Anonymous
By Harrison Tasoff, UC Santa Barbara
In late May the Biden administration reached a decision to open two parts of the California coast to offshore wind energy: a 399-square-mile area off Morro Bay and another location off Humboldt County. Although breaking ground — or making waves in this case — may be a decade away, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has opened up the Humboldt and Morro Bay projects to public comment until September 13, 2021.
At the global level, every effort to decarbonize is a boon for wildlife and the ecosystems they depend on. However, projects like wind farms and solar plants can impact their local environment. A commitment to sustainability involves looking at these concerns so they can be addressed in design and implementation.
Researchers at UC Santa Barbara with expertise ranging from energy systems and policy analysis to ornithology and marine life offer their take on how offshore wind capacity fits into the country’s energy portfolio, as well as the effect it may have on humans and wildlife.
Where the wind blows
Although offshore wind development has only just begun in the United States, it’s a promising source of energy for the country. It’s more efficient and reliable than land-based wind energy, and is often less variable than solar.
Wind blows more consistently over the ocean than it does over land, as there are few obstacles to get in its way. It also tends to vary less between day and night than wind over land. “Even if offshore wind is more expensive compared to onshore wind and solar, it is likely to add greater value to the electric grid, producing energy when demand is high,” explained Ranjit Deshmukh, an assistant professor in the UC Santa Barbara Environmental Studies Program whose research lies at the intersection of energy, environment and economics. That said, he added, the cost of offshore wind energy will likely drop as the U.S. builds and installs more turbines.
Variability is one of the largest hurdles to the expansion of renewable energy. Oftentimes solar and wind farms must curtail their activity during the day, as generation can exceed demand. On the other hand, these sources provide very little energy in California at night. And without the technology to store vast amounts of electricity, conventional power plants have to pick up this nighttime slack.
“Any resource that can generate in non-daylight hours, especially in the late evening, will face less curtailment,” Deshmukh said. And that is a huge step toward realizing a more reliable green energy grid.
“You also need a lot of land for wind power,” explained Assistant Professor Grace Wu, also in environmental studies. Her research has focused on developing land use planning tools to identify and understand the co-benefits and trade-offs between climate solutions, other human land uses, and habitat conservation.
Both Deshmukh and Wu have worked on renewable energy suitability in India and energy infrastructure in Southern Africa. They also have contributed to renewable energy siting in California and the Western U.S., and their user-friendly REZoning tool was recently released in partnership with the World Bank.
Unfortunately, suitable areas for land-based wind farms are increasingly difficult to find in California and neighboring states. “The state is seeking to build long transmission lines to out-of-state wind resources,” Deshmukh said, “which can take a long time and a lot of money.” These distances also increase the amount of energy lost in transit, he noted. Wind farms off the central coast would be relatively close to the region’s major population centers. And part of the reason the Morro Bay location was selected is the presence of existing onshore transmission infrastructure of decommissioned and soon-to-be retired power plants.
Placing turbines in the ocean also releases them from several constraints. The reason turbines are generally so tall is to place them in the path of unobstructed wind. But there aren’t any obstructions over the ocean, so these turbines don’t need the same height. Meanwhile, the size of land-based turbines is restricted by the logistics of transporting their enormous blades. But large blades can be carried out to sea without worrying as much about the size constraints due to roads, traffic and tight corners. And larger turbines are better turbines. Because the area of a circle scales with the square of its radius, a turbine with blades twice as long is far better than two standard turbines.
Building offshore turbines requires special ships to transport the massive components. The United States has only recently begun constructing such a ship, and is currently borrowing one from Europe for projects on the East Coast. That’s one reason government policy is so important: “If the industry doesn’t see a pipeline of new offshore wind power plants, they won’t invest in these ships because they’re so expensive to build,” Deshmukh said.
In this light, the expansion of offshore wind is a boon for the transition to renewable energy as a whole. Policy actions like these provide the assurance that industry needs to commit to developing the nation’s renewable energy capacity.
And as coastal oil production wanes, the skills of oil platform workers will translate well to work on offshore wind farms. While the need for renewable energy is clear, our transition away from fossil fuels must account for the people whose livelihoods are tied to these sectors. Their success is as much a matter of equity and climate justice as it is of political and economic pragmatism.
Feathered friends
Many critics of wind energy cite turbines’ heavy impact on birds, for instance. Indeed, 140,000 and 500,000 birds die from turbine strikes in the U.S. every year.
“Undoubtably there will be some birds killed,” agreed UC Santa Barbara ornithologist Stephen Rothstein(link is external). “But virtually everyone involved in ornithology and conservation biology feels that this number is just a fraction of the birds we’re going to lose if we don’t do something about climate change.”
Rothstein is a research professor in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, and a recipient of the American Ornithological Society’s prestigious Brewster Award for research conducted on birds of the Western Hemisphere.
While a lot of birds do hit wind turbines, the number barely registers when compared to other threats they face due to human activity in this country alone. Cars take out 300 to 400 million birds per year, while window strikes kill 500 million to 1 billion.
