Top Line: We don’t have to despoil the environment and view off the shore of Oregon to produce carbon-free electricity.
Figure 1. The view from Cape Ferrelo State Park will never be the same if 900-foot-high wind power turbines are allowed offshore. Source: Gary Halvorson, Oregon Archives.
During the Trump administration, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke wanted to open up offshore Oregon (and offshore everywhere else) to oil and gas exploitation. The reaction of most Oregonians, wherever they were on the political or economic spectra, was opposition. (See the Public Lands Blog post “US Pacific Northwest Offshore Oil and Gas: A Waste of Time, Ocean and Coast.”) This reaction was a combination of local opposition and knowledge that oil and gas from offshore Oregon and Washington would supply the nation’s demand for 0 and 2.5 days, respectively. Fortunately, Big Oil had more enticing places to despoil, and nothing came of it.
“30x30” is shorthand for the directive of President Biden to conserve 30 percent of the nation’s land and waters by 2030 (see three-part Public Lands Blog post, here, here, and here.) Unfortunately, “30x30” is also the Biden shorthand for wanting 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030.
The Oregon legislature has directed the Oregon Department of Energy to evaluate the technical (but not so much the economic, fiscal, social, and environmental) feasibility of placing wind energy facilities offshore Oregon to generate 3 gigawatts of electricity—a number pulled out of the lowest orifice of that legislative body. In comparison, the late Boardman coal-fired electrical generation plant in north central Oregon had a nameplate rating of 550 megawatts (0.55 gigawatts), about one-sixth of 3 gigawatts. More than 400 square miles of ocean would need to be industrialized to develop 3 gigawatts of wind power generating capacity.
Of course, oceanic wind energy exploitation would not pose the risk of oil spills, but floating wind turbines just as much as floating oil and gas platforms would bring massive and total offshore industrialization. In other words, it would bring huge hunks of steel and copper, toxic paints, bright lights, service boats, hazards to navigation, hazards to fishing, noise (under and above water), water pollution, habitat loss, bird and bat deaths, stressed whales and other marine mammals, marred views—the full catastrophe. The projected life of the wind farm would be twenty-five to thirty years.
Federal Leasing in the Works
Comes now again the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to Oregon. This time it comes to offer leases for the development of what would likely entail 900-foot-high (more than four times as high as those turbines you see when cruising I-84 in northeast Oregon or I-80 in Iowa; see Figure 2) floating wind turbines a mile apart anchored to the sea floor and interconnected with electrical cables.
Figure 2. This USDOE chart is a bit dated, in that what would come to the Oregon coast would be 900 feet high, or nearly twice the height of the tallest shown here. Source: US Department of Energy.
This wind “farm” would be of the floating offshore wind (FOSW) development variety rather than the bottom-fixed offshore wind (BFOSW) installations common everywhere else. Why? Because the installation would be in federal waters, which start 12 nautical miles from shore (Figure 3), and the continental shelf drops steeply offshore Oregon. It must be noted that these “floating” wind turbines, unlike floating ships, would be permanently fixed to the sea floor at several points—as well as to each other—by large and long cables.
Figure 3. The eastern limit of the BOEM-Oregon Offshore Wind Planning Area is 12 nautical miles from Oregon’s shores, where the sovereign boundary of the United States ends. Out to 200 nautical miles from shore is the US exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The wind planning area western limit is generally where the sea floor is too deep to anchor even a floating wind turbine. Source: USDI BOEM.
As Mike Graybill, manager of the South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve for several decades, points out, the continental shelf offshore the New England and mid-Atlantic states is much shallower than offshore the Pacific states, so floating platforms are not necessary. Offshore the mid-Atlantic states, it’s BFOSW installations in waters of ~200 feet in depth, while offshore Oregon it would be FOSW installations in depths of ~600 to ~4,000 feet. (I highly recommend Mike’s slide presentation; see “For More Information” below.)
The Biden administration has identified several WEAs—wind energy areas, the technical term for areas BOEM has its eyes on—along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts that don’t require floating turbines.
