Opinion

Offshore Wind Can Help Protect Our Shores

Share

When last year’s winter storms wreaked havoc across Rhode Island’s coastal communities, my hometown of Jamestown on Conanicut Island was split into thirds by coastal flooding. Roads were impassable, leaving my neighbors stranded with no means of evacuation but to wait for the tide to recede. We were lucky we avoided any life-or-death situations while we were cut off. But those back-to-back disasters made one thing clear: the climate crisis is here, and Rhode Island is right in the crosshairs.

While I was growing up in Jamestown, there were storms like this once every decade. Now, because of climate change, they’re happening much more frequently. Last winter, three storms over the course of just two months left us stranded, causing school and business closures. According to Rhode Island’s flood risk planner, a 100-year storm could result in 16 feet of flooding in Jamestown’s coastal areas, severely impacting our ability to even evacuate if needed. On an island that requires crossing a bridge to get to a hospital or emergency room, the ability to leave is critical. We can’t sit idly by and let this happen to our communities.

Luckily, we still have time to put solutions into place. From coastal resiliency measures to cleaner energy that shifts us off the fossil fuels driving climate change, there’s a lot of important work to be done — and offshore wind should be a key part of our approach. While Rhode Island has limited land for onshore wind or solar farms, we’re fortunate to have unparalleled access to the North Atlantic, home to some of the country’s highest quality offshore wind resources. We must leverage this opportunity to phase out fossil fuels, clean our air, and prevent even more costly climate impacts.

This goes hand in hand with protecting the environment. The Gulf of Maine is warming faster than almost any other ocean region. That’s forcing species that have long thrived in our region to migrate to cooler waters and threatening the livelihoods of local fishers. Developing offshore wind with conservation in mind can help reverse these trends by promoting healthier ocean ecosystems. Offshore wind turbines can even act as artificial reefs, improving biodiversity and reviving fish populations. 

It’s not just about fighting climate threats, either — it’s also about creating a stronger economy and a healthier future for Rhode Island. We’ve all experienced natural gas price spikes during winter cold snaps, driving up energy bills when we’re struggling to heat our homes. But those same moments are when offshore winds blow the strongest, meaning turbines could deliver abundant renewable energy when we need it most. Research estimates that building 9 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030 could save New England residents an average of $630 million a year on electricity bills. And building these resources would also bring other economic benefits. Our local labor unions want Rhode Island to be a leader in the offshore wind sector to help create thousands of high-quality jobs for workers across the state.

Advancing Rhode Island’s climate goals is a pressing necessity. Our coastal communities are already on the front lines of the climate crisis, and after the record-breaking temperatures of the past year, I worry about the impact of impending winter storms on our shores. Coupled with the 5 inches of sea level rise that has occurred since 1956, these storms are a recipe for devastating coastal flooding. Last year we got lucky. But we can’t afford to keep rolling the dice.

Now more than ever renewable, abundant, and reliable energy from offshore wind is critical to helping protect our communities and our environment for generations to come.

Jamie Haines is a resident of Jamestown, R.I., where she grew up. This piece reflects her personal opinions and not that of her employer.

Categories

Join the Discussion

View Comments

Recent Comments

  1. Offshore windfarms are a bad idea. They don’t even offset their own carbon footprint, and when the wind stops, they stop. Unreliable. Just a money grab by so-called “Green” industry supported by misguided and misinformed well intentioned people.

    • Offshore wind turbines break even on their construction carbon footprint in about one year. This leaves about 24 years of very low carbon electricity generation. Seek diverse sources for a well-informed perspective vs. what someone wants you to believe.

  2. Oh, I regrettably forgot to mention the environmental damage done to marine life. Stop the foolishness.

  3. Despite the multitude of solar panels throughout the state, I’ve not seen a decrease in my electric bill as yet. ?

  4. John Travassos, would love to see some citations for any of your claims. While this article is mostly just rehashed material and the jobs citation is suspect, at least there are citations. Your claims are broad and seem misleading.

  5. Thank you for posting this. Well written and thoughtful. As Jamie says, we don’t have time to wait- the climate crisis is here. We have to rapidly transition away from fossil fuels to prevent worsening impacts and here that means embracing responsible wind energy. We can still act to save our shores and our future.

