Climate Crisis

Forum on Offshore Wind Tussles with Topics of Nuclear Power, Whales, Costs and Sacrifice

Share

There was pro- and anti-offshore wind sentiment on both the panel and in the audience at Innovate Newport. (Jo Detz/ecoRI News)

NEWPORT, R.I. — A public discussion Wednesday evening that was billed as “Setting the Record Straight on Offshore Wind” produced a few areas of general agreement between the pro- and anti-offshore wind attendees in the audience:

Yes, we Americans should reduce our excessive consumption. Yes, we should develop backup and renewable sources of electricity as an alternative to burning oil and gas. And, yes, we all love and cherish our oceans.

Beyond those issues, the overwhelming sense was that of exasperation between the audience of about 90 people, most of whom seemed to oppose offshore wind, and the panel members, some of whom favored developing offshore wind as a tool to fight greenhouse gases, global warming, and climate change.

The two-hour forum was hosted by ecoRI News and co-sponsored by the Pulitzer Center. It was moderated by Mike Stanton, a journalism professor at the University of Connecticut and president of the ecoRI News board of directors.

The six-person panel answered written questions submitted by audience members and read by Stanton and got into several debates with those in attendance, including a heavy representation from Green Oceans, a nonprofit based in Little Compton that was formed in 2022 to fight offshore wind development.

The panel itself represented both pro- and anti-OSW sentiments. Panelists arguing for the need for offshore wind included Tricia Jedele, offshore wind policy manager at The Nature Conservancy; Bob Kenney, a URI marine mammal scientist; and Chris Kearns, acting commissioner of the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources.

Panelists opposing offshore wind or who faulted the bureaucratic process of permitting wind farms included Michael Lombardi of CMarTech, a diver and contractor; and Rich Hittinger, a member of the state Fishermen’s Advisory Board and vice president of the Rhode Island Saltwater Anglers Association. Panelist Frank Carini, ecoRI News senior reporter who has written often about disinformation about wind farms, spoke most fervently about excessive consumerism.

ecoRI News publisher Joanna Detz opened the session with some overarching themes. All forms of energy production “have always had a downstream effect,” she said. But for many Rhode Islanders, the stresses of fueling or producing electricity are “out of sight and out of mind,” Detz said. Resources come from “sacrifice zones” like Appalachian coal towns and “Cancer Alley” in Louisiana, the location of huge petrochemical plants, where people bear the many burdens of power production.

“Vulnerable people and nature have paid for our overconsumption habits,” Detz said. “We have not talked much about personal sacrifice.”

Tricia Jedele, left, of The Nature Conservancy, and Chris Kearns, acting commissioner of the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources, were among the panelists. (Jo Detz/ecoRI News)

Under the 2021 Act on Climate law, the state of Rhode Island committed itself to 100% renewable electricity by 2033, a powerful effort that is being echoed by state governments up and down the East Coast. Experts in and outside the government have said the solution is to ramp up use of renewables — mainly solar and wind power — and to aim for a mixed portfolio of power sources. Now, the state relies heavily on natural gas imported from outside Rhode Island, to the tune of about $3 billion a year.

This supply is especially essential in winter. But also, in that season, the supply is volatile and prices swing widely. In winter, winds above the Atlantic are extra strong and able to generate electricity when the need is high and gas supplies are shaky. Offshore wind supporters consider ocean winds to be the region’s unique renewable energy resource.

Jedele said states are trying to decarbonize their power sources by 2050 to meet a goal set by the 2016 Paris Agreement, which warned of an unlivable planet if temperature increases continue. “We may not always have all of the data that we want to develop these [OSW] projects,” she said. “When we pick locations for offshore wind we should be informed by the best science.”

Opponents of wind farms often refer to this work as the “industrialization” of the ocean. Lombardi, who referred often to his diving work and his intimate understanding of the ocean, insisted that the ocean should not be disturbed by any human-made development. Such structures “are very detrimental to the environment,” Lombardi said. “When you introduce construction into the habitat you hurt the habitat. Massive construction in a pristine environment could lead to massive problems.”

Kenney retorted that the oceans have been industrialized “ever since the first human set a boat into them.” He said he was looking at the sea off Block Island once and “the turbines weren’t the most obvious thing I could see,” he said, referring to the five-turbine wind farm off the island’s coast. “The most obvious thing was a big ship bringing cars to Quonset.”

Carini, on the topic of industrialization, said “the energy you are getting is industrializing someplace.” He referred to the massive 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico and spoke about the longest oil spill in U.S. history — it lasted nearly two decades, from 2004-2022 — that originated from an abandoned offshore well in the Gulf of Mexico.

