Offshore Wind

Offshore Wind Energy:

The Untold Story

Overview of the California Central Coast Project:

The Central Coast project spans 376 square miles with an ambitious expansion goal of 4483 square miles by 2045 pursuant to AB525.

California's rushed attempt at shifting towards “100% zero-carbon energy” by 2045 has ushered in plans to develop a massive floating offshore wind energy industry. Prominently backed by foreign-owned wind companies and multinational investment firms (many of which are rebranded oil and gas giants) this plan involves installing hundreds of floating turbines approximately 20 miles off the coasts of Morro Bay and Humboldt Bay. Each turbine will be comparable in height to a 70-story building and will require a floating base larger than a football field, with blade lengths exceeding 300 feet. A full square mile of open space is required between each turbine for safe operation. 

Despite many unresolved questions concerning the technology and design of turbines, cables, and substations, there is a collaborated rush to advance offshore wind energy development, disregarding critical unknowns along with the potential for serious environmental and community impacts. This approach underscores a worrying trend of prioritizing profit from industrial expansion over conscientious environmental and community stewardship on our coasts. Furthermore, the novel use of floating wind turbines in such deep waters contributes to significant uncertainty about the environmental impact, the feasibility of construction, and the future operational stability of these installations.

Unknowns and Challenges:

  • Location and Technology Uncertainties: The turbines will be situated in unprecedentedly deep waters ranging from 3000 to 5000 feet, a depth not previously tested for floating wind operations globally. This venture into unknown waters introduces significant technological and logistical challenges.

  • Cable and Anchoring Concerns: Extensive underwater infrastructure, including massive electric cables and chain mooring lines, is needed for connectivity and stability between the turbines. Each turbine requires over 3 miles of mooring lines, where each link weighs between 1100-1500 pounds, to anchor to the ocean floor. Mid-water cables would not be buried, but would be dangling between turbines, leaving them vulnerable to damage from harsh ocean conditions, ship strikes, whale entanglements and other unknown variables. The reliability and environmental impact of these undersea cables and anchoring systems in such depths remain largely unexplored, raising concerns about feasibility and safety.

  • Substation and Cooling Technology: The plan includes the installation of giant floating substations close to shore that convert electricity for efficient transmission to land. These substations are expected to utilize "once-through-cooling" technology, which involves drawing in seawater to cool systems and discharging it back at higher temperatures. This federally banned method is known to kill larvae and fish, requires harmful chemicals, and alters local thermal conditions in the water. These structures will likely be highly visible from shore, industrializing ocean views all along the Central Coast.

  • Land-Based Infrastructure Needs: No existing ports on the Central Coast can support the scale of this development. However, the Port San Luis Harbor District in Avila Beach has already approved exploratory studies with a developer, positioning it as a key site for industrialization. Additionally, Morro Bay is still under consideration as a potential site for further development. These plans also involve constructing additional manufacturing bases for evolving technologies, extensive transportation and transmission networks, and specially configured ports to accommodate the massive floating turbines and their associated infrastructures.

  • Permitting and Surveys: Five energy companies have been granted leases off the California coast, marking the onset of an extensive site assessment phase. High Resolution Geophysical (HRG) surveys have already commenced to map the seabed in preparation for turbine installation. These surveys are crucial for identifying the geological and ecological features of the seabed to determine the feasibility of placing turbines. However, the rush to advance these projects raises serious concerns about the neglect to better understand their effects on wildlife. According to a recent Rand Acoustics study, HRG surveys have serious impacts on marine life, including internal bleeding and death. An Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) will be granted to offshore wind companies, allowing them to harass, injure, and kill marine animals, including endangered whales and sea turtles.

  • Navigational and Security Challenges: The installation of turbines could significantly alter traditional maritime routes and pose navigational hazards for shipping and recreational boating, complicating maritime traffic and heightening the risk of accidents. Moreover, the turbines interfere with radar and marine navigation systems, disrupting military operations, search and rescue efforts, and surveillance activities. This threatens national security by undermining the ability to monitor and protect coastal areas. Additionally, the involvement of foreign firms in vital infrastructure projects raises further national security concerns, as dependence on international entities for critical energy infrastructure can expose the country to geopolitical tensions and supply chain vulnerabilities.

Fishing Industry Impacts:

The installation of turbines could significantly impact local fishing routes and breeding grounds, leading to reduced catches and economic losses for the fishing community. The impact on commercial and recreational fishing will be substantial, with the physical presence of turbines and their vast infrastructure limiting access to traditional fishing areas, disrupting the livelihoods of coastal communities dependent on marine resources.

Environmental Costs:

  • Environmental Risks: The deployment of towering floating wind turbines off California's Central Coast poses serious risks to marine biodiversity and critical habitats. Positioned within the Pacific Flyway and California Current System, the lease area serves as a crucial corridor for millions of migrating birds and a primary route for marine mammals, including endangered species like southern sea otters, humpback and blue whales. There have been significant increases in whale mortality rates coinciding with offshore wind activities, highlighting concerns over environmental impacts and oversight. Additionally, the turbines are situated upwind of vibrant marine upwellings renowned globally for their biodiversity. This project threatens the biological richness of our marine ecosystems, which is essential for maintaining robust fish populations and overall ecological health.

