA uses solar in SPACE not on the ground

[markkocaldo]

10:49 PM on 02/03/2012

Actually not. They are two orders of magnitude more expensive than nukes and will lead us inevitably to a global warming disaster.

[Rebecca Carey]

11:32 PM on 02/02/2012

Unless your a bird...

[ubrew12]

11:34 PM on 02/02/2012

there is no such thing as an environmentally benign energy source. They all have consequences. I would favor fossils, but it happens that one of its consequences has grown into a threat. I can see that threat. Can you?

[Frank-Landfield]

12:27 AM on 02/03/2012

BS

[alteredstory]

11:40 PM on 02/02/2012

Honestly, I think blowing up mountains is worse for birds than wind turbines...