Addressing members of the audience, who were by then calling out questions back and forth to the panel, Carini asked, “So it is OK [to harm the environment] down there as long as we are getting the energy up here?”

A voice from the audience called out “nuclear!” — a reference to a recurring topic among wind farm opponents that small nuclear power plants, often called small modular reactors, should be widely deployed in this country to create energy without use of oil or gas.

Carini retorted, “So you want to build a nuclear power plant in Little Compton?”

Audience member Michael Armenia, an engineer who said he worked for Raytheon and also for the Navy on nuclear power projects, said small and safe nuclear plants can be built. He claimed that American-made plans for a liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) were given by the U.S. to China in 2010 because Americans had lost hope that it would ever be developed here. In fact, according to the World Nuclear Association, a number of countries, including Germany, India, Canada, Japan, China, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Russia, Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States, have done basic development work on LFTRs. Armenia said that particular technology would not melt down or explode and would produce no radioactive waste. He noted that American giants like Amazon, Microsoft, and Google are now trying to obtain or create nuclear plants to power their AI projects.

A row of wind turbines off Block Island
The Block Island Wind Farm, the first offshore wind development in the nation, serves as a model for similar projects up and down the East Coast, according to state and federal officials. (Rob Smith/ecoRI News)

Carini pointed to the difficult questions that surround nuclear plant development: “How much fossil fuel will it take to build them?” and “What neighborhoods will they go in?” He asked the nuclear-enthusiastic audience, “If nuclear is a panacea, why aren’t we seeing it?”

Kearns referred to a very contentious and emotional four-year fight over a large fossil fuel-burning power plant proposed for Burrillville, which finally ended with the defeat of the project in 2019. He said, “every form of energy is going to trigger some kind of reaction, good or bad.”

Any argument about offshore wind inevitably brings up the danger of hazards to marine mammals, particularly the endangered North Atlantic right whale. Green Oceans has repeatedly asserted that wind farm development harms or kills whales, partly because wind farm surveys got underway a few years after the start in 2017 of an unusual mortality event (UME), or an escalating increase in deaths of right whales from New Jersey to Maine.

Marine mammal experts from URI and other sources have repeatedly said there is no evidence of any connection between UMEs and wind farm work. Survey and construction work on wind farms, in fact, maintain very high standards of vigilance and avoidance of marine mammals, much higher than any other form of offshore work, including oil exploration and military. Federal law requires offshore wind developers to hire protected species observers during every phase of construction.

Kenney, an emeritus marine research scientist at the URI Graduate School of Oceanography, has said often that, where necropsies can be done, whales are found to be hurt and killed almost entirely by entanglement in fishing gear or strikes by boats.

Like other sea life, whales are affected by ocean warming and by waters becoming more acidic because of climate change. Kenney and others have said whales are moving into more heavily trafficked waters “because the distribution of their food has changed because of warming waters.”

Kenney became irritated by some in the audience over the contentious topic of incidental takes, which are formal permissions under the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act that allow offshore construction, including oil exploration, to “harass, injure or kill” marine life.

Kenney said Green Oceans deliberately overstates the level of disturbance allowed by incidental takes and implies that developers are allowed to kill animals. He said takes are overwhelmingly a case of animals being bothered by noise and moving away from the work.

“Ninety-nine percent of cases, the animals are disturbed, and 1% are a temporary injury,” Kenney said. “There is zero evidence of whales being hurt or killed by wind farms … When you have a dead whale on a beach and you say it was because of wind farms, it makes as much sense as saying it was a death ray from UFOs.”

Kenney also said using the word “seismic” to describe seafloor exploration for wind farms, which wind farm opponents claim may be harming marine mammals, is “a complete lie.” He said that technology is used for oil and gas exploration.

Kenney and other marine scientists from URI and elsewhere support offshore wind because they see global warming and climate change as a far greater threat to the health of ocean life than wind farm construction.

“Lobster fishing is killing whales,” Kenney said. “Why are you people not demanding the end of lobster fishing?”

The subject of impacts on marine life always brings up the sensitive topic of Cox’s Ledge, an important breeding ground for cod off the southern New England coast that is partly occupied by wind turbines. Hittinger offered a long history of negotiations for seafloor leases. He said a federal lease area was subdivided after it was initially granted, leaving only Cox’s Ledge for use by the now-operating South Fork wind farm.

Overall, Hittinger said, negotiations with the fishing community went fairly well leading up to construction of the Block Island Wind Farm because the planning was done mainly with state officials. Hittinger said the fishermen felt their needs and wisdom were taken into account.