BOEM is calling for expressions of interest in two offshore Oregon “call areas,” shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. The two offshore Oregon “call areas”: as close to shore as possible but in federal waters. A generation ago, there was interest in mining polymetallic sulfide nodules at Gorda Ridge to the west. There will be again. Source: USDI BOEM.
Brookings Call Area [Figure 5]: The boundary of the Brookings Call area begins 13.8 miles offshore Gold Beach and Brookings, Oregon, and extends to about 46 miles offshore. The eastern boundary water depth ranges from about 410 to 1,115 feet (125 to 340 meters). The area is about 46 miles in length from north to south and about 22 miles in width from east to west. The entire area is approximately 286,444 acres (448 square [statute, not nautical] miles).
Figure 5. The Brookings Call Area. Source: USDI BOEM.
Coos Bay Call Area [Figure 6]: The boundary of the Coos Bay Call Area begins 13.8 miles offshore Charleston, Oregon, and extends to about 65 miles offshore. The eastern boundary water depth ranges from about 394 to 722 feet (120 to 220 meters). The area is about 67 miles in length from north to south and about 41 miles in width from east to west. The entire area is approximately 872,854 acres (1,364 square [statute, not nautical] miles).
Figure 6. The Coos Bay Call Area. Source: USDI BOEM.
In later 2022, BEOM will designate smaller WEAs within the two call areas. Then the game is played in which only the environmental impacts of exploration—not exploitation—are considered and only call area by call area, not all Oregon call areas at once, let alone the other WEA being considered offshore California in other parts of the greater California current ecosystem. In this way, the agency and wind developers can say, “See, not much environmental impact.”
Avoiding a death sentence (for now) is the formerly proposed Bandon Call Area. Additional call areas could be called out in the future by BOEM, including the Bandon area. The Bandon Call Area was a BOEM throwaway to allow the two other call areas to move forward in the process. The Coos Bay Call Area is also likely a BOEM throwaway-to-be. While it’s a shorter haul from the Port of Coos Bay (the only port with any potential to service such monstrous developments) than the Brookings Call Area, the former has wind speeds that are much lower.
The threat to offshore Oregon is real. The Brookings Call Area has “some of the richest wind resource that has been identified on Earth” (Figures 7 and 8), says Shannon Sousa, policy director for Pacific Ocean Energy Trust and wind energy consultant, in an interview with Coast Range Radio (podcast episode 42). Exploitation of 3 gigawatts of wind energy could fit comfortably in the Brookings Call Area.
Figure 7. While onshore Oregon is blessed with generally low mineralization, southern offshore Oregon is cursed with some of the highest offshore wind speeds in the world, averaging ~22 mph. Source: USDOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
The Case for Despoiling Offshore Oregon
The Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE) is expected to produce a final FOSW study in September 2022. In a draft study, the ODOE outlines the following potential primary benefits of exploiting offshore Oregon for wind energy (in italics followed by my commentary).
• Help Meet Clean Energy and GHG Emission Reduction Goals. True enough, but so could other forms of generation and conservation (efficiency).
• Potentially Large Size. As wind turbines go for production and profit, the bigger the better.
• Diversity of Supply. Offshore wind is generally windier than onshore wind and doesn’t turn off at night as does solar electricity or become less available during certain times of the year as does hydroelectricity.
• Added Transmission Reliability and Coastal Resilience. Electricity supplies could be more reliable and resilient for coastal customers (until the big one comes . . .).
• New Renewables Option in the Toolbox. Having the ocean sandbox in which to build electrical generation means having to do so less elsewhere.
• Jobs and Economic Development. ODOE imagines the “direct, indirect, and induced” jobs but doesn’t mention the inferred and imagined jobs as well that are also touted by developers of any development.