  6. The solution of the climate crisis is to support the natural environment not to further destroy it. This author is poorly informed on the wind farm infrastructure. First the permits issued by the Bureau of Energy and Ocean Management clearly state that the wind farms will not reduce carbon emissions over their operational lifespan enough to offset the carbon footprint needed for their construction, so the claim that they are reducing emissions in a meaningful way is untrue Furthermore, the bases of the wind farms currently being constructed are NOT the type that create an artificial reef but create a dust plume permanently darkening the water around them – over 1000 miles of ocean will impacted if all of these are constructed. While the wind is indeed natural, free and “green”, the infrastructure to harness electricity from it is destructive to the marine habitat, negatively impacting biodiversity and permanently altering a foundational ecosystem in Coaxes Ledge. As with all things the devil is in details, and the massive industrialization of the ocean off of Rhode Island is doing more damage than good.

  7. We should have time to wait if the solution does more harm than good. As mentioned in another comment, the Bureau of Ocean Energy and Management has clearly stated that the wind farms will not save enough carbon emissions over their operational lifetime to make up for the carbon footprint required in their construction. The author is also uniformed about the actual construction of their bases which are not the kind that creat artificial reefs, but the kind that are solid and creat a permanent dust plume which will darken the surrounding water over more that 1000 miles if they are all completed. While the wind is indeed free, natural and green, the infrastructure required to harness it permanently devastates the surrounding marine environment – for what? They aren’t even carbon neutral. We need to support the natural environment in our efforts to stop climate change, not destroy it!

  8. 100% agreed with Jamie. We need offshore wind so that we in New England can do our part to avoid the worst effects of the climate crisis – and fast. And when you throw in the good-paying, family-supporting union jobs and local economic development, it’s a win-win.

  9. This claims by Mr. Travassos is bogus. The savings from not burning gas or coal means that offshore wind more than offsets the small emissions involved in their materials and construction.

    The website realoffshorewind.org debunks this and many other false claims about wind turbines. Per the site:

    “The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that over its lifetime, “wind energy produces around 11 grams of CO2 (equivalent) per kilowatt-hour (g CO2/kWh) of electricity generated, compared with about 980g CO2/kWh for coal and roughly 465g CO2/kWh for natural gas”. Those ratios make the overall lifetime emissions of greenhouse gasses 89 times worse for coal than wind, and 42 times more emissions for natural gas than wind. This does not even count the leaking of methane from gas drilling and transport, which is another contributor to climate change, or the fact that once wind turbines are themselves produced with clean energy, the emissions associated with production will fall even further.”

  10. I would like to see a citation as to where, in what BOEM document, this claim is made. Because this sounds like more of the misinformation and false claims being peddled by offshore wind opponents.

    Study after study has found that wind turbines more than make up for the small emissions involved in their construction by offsetting the burning of gas and coal. A 2018 study found that offshore wind farms make up for the emissions involved in the materials used in the turbines and their construction in 6 to 17 months: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/2022

    Offshore wind is a win for the climate and our local economies. It’s no wonder that the oil and gas industry is funding misinformation to try to stop it.

  11. Hi Jamie! Fellow Jamestown resident here! Gosh, where do I start?
    • storms have not become more frequent or intense
    • CO2 is a building block of life and has no negative impact on our climate systems
    • by their very nature, climate systems are characterized by variability and importantly volatility. Don’t look to SUVs and natural gas power generation as the culprits for winter storm surge.
    • offshore wind is a very expensive scam promoted by climate grifters. Assuming you are not one of them, but perhaps they have influenced you.
    • offshore wind is minimum 3X more expensive than the alternatives, is destructive of the ocean habitat and creates genuine hazards to communities.
    • the approved wind farms in our waters cover an area larger than the State of RI, with an average height of an 85 story office tower. That taller than every building in Boston. To achieve the equivalent amount of power from natural gas or nuclear would use only 1% as much real estate.
    • more expensive, more resource intense, tries to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
    • remember we used to say “Save the Whales”? Let’s to that again.