He said that changed with Revolution Wind, when much of the negotiation was done with federal officials from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. “We said, ‘We have answers; we have alternatives we want you to look at,’ but we were ignored. Someone had made a decision that these facilities would be constructed no matter the cost, at a rate that served the developers,” Hittinger said.

Brayton Point Power Plant smokestacks
The Brayton Point Power Station, a coal-fired power plant, closed in 2017. (Joyce Rowley/ecoRI News)

Members of the audience tried and ultimately failed to get clear answers from the panel about plans for decommissioning the wind farms at the end of their 25- to 30-year life spans, and also about the comparative cost of wind-powered electricity for an ordinary homeowner.

Kearns, of the Office of Energy Resources, said repeatedly that his office had no involvement in decommissioning planning, that it resides entirely with the Coastal Resources Management Council, the regulatory agency that oversees Rhode Island’s 420 miles of coastline.

A bearded man in the audience asked, “Shouldn’t these plans be in place at the start of the process? Shouldn’t the process be clear to the citizens of Rhode Island?”

Asked about pricing of wind-powered electricity when it finally reaches customers, Kearns said it was impossible to simply say how much wind power would cost because of the variability of natural gas prices and the mix of power sources that go into the grid.

“The cost of electricity depends on the resources mix we acquire over a long period of time,” Kearns said. The price of wind power is locked into 20-year contracts, but natural gas “is a spot market,” Kearns said. “It is not an apples-to-apples comparison.”

Jedele extended the topic of pricing of wind electricity to the wider topic of the costs of generating power. She said the old Brayton Point coal-fired power plant — now offline — in Somerset, Mass., sucked up 1 billion gallons a day of seawater and returned the heated water to Mount Hope Bay, leading to an 87% decline in the winter flounder population. She said power plant operators have spent “a staggering amount of money” fighting air pollution controls.

“People have been taken advantage of by the energy industry for a long time,” she said.

Jedele was asked about a comment by the federal government during the Revolution Wind permitting process that the project would have no impact on the worldwide carbon load.

“Everything we do about climate change has to be done at the local level first, and we are working to get it right,” Jedele said. “As citizens of the global community, that is the contribution we have to make.”

Categories

Join the Discussion

View Comments

Recent Comments

  1. The cost and impacts of decommissioning have not been assessed. Clearly the developers have calculated such numbers, unless they plan to cut and run (vis a vis Superfund sites), leaving the taxpayers and electricity users paying the tab. Unconscionable to leave out this information.

  2. Dr. Kenney’s whale ecology science formed the basis for the RI Ocean Special Area Management Plan, which was used by both state and federal agencies for project permitting. Based on his data and at the request of Revolution Wind, NOAA Fisheries determined that more than 19,000 marine mammals would be subject to harassment including but not limited to disruptions to breeding, feeding, and with the possibility of physical injury in more than 200 cases. This Incidental Take Authorization was issued and the harassment allowed to occur.

    This, despite prior declaration of an Unusual Mortality Event in this same area, adding measurable undue stress to an already vulnerable situation. Is this how we apply environmental laws and protections to endangered species? The public wants to know…

  3. Why are these panels full of people with a stance versus objective experts? There are answers to many of these questions that experts could have given – i.e. LCOE for nuclear is slightly below offshore wind currently, but way above solar and onshore wind, decomissioning bonds are required by BOEM to cover the cost of decomissioning to standards set by BOEM, power purchase agreements signed recently are above summer rates but roughly equal to (current) winter rates in Rhode Island, etc. At least there was one marine mammal expert there.

  4. while OSW opponents make some good points (decommissioning should be figured in, harassment of sea life is a legit concern, it’s right to ask about costs considering the initial demo OSW project cost consumers about 3 times the conventional rate) on the whole as I see it since we do have to replace a lot of fossil fuel generation, OSW seems relatively good choice. Better than clearing thousands of acres of woodland for solar ‘farms” – and I think the market has spoken on nuclear – too expensive, though we should be open to innovations in technology. But all this reinforces my belief we need a lot more emphasis on reducing energy demand (thru efficiency, a stronger conservation ethic, more efficient land use, slowing population growth…)

  5. Much more conservation ethic needed for sure. Every energy medium is inherently consumptive, so concessions are simply shifted. Offshore this is particularly scary – removing energy from atmospheric wind carries unknown consequences to massive weather patterns. Few have breached that subject, but it’s a reality.

    Id like to see more localized energy generation (get off the big grid). Big grid AC is an old way of thinking, and should be preserved for industrial uses only. At a non-industrial household level, just about everything in use is low voltage DC with the exception of appliances, though not much innovation is required to change that. Then community solutions become viable – solar, local wind, hydro, even capturing energy from your exercise bike become much more realistic.