Figure 8. Wind speeds: the darker the better for offshore wind energy exploitation. Source: USDOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
The Case Against Despoiling Offshore Oregon
ODOE’s draft study also notes these potential social impacts to ocean and land users:
1. Potential loss of commercial and recreational fishing grounds;
2. Potential impacts to fishermen’s livelihoods;
3. Potential lasting impacts to the local economy;
4. Safety for fishermen and their equipment when fishing near or around floating offshore wind structures;
5. Potential conflicts with marine vessel traffic;
6. Potential impacts to taxpayers and electricity ratepayers;
7. Potential tradeoffs of increased renewable energy compared to cumulative impacts to fisheries, habitat, and ecological systems;
8. Potential impacts to wildlife important to Tribes; and
9. Potential viewshed impacts.
Repeating the politically hedging qualifier “potential” is disingenuous. If industrialization occurs, there will be losses, lasting impacts, conflicts, and trade-offs.
Take “potential” viewshed impacts, for instance (Figure 9). A six-foot-tall human walking along the beach can see 3.24 miles seaward, beyond which the Pacific curves out of sight. However, if a human is looking out a picture window some elevation above the beach, it’s many more miles before the ocean curves out of sight. At the other end, towers at the outer western boundaries of the Coos Bay (65 nautical miles) and Brookings (46 nm) Call Areas will be visible to all on clear days and nights (aided by flashing strobes or red flashing beacons). Likely now we would be seeing 900-foot turbines, but a 500-meter (1,640-foot) turbine is being developed, so apparently the sky is the limit.
Figure 9. If giant wind turbines are built offshore Oregon, it will help to be nearsighted so as not to notice from places like this spot in Coos County. Source: Gary Halvorson, Oregon Archives.
ODOE’s draft study further notes these potential environmental impacts:
1. Disturbance of seafloor habitat;
2. Changes in water quality from sedimentation or contaminants;
3. Increase in ambient acoustic levels underwater;
4. Increase in the risk of vessel collisions with wildlife;
5. Wildlife disturbance from construction and operation activities;
6. Operational noise of turbines and construction and maintenance activities;
7. Seabird and bat collision with rotating turbine blades;
8. Marine mammal interactions with underwater structures;
9. Habitat changes associated with underwater structures;
10. Perching and haul-out effects;
11. Electromagnetic disturbances from inter-array cables, offshore substations, and export cables;
12. Disturbance of threatened or endangered wildlife species from the noise associated with horizontal direction drilling for transmission line improvements;
13. Removal of threatened or endangered plant species or sensitive natural communities during ground-disturbing activities;
14. Loss of wildlife habitat;
15. Hydrological interruption or the placement of fill in jurisdictional water bodies;
16. Increased risk of bird collision with transmission line improvements; and
17. The introduction and spread of terrestrial invasive plant species.
Figure 10. On the comeback, Pacific gray whales don’t need more obstacles in their paths. Source: Merrill Gosho, NOAA.
ODOE’s draft study also details the primary challenges associated with floating wind development offshore Oregon, which are significant.
• High Project Costs. The costs for FOSW (2022 LCOE estimates ranging from $74/MWh to $107/MWh) currently put it at a competitive disadvantage with less expensive clean resources, such as existing hydro and new solar and onshore wind projects. FOSW projects are currently nearly double the costs of BFOSW, primarily due to the more complicated and costly anchoring systems of FOSW projects that rely on floating platform designs that are still evolving, differ in design based on different site characteristics, and aren’t currently mass produced.
• High Transmission and Interconnection Costs. Transmission infrastructure necessary to interconnect to the grid and transfer power to load is another component that adds significant costs to the installation of FOSW projects. FOSW projects require subsea transmission lines and ocean-based substations that are complicated and costly to install. In addition to the offshore transmission infrastructure, upgrades to existing onshore substations would be required to interconnect FOSW into the onshore grid. Studies examining four-to-five coastal substations from Astoria to Coos Bay indicate Oregon’s existing coastal transmission infrastructure does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate more than 2 GW of FOSW, with none of the substations individually capable of accommodating more than 1 GW.