  • Pollution: Offshore wind energy puts us at risk of significant and unmitigated environmental pollution. In July 2024, a 300-foot-long turbine blade from the Vineyard Wind 1 project near Nantucket Island broke and shattered, spreading toxic fiberglass and foam debris throughout the water column and along local beaches. This incident led to the closure of numerous beaches creating hazardous conditions. In the weeks that followed, toxic debris continued to wash up on shores as far as 60 miles away, with an unknown quantity settling on the ocean floor. This incident is just one example of how turbine failures can lead to significant environmental contamination.

Shattered Nantuket Blade - Steve Heaslip/Cape Cod Times

Economic Costs:

  • Projected Development Costs: A 2023 report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates the cost of generating 1 Gigawatt (GW) of offshore wind energy at a minimum of $5 billion. Consequently, achieving the 25 GW California target for offshore wind energy will require an investment of approximately $125 billion. This substantial funding will need contributions from local, state, and federal governments, alongside private investment firms, developers, manufacturers, and port owners.

  • Socioeconomic Concerns & Soaring Costs of Electricity: The offshore wind projects threaten to transform our vibrant coastal communities into industrial zones, severely impacting local economies that rely on tourism and fishing. Financially, the disparity between conventional and offshore wind energy costs is stark; California’s rate for conventional electricity stands at approximately $40/MWh, while the costs for floating offshore wind energy soar to about $145/MWh. This considerable increase is reflected in government projections, which anticipate a three to five-fold rise in electricity costs for households and businesses, raising the specter of widespread energy poverty. Moreover, the potential industrialization of these areas could depress property values, fundamentally altering the landscape and financial stability of these communities.

Impact on “Climate Change:

In its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIN) for the Vineyard Wind 1 project Volume II, the Bureau Of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) explicitly states on page 76: “Overall, it is anticipated that there would be no collective impact on global warming as a result of offshore wind projects…”. This alarming admission from BOEM starkly contradicts the primary rationale of proponents, calling into question the justification for these costly, irreversible, and experimental ventures that pose serious environmental risks.

Who’s involved:

To fully grasp the complexity of offshore wind energy projects, it’s essential to understand the diverse array of stakeholders involved. This list includes federal, state, and local government agencies, each wielding distinct roles and regulatory authority, as well as community, environmental, fishing and tribal entities.

  • Wind Companies: At the forefront of these projects are wind energy companies, predominantly owned by foreign corporations and supported by major multinational investment firms like Blackstone. Several of these companies also have their origins in the oil and gas sector. These companies drive the development and operational phases of offshore wind projects, often with a focus on profitability that directly conflict with environmental sustainability and community interests. Their historical and current involvements in fossil fuels suggest a complex relationship with global energy transitions, highlighting the importance of scrutinizing their practices and the transparency of their operations. For example:

  • Equinor: Formerly known as Statoil, this Norwegian company has a long history in oil and gas. Its rebranding to Equinor was part of a strategic shift to include “renewable energy” in its portfolio, yet it continues to engage in fossil fuel exploration and production. This dual role could influence their approach to environmental sustainability in offshore wind development. In 2020, British Petroleum (bp) paid Equinor $1.1 billion “for interests in the existing US offshore developments and to form strategic partnership to pursue other offshore opportunities together in the fast-growing US market”.

Click on chart below to open a larger version

Community groups, scientific organizations, and various other stakeholders also significantly influence the planning and outcomes of these initiatives, often advocating for more balanced and conscientious approaches. However, the integrity of these advocacy efforts can be contingent upon the sources of their funding, which at times may include grants from entities with vested interests, potentially skewing their objectives and public stances.

This overview barely scratches the surface. For a comprehensive breakdown of each stakeholder's involvement and the dynamics at play, head over to our Research and Media page where we delve deeper into the roles, conflicts, and ongoing debates surrounding offshore wind development.

Community Response:

Legal challenges and community opposition are intensifying, spurred on by the rushed approval processes and increasing awareness of the undeniable environmental destruction caused by offshore wind projects. As it becomes clearer that profit motives are often prioritized over ethical considerations, the call to halt these developments nationwide is growing rapidly, emphasizing the need to protect coastal communities and marine ecosystems from exploitation before it is too late. The National Alliance NOOA, along with its outreach to other worldwide national opposition coalitions, is contributing to this growing global resistance, providing support and sharing strategies to enhance our efforts.

Join us in opposing this offshore wind project, which poses irreversible risks to our environment and communities. We demand thorough environmental evaluations, full economic accountability, real transparency in government actions, and genuine involvement of local communities in decision-making processes.

Stay informed and involved! Scroll to the bottom to sign up for our monthly newsletter and visit our Events page to see how you can help protect our coast and community.

“Preserving the beauty of the Central Coast of California means that we have a shared responsibility to create certain safeguards for our oceans.”  

Congressman Leon Panetta
August 24, 2023

~ You will see wind turbines from Piedras Blancas ~

Download a concise list of the potential impacts should OWF be implemented off our coast and the necessary on-shore infrastructure be built, operated, and maintained.

“The generation of electricity by wind tells a disappointing story. The political enthusiasm and the investor hype are not supported by the evidence.”

Professor of Physics, Wade Allison