    Such a transition has to come from us – it’ll never be facilitated by governments or the energy sector because it means less $ for them.

  6. You really misunderstand so much of the process. My technical report was one of 28 that were appended to the SAMP; it was NOT the basis of the SAMP. It was simply a descriptive compilation of all available information on the three dozen species in our area, going back 50 years (250 years in a few cases). Your comment Wed. night suggested that the permitting agency looked at my report and just guessed how many animals might be affected. The information in my report was not used in the permitting; that requires much more rigorous, quantitative data. Those data come from detailed density maps produced by the Duke University Spatial Ecology Lab, which map the expected number of animals of each species by small grid cells and month for the entire East Coast (https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/EC/). To do an environmental assessment for any activity, one maps the area where the activity could potentially cause harm, then adds up the predicted numbers animals in all the grid cells included.

    Second point – issuing a permit for 19,000 takes by disturbance and 200 by minor injury is not evidence that those takes occurred. The permits set upper limits based on the estimated densities, the zones of impact, and the project timing. They also require monitoring and mitigation to minimize the actual takes, and reporting of any takes that do occur. Case in point is the first phase of construction for Vineyard Wind. The IHA permitted 115 Level A takes (minor injury) and 7,163 Level B takes (disturbance). The actual takes recorded by the PSOs who are present on multiple vessels at all times during construction were 0 Level A and 324 Level B …. 4.5% of what the permit allowed. The animals disturbed included zero North Atlantic right whales (NARWs), 2 humpback whales, 2 fin whales, 9 bottlenose dolphins, 2 gray seals, and 309 common dolphins.

    Third point – there are three on-going UMEs for whales (only NARWs are endangered; humpback and minke whales are not listed), and none are limited to “this same area.” All three apply to the entire range of the stock, which for NARWs is Florida to Newfoundland. We know exactly what is killing and injuring NARWs along the U.S. East Coast … entanglement in ropes from lobster gear and gillnets, and being hit by ships. Of the 14 non-perinatal mortalities and serious injuries since the UME started where a necropsy was inconclusive (too rotten) or a carcass was never necropsied (too far offshore or stuck on an inaccessible shore), 13 were in the Gulf of St Lawrence in 2017 and 2019 (where there are no wind farms). There were also 14 dead whales in the Gulf in those two years killed by ship strikes or entanglement. Those whales would not have been in the Gulf except for climate change impacting their food supplies.

  7. I trust that the permitting agencies used all appropriate data. Including your well prepared portion of the SAMP. The 19,000 number is not guesswork, which is why it is so concerning. This is a large proportion of the marine mammal population. If considering relative proportions compared to human population this equates to numerous millions of people.

    It makes absolute zero sense, and is without any rational consideration for conservation that this ITA would be issued with a standing UME. Adding undue stress during an already challenging time certainly does not improve conditions offshore. It is disingenuous to consider that this added harassment from surveying and construction does not contribute to the existing stressors encountered and in all probability contributes to the increased mortality observed. I’ve been out there during construction at Rev Wind. It’s complete chaos, and with very obvious impacts to the transient species. It’s the 100% wrong place to permit heavy construction – it’s been long recognized as a migratory corridor for all kinds of species. This use conflict of the region speaks against the purpose of the SAMP, begging the question of how the project even got through CRMC. The state should be defending its natural resources, not conceding them for industrialization. There are plenty of other places for windmills.

  8. Will the company pay for removing these structures when they go bankrupt? Is the state covering this up or passing the buck? BOEM has jurisdiction for projects in Federal Waters. The contact person, at least for Revolution Wind is Whitney Hauer. “If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Whitney Hauer at (571) 536-8698 or [email protected]” ( https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/about-boem/REV_0486_Fin%20Assur%20Decom%20Departure%20Appr%20Ltr.pdf ). So there is proof that there are no decommissioning bonds to remove Revolution Wind. Was this promised to the RI citizens? Yes, BOEM commissioned a study outlining all of the regulations that protect us ( https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/renewable-energy/state-activities/Decommissioning%20White%20Paper.pdf ). Has BOEM upheld their promise? Not for revolution wind nor for any other renewable project ( https://www.boem.gov/departure-request : https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/feds-waiving-financial-assurances-offshore-wind-leave-future-costs-taxpayers
    : https://capemaycountyherald.com/article/van-drew-holds-third-hearing-on-offshore-wind-industrialization/ ). Has BOEM been transparent about this and have they worked with the States, Tribes and impacted citizens? More to come but if you take the Revolution Wind example, why did BOEM hide the waiver of the decommissioning fee from the Project page ( https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/revolution-wind
    )? Is this process really transparent? I watched the video. This forum was good, it shows that WE THE PEOPLE of RI need to band together to fight misinformation and disinformation and demand the truth from BOEM.