• Siting and Permitting. On par with costs, complexities relating to siting and permitting add significant potential challenges for FOSW project development. Potential effects to ocean users and the environment could limit the cumulative capacity of FOSW deployment. Because economies of scale achieved with large cumulative deployments of FOSW capacity are so critical to decreasing the LCOE for FOSW projects, this could be a critical constraint to the economic viability of FOSW adjacent to Oregon’s coast.
National Grid, an energy supply business in the United Kingdom, notes these disadvantages of offshore wind power:
Higher cost
Offshore wind farms require more complex infrastructure to support them and, as a result, are more expensive to construct.Maintenance and repairs
Higher wind speeds, strong seas and accessibility issues makes offshore wind farms more challenging to maintain.Less local involvement
While onshore wind turbines can be owned or operated by local cooperatives, or even by individuals, offshore wind turbines require a considerable scale of investment that means they’re usually corporately owned. However, they do provide significant employment for the development and working life of the wind farm.
Figure 11. It’s not just towers rising out of the sea. Electric substations and support platforms are also in the mix. This development is over 60 miles north of Germany in the Black Sea. No floating wind energy here. Notice how pacific (“peaceful in character or intent”) is the water, something never seen in the offshore Oregon portion of the Pacific Ocean. Source: Siemens Energy.
And according to the International Energy Agency, compared with onshore wind energy exploitation, offshore wind energy exploitation requires far more metals per unit of output (Figure 12).
Figure 12. Offshore wind energy uses far more copper and rare earth minerals than does onshore wind energy (steel and aluminum not included). Source: International Energy Agency.
Most of the environmental, social, and economic sins of an offshore oil and gas development are equally applicable to an offshore wind energy development—seabed disturbance, lots of steel structures, interfering cables and power lines, habitat loss, water pollution, onshore development for support, and more. Bird deaths from offshore wind development will likely be higher than from offshore oil and gas exploitation.
The sole—but comparably huge—benefit of wind electricity versus fossil fuels would be that no fossil fuels are consumed in producing the energy. The carbon-free nature of the energy source would undoubtedly tip the scales to wind power exploitation over fossil fuel exploitation if the only choice facing society were how to despoil offshore Oregon to gain energy. However, the choice here is not a binary choice of evils, as other options exist to meet our legitimate energy needs—while still decarbonizing our society.
There are certain places and certain values that society has found to be so important that we have eschewed our pursuit of energy and/or profit. We’ve decided not to tap geothermal energy in Yellowstone National Park (the greatest potential in the world) lest it mess with the hydro-geothermal wonders found there. In cases of marine protected areas, established—at least in part—to prevent their despoilation by oil and gas exploitation, we would not now open such areas to wind energy exploitation. We could have put wind towers on Steens Mountain, but society (and the market) said no. We could have put oil derricks in school yards, but society has chosen not to. Solar panels on the National Mall could produce a lot of electricity, but then it wouldn’t be the National Mall. We can also choose not to despoil offshore Oregon. Alternatives exist.
Better Alternatives Exist
To save our climate, we need to decarbonize our economy with all deliberate speed. We also need to do this to save our oceans, which are acidifying because much of the carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning ends up in the ocean. Some advocate an “all-of-the-above” strategy to move away from fossil fuels: nuclear and geothermal, though neither are renewable; utility-scale, commercial and industrial, and residential solar, solar thermal, and storage; and even methane (aka “natural” gas) as a “bridge fuel” (to nowhere), hoping that enough of something sticks to the wall.
We have better alternatives than despoiling Oregon’s offshore with massive wind energy development. We don’t have to sacrifice the current economy, society, environment, and scenery of the Oregon coast to save the climate.
Today, in 2022, the levelized cost of energy (LCOE, a calculation that allows comparison with other energy generation methods) for an offshore wind project would be an average of $121/MWh, according to a study done by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. In comparison, other technologies are less expensive, such as onshore wind ($26–50/MWh), utility-scale solar ($28–$41/MWh), and community solar ($59–91/MWh). Wind power advocates project lower LCOE in future years due to technological and other improvements (primarily larger turbines)—but of course, the same is the case for other technologies.