But our beloved cats pose perhaps the greatest threat to our feathered friends. Each year 1.4 to 3.7 billion birds fall to the feline claw in the U.S. The reason many bird species haven’t plummeted is mostly due to their incredible capacity to reproduce, Rothstein said. On the other hand, a great number have declined in recent decades as a result of habitat loss due to climate change and direct habitat destruction by people.
Although turbines are far from the biggest threat to birds, there are a number of strategies that can mitigate their impact. Placement can make a big difference. For example, birds often fly along specific pathways, Rothstein explained, so avoiding those locations when planning an onshore wind farm could save many birds.
There is a growing body of research on the effects wind installations have on seabirds, mostly confined to Europe, an early adopter of offshore wind farms. The literature generally deals with whether species are attracted to or avoid windfarms and the effect this has on resources such as food. Results suggest that more seem to avoid the farms, but Rothstein cautions against extrapolating too quickly to conditions in California. “The windfarms in California will be far off shore, whereas some of the European sites are much closer to shore and are situated on reefs and other shallow areas where seabirds feed the most,” he said.
In all, Rothstein is not overly worried about the negative impact offshore turbines will have on birds. “One thing that tells me this will actually help birds in the long run is that the National Audubon Society endorses wind turbines, with some proper precautions,” he said. Plus, dealing with climate change is essential for human welfare and all of biodiversity, he added.
Read the full article at news.ucsb.edu
It’s great to see the discussion of bird strikes and how that can not seriously be used as an excuse any more. It’s hilarious to listen to conservatives who support environmentally destructive policies (oil, anti-climate change, etc) all of a sudden “concerned” about wildlife. Give it a rest haha!
Micheal Moore did a feature length film on just this topic: How green are the touted green energy sources? His conclusion – not very green at all. The film was not popular.
BABYCAKES – give it rest simpleton. No one is happy about bird deaths, but as you can read for yourself (as you likely did not….derrrrrp), they are relatively minimal compared to other existing hazards and to the overall number of deaths if we do nothing to curb pollution and other negative effectives of non-renewable energy sources. That means (for the simple), more birds will die if we don’t use wind turbines and rely only on current energy production. So, do you want MORE birds to die? “Sick logic,” indeed hahaha!
And what is “Schhhhnoops?” You make so little sense it’s truly hilarious.
Interesting article (full disclosure, I did not read the full article at news.ucsb.edu). Even more interesting to me is that the Morro Bay wind farm is proposed to have a battery storage farm associated with it, if/when the wind farm gets built. We know batteries use a lot of precious natural resources and they have a limited lifespan. Seems to me we are painting ourselves right back into a corner down the line. We will exhaust the natural resources and we will have to dispose of a ton of batteries. Of course if the power from the wind farm doesn’t need to be stored, which this article doesn’t address completely, then my point is broken and null.
No surprise that Byz would peddle nonsense:
https://skepticalscience.com/moore-doc-peddles-dangerous-climate-denial.html
As I said, some of you are fine with killing a million birds per year so you can kill more birds while driving your electric car after charging it up with “clean” energy. How many birds are you willing to destroy? You want to propose doubling/tripling/quadrupling the number of wind turbines….is that correct? That would mean increasing the number of bird deaths to 2 million, 3 million, or 4 million birds…are you okay with that? Over 20 years that would be 20 million, 30 million, or 40 million dead birdies, eagles, hawks, and countless other species. Please explain to how and why you believe it’s okay just so you can run your blow dryers, extra fridges/freezers, multiple TVs, and so on. For some, the bird deaths are worth it just so you can have an easier life. It’s like saying, “I only started one arson fire, which isn’t bad since other arsonists light dozens and dozens of fires, so I’m not really the problem.” What logic some of you use to justify the harm you are doing to our environment, and to the future of mankind. I’m sure if any of you were to see just how I manage my water and power, you’d be amazed and thankful. Go ahead and kill our birds….I won’t!!!
How about we just throw a drop cloth over the real issue? We’re so amazing at UCSB. We dominate the World on our Climate Change issues, but we refuse to answer or deal with Del Playa houses falling off the Cliff and housing overpopulation of our University, our community and who pays our taxes and pensions, because…. We don’t really care about anything, but the money!
And while we’re at it….. let the new generations that are only here for a short time and choose to not stay here… pick our Politicians. That’s a really smart choice.
I prefer kid voters who still have ideals and are not cynical and blase to pick politicians rather than the alternative. It is their future, they should have a say.
CHANNELCAT – Isla Vista is not part of UCSB. Further, what exactly should UCSB do about the “Cliff?” What do you expect them to do about natural erosion? It’s not a Hogwarts. Sounds like another grumpy anti-college person.
They act like these projects get built out and disposed of without massive amount of unrecyclable fiberglass, diesel and many tons of concrete. At least the birds will sink underwater, hiding the evidence. After these fail in 15yrs they will require diesel machinery and many workers to remove.