  9. “Offshore this is particularly scary – removing energy from atmospheric wind carries unknown consequences to massive weather patterns. Few have breached that subject, but it’s a reality.”

    Not true. BOEM even now admits that each wind farm will have a minimal impact on climate. There will be local effects but not “massive weather patterns”. The energy content in the wind (see NREL, any talk by Grover Fugate, … ) is much greater than what will be extracted. The wind farms are also low within the planetary boundary layer, there is much greater momentum aloft. So the wind farms are a local boundary effect not massive weather patterns. Like any object in a fluid stream, there will be a region of impact then it will pretty much recover to free stream conditions. In addition, the extra energy captured by the elevated greenhouse gases increases the large scale wind events (see Cornell U. extreme weather event analysis) has altered large scale weather patterns more than a wind farm will reduce it. This will also apply at cumulative scales. Temperature is a measure of internal energy in a thermodynamic system, this case the atmosphere. The wind farms simply change the boundary conditions locally.

    You may be referring to wake impacts which are local changes to circulation which could be significant.

    As for other comments here, it is my understanding that RI has limited authority over projects in Federal Waters. My reading of the Federal Consistency decisions for Vineyard Wind, South fork wind and revolution wind and as indicated by Mr. Hittinger in the meeting was that it was determined that any objection to these projects would be overturned by the department of commerce who arbitrates any disputes. The process could be that Federal Consistency is denied and the developer contests that decision at the federal level in commerce. What implications or ripples will that have for other aspects of state politics? Will we not get other compensations then… of course things are meant to be independent but this is politics. Also from reading those documents and the records of decision, BOEM does not have to listen to the state’s decision and can leave it out of the ROD. So my understanding is that the state’s hands are tied and the ultimate authority resides with BOEM. From the October 22 posting, it is also clear that BOEM does not care about RI and will do what it wants. These issues need to be taken to BOEM’s inbox and the respsonse to our concerns needs to come from them.

  10. “Members of the audience tried and ultimately failed to get clear answers from the panel about plans for decommissioning the wind farms at the end of their 25- to 30-year life spans, and also about the comparative cost of wind-powered electricity for an ordinary homeowner.”

    We disagree with this statement. Commissioner Kearns answered this. Revolution Wind will accept payment of $0.098 / kWh for electricity produced (over the next 20 years of a 35 plus year project life). This was not said but those in the audience complaining well know what they pay for supply. This is on every monthly statement. Also the RI PUC sets a last resort rate. ( https://www.rienergy.com/site/-/media/rie-jss-app/home/ways-to-save/rates-and-shopping/service-rates/residential-rates/7-1-24-LRS-rate_summary_2096.ashx ) if you haven’t selected an alternate supplier, this is the rate you pay. Right now this is $0.10377 / kWh. Thus, the power purchase agreement for Revolution Wind will provide electricity at a price discounted below the default rate. Director Kearns answered the question.

    However, there are so many details that the standard or even informed consumer do not understand. These complexities and projection into the future was what Director Kearns was trying to explain. But without a basic understanding of the landscape of the electricity market, it is very difficult for people to discuss this. People concerned with this issue should research RI PUC documents or communicate directly with them. Look into the issue of the “future of natural gas in RI” for a lot of good background information on how natural gas, seasons, market prices and electricity all work together. Also ISO NE is a good resource to try to understand how electricity is selected for production into the mix. FERC is another resource but a bit harder to digest. The final resource people with the level of passion in the audience posses on this topic should consult EIA.gov. There is a lot of material that can’t be explained in the level of answer that the crowd was unreasonably demanding. Commissioner Kearns had the answer, people just did not understand.

    It is too detailed to describe here and there are terms like Spot market price that changes daily. The RI PUC has the job to protect consumers by regulating the power industry and performing economic analysis to determine fair and reasonable compensation to utilities. Also there are complications below this as to the transmission v. distribution networks within the grid. That would be a good topic to ask Jedle to host a webinar with TNC on to compliment the series that has been progressing this past fall. I doubt it could be unravelled in an hour but it is forefront in the minds of RI citizens so we should reach out to her to set this up. Or Eco RI News could repeat this event but with ISO NE, RI PUC, Electricity Producers, RI Energy, RI OER in the room.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your support keeps our reporters on the environmental beat.

Reader support is at the core of our nonprofit news model. Together, we can keep the environment in the headlines.

cookie