Regarding “Semantics and spin” in the May 23 New Times, it really saddens me to see a group like REACT and their spokesperson, Mandy Davis, continue to use divisive rhetoric to oppose offshore wind energy. A few examples of their misinformation:
• The article claims that the fossil fuel industry “almost never” funds campaigns against wind energy. The fossil fuel industry’s extensive campaign against offshore wind and renewables in general has been going on for years and is well documented in articles such “The oil and gas industry is behind offshore wind misinformation” published just last year by the Center for American Progress.
• Ms. Davis does not appear to know the definition of renewable energy, claiming that “there is not a single aspect of the offshore wind industry that is renewable, end of story.” “Renewable” refers to the source of energy, not the means to capture it. A simple Google search for the definition confirms this: “energy from a source that is not depleted when used, such as wind or solar power.”
• A third example is her claim that scientific monitoring of the environmental impacts of offshore wind does not exist. The Pacific Coast Offshore Wind Environmental Research Project Finder lists 120 scientific research projects relevant to the future of offshore wind on the Pacific Coast. On the East Coast, where offshore wind is operational, active monitoring is currently in progress.
• And lastly (though I could easily expand this list), the one that saddens me most is the characterization of environmental NGOs as illogical and greedy for supporting offshore wind for “reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with rectifying global warming or dealing with climate change.” This point is regrettable for two reasons: Firstly, it is precisely because of global warming and climate change that NGOs such as the local chapters of SLO Climate Coalition, SLO County Citizens’ Climate Education, Sierra Club, Morro Coast Audubon Society, and Surfrider support offshore wind development. Offshore wind, when combined with energy storage systems, has the potential to replace dozens of fossil fuel power plants, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the production of electricity. Secondly, by its misinformed and divisive rhetoric, REACT destroys its credibility and alienates itself from environmental organizations that could be potential allies in their cause to protect ocean and coastal resources from unmitigated environmental impacts.
The environmental NGOs that I am a part of all recognize the potential for negative environmental impacts during the planning, construction, and operation of offshore wind. And we want the operators to do all they can to reduce or mitigate those impacts. But we also understand that the negative environmental impact of continued combustion of fossil fuels to generate electricity is not just a potential problem. It is current one, and it is causing extensive and ongoing damage to not only the marine environment but to the entire planet. We need to transition from fossil fuels to clean energy sources and offshore wind can and should be part of that transition. Δ
Barry Rands retired from the Morro Bay Department of Public Services in 2015 and is currently a member of the SLO Climate Coalition, the SLO County Citizens’ Climate Education, and the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club. Respond with a letter for publication by emailing it to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Jun 13-23, 2024.
Personally, I am more concerned about the start up and ongoing production costs of wind and solar energy.
Even when all power comes from these favored power producers and fosil fuel use ends, the ongoing cost in hazardous waste will go on forever.
Wind and solar systems will require replacement every 20 years and updates in the technology will add to the costs of replacing and storing tons of discarded parts and support structures. gkl
Truth:
“Natural gas-fired power plants typically account for almost one-half of in-state electricity generation.
California is one of the largest hydroelectric power producers in the United States, and with adequate rainfall, hydroelectric power typically accounts for close to one-fifth of State electricity generation.”
“What Are the Best Fossil Fuel Alternatives?
Natural gas energy. **********************!
Solar energy.
Wind energy.
Hydropower.
Nuclear energy.
Biomass and biofuels.
Geothermal.
—————————–
SEE: for much more information.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/ene…
Gail does raise some good points. As with all human-made infrastructure built to generate energy, solar and wind systems do have an environmental impacts. That is why it is so important to analyze those impacts and compare them to the infrastructure that is being replaced. It is also important to determine the extent of those impacts. For example, local, one-off impacts would be less problematic than continuous widespread or global impacts.
As for Natural Gas, it is *NOT* a “Fossil Fuel Alternative”. It *IS* a fossil fuel and has serious amounts of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Wikipedia has an excellent, well referenced comparison of cradle to grave comparisons of the various energy sources that are mentioned on her list. Natural Gas GHG emissions are exceeded only by coal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_g…
No company presently makes a dynamic HVDC subsea cable that will be needed for the downlink/water column length of cable for a floating substation. A few companies make static HVDC subsea cables for fixed bottom structures that don’t require flexing. So, if Humboldt leasees intend to build a floating DC converter substation they have a supply problem for dynamic HVDC subsea cables today. I would surmise that a few HVDC cables engineers are designing a dynamic cable, but they would still have to be tested and demonstrated before they go into production.
If whales lose their hearing their ability to hunt and feed is diminished and they die. Blaming other causes is deflection.
There is no evidence that whales lose their hearing from offshore wind projects. As was determined in a recent scientific paper in “Conservation Biology”, “we found no evidence that offshore wind development contributed to strandings or mortalities”. https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi…
Susan, absence of evidence proves nothing. A deaf whale can’t hear a ship approaching. Since you didn’t address my dynamic HVDC cable comment that is clearly an obstacle. The new 2023-2024 Transmission Plan posted 5-31-24 shows 3.1GW coming into Diablo. The Toro Creek option shown in the 2021-2022 CAISO Transmission Plan wasn’t depicted in the 2022-2023 Plan either. So, whether the Toro Creek Conservation group successfully blocked wind cables coming into the Chevron property or it was just luck, the extra distance to connect wind leases to Diablo seems to nessitate HVDC dynamic cables. HVAC cables present an unacceptable high voltage problem over 20 miles of cables due to their high capacitance/VAR problem (Ferranti effect). The elimination of bringing cables into north Morro Bay should eliminate the carve-out to the Chumash sanctuary and means any leasee conducting sonic mapping on that Morro Bay path is worthless and needs to cease immediately.