  12. Tom, just by the potential damage they’ll do to the marine environment makes them a bad idea. As far as the carbon footprint, add all the carbon from mining, manufacture, transportation, all the related construction ( cables, etc.), all the fuel consumed by research and support vessels, etc.

    They are a bad idea, and the hard and soft (environmental) costs far exceed the benefit from a unreliable and futile (still need backup power plants) source.

  13. I really appreciated this thoughtful piece. We truly can’t just stick our necks in the sand and pretend climate change has not made extreme weather more common and more dangerous, espcially in coastal communties. As the author points out, offshore wind will not only provide a huge local energy resource, but it will help transition us away from polluting fossil fuels while creating jobs. Let’s get it together and move forward!

  14. I read your reference. As it’s an abstract with only snipits (a format I have never seen before in a scientific abstract) it’s impossible to determine the methodology used for the life cycle assessment and as I mentioned the devil is in the details. I also noticed that some of references are to other Orsted projects. In my field (medicine) one must always be weary of research sponsored by a manufacturers as the bias has been unequivocally proven. I will read the paper if I can locate it.

  15. John Travassos. This document by Lazard is the most comprehensive report on the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) which includes the energy to construct, operate over the lifetime, and decommission of the generation facility. https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf Page 9 is the best information on comparing offshore wind to other technologies. You can see that offshore wind has a mid range of LCOE and is lower than gas peaker plants and nuclear. If you want to read more, there is also analyses of sensitivity to subsides, fuel costs, and what if carbon foot prints are priced.

  16. Unfortunately both methods have negative impacts. The point here is not supplant fossil fuels with a technology that further destroys the environment. Wind Farms are industrial power plants and need to be further vetted with real science on their marine life impacts – they are real – and regulated just like every other power plant, substation and industrial cabling project. Their site selection should not be on sensitive, fertile marine environments, should not have expedited regulatory siting, they should not require the authorization to kill and injure more marine animals than are even alive in the area. Stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

  17. Christian, A couple of things to mention here. 1. The oil and gas industry is not funding the opposition to off shore wind – they are funding off shore wind. Orested (Revolution Wind) is a Danish gas company, Equinor ( Empire Wind I & II off Long Island) is a Norwegian energy company that produces natural gas colorado and recently announced a new deep sea drilling project. Oil and Gas companies are funding the off shore wind projects, etc. etc. 2. Here is the statement from the Vineyard Wind project Environmental Impact Statement. “Overall, it is anticipated that there would be no collective impact on global warming as a result of offshore wind projects, including the Proposed Action alone,” https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/renewable-energy/state-activities/Vineyard-Wind-1-FEIS-Volume-2.pdf. Page A-66. There are similar statements in the various environmental impact statements on the various projects.

    While it is both challenging and time consuming to find all the actual information on these projects, it is very important to do so. The jump to label someone/something as misinformation simply shuts down the pathway for constructive conversation and especially on an issue as complex as this simply leads to poor outcomes for everyone.

  18. John Travossos, this document by Lazard is the most comprehensive report on the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) which includes the the materials and energy to construct, operate over the lifetime, and decommission of a generation facility. https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf Page 9 is the best information on comparing offshore wind to other technologies. You can see that offshore wind has a mid range LCOE and is lower than gas peaker plants and nuclear. If you want to read more, there is also analyses of sensitivity to subsides, fuel costs, and if carbon emissions are priced.

  19. Hi, Well done, Jamie and thanks for helping to save our planet by speaking out! As for the naysayers, the BOEM has backed offshore wind projects and given them their blessing: https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/new-england-wind-1-and-2
    So, please listen to Christian Roselund. Meg is totally wrong! It is a red herring to say that wind will hurt marine life. BOEM would not allow the permits to be approved were that the case. The movements that are anti-offshore wind are supported by a variety of groups, including conservative think tanks, fossil fuel interests, and dark money donors. They must not be listened to! Offshore Wind is so cool and necessary to help stop climate change. We are so lucky to have this technology available! Let’s take advantage of this wonderful opportunity to help save us from climate change! For heaven’s sake, protect our children and their children’s world! Thanks, Jamie, for your courage, and thanks those of you who support offshore wind!

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