Besides, as existing infrastructure (automobiles, motors, appliances, buildings, and such) ages out, the replacements are always more efficient, meaning we will be using less energy. As we electrify the economy, huge energy efficiencies will be unleased.
We can place new energy generation capacity in places where environmental harm has already been done and adding solar panels (with battery storage) will cause no further environmental harm. Solar arrays can be integrated with farmland where high-value crops that benefit from shade are growing, an arrangement that results in using less water as temperatures go higher. Nearly forty percent of all of the electricity our nation now consumes could come from new solar on existing rooftops. Solar panels on rooftops also empower the owners of rooftops as makers of their own electricity. Whereas terrorists could interrupt our energy supplies by targeting large transmission lines, they would never bother to try to disable electricity production from millions of rooftops.
Marine mammals cannot live on onshore roofs, but solar panels can. The choice is simple.
How to Pour Sand in the Gears
Defenders of offshore Oregon need to gird their loins for a long battle.
Though the wind intensity offshore southern Oregon is an attractant to energy developers, the deep continental shelf is a repellant. Any development would require a huge capital expenditure and take years to bring online. The chances of completing the development are low due to a myriad of factors. Nonetheless, there will likely be interest in the leases. There are developers (or developer-wannabees) who are true believers. As with onshore leasing of federal lands for energy development, energy leases are posted as assets on the company’s books and are used to attract investors.
LCOE is useful in comparing the direct costs to producers of producing power from various means. However, LCOE does not factor in what economists call “externalities,” or costs imposed upon others, society, and/or nature.
In a visionary act that for once took future generations into account, the Oregon Legislative Assembly enacted a law that requires anyone doing chemical mining, such as cyanide heap leach mining for gold, in Oregon to have an adequate bond to cover the costs of decommissioning and containment of pollution, which will be perpetual. The result is that there is yet to be such a mine in Oregon, as having the developer pay all the costs of development means that such projects don’t pencil out. They’re profitable only if private interests can offload later costs to the public.
The legislature could require that any offshore Oregon development—even though in federal waters, as it would be using Oregon ports and its power lines would cross state waters—have money in trust upfront to pay for all costs of decommissioning and cleanup at the end of the project, including the recycling of all construction materials. Otherwise, the burden will be on future generations.
As long as a door is open for unsustainable exploitation of offshore Oregon, some developer will try to go through it. Regulations and policies that trigger only after application are inadequate to protect offshore Oregon for the benefit of this and future generations. A new Offshore Oregon National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) extending from California’s Greater Farallones NMS northward to Washington’s Olympic Coast NMS and westward to the edge of the US exclusive economic zone would provide the protection required. (See Public Lands Blog “The National Marine Sanctuary System, Actual and Potential.”)
Most of the nation’s conservation areas arose out of threat. Let’s not waste the opportunity afforded by this prospective defiling of offshore Oregon.
Figure 13. While people watch for whales, the whales might soon to have to watch out for platforms and cables. Source: Gary Halvorson, Oregon Archives.
For More Information
Care, Isabel. Offshore Wind Development in Oregon: A Status Report (webpage). Marten Law LLP.
Coast Range Radio. Going Deep on Floating Offshore Wind Energy with Shannon Souza And Joe Liebezeit (podcast episode 42).
Graybill, Mike. 2021. Floating Offshore Wind Energy Presentation (Powerpoint talk).
Oregon Department of Energy. 2022 Floating Offshore Wind Study: DRAFT Literature Review Report (pdf).
Shields, Matt, et al. The Cost and Feasibility of Floating Offshore Wind Energy in the O‘ahu Region (pdf). National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
USDI Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Oregon Activities (webpage). Oregon Offshore Renewable Energy (pdf).
Vileisis, Ann. 2022. Floating Offshore Wind Energy (webpage). Spring 2002 Conservation News. Kalmiopsis Audubon Society.
Bottom Line: In addressing the existential threat that is climate disruption, we still have choices. We don’t have to pick bad ones, as there are many good ones.