The United States has its first large offshore wind farm, with more to come
The United States has brought its first large offshore wind farm online, prompting debate over why offshore turbines are being built when onshore wind and solar are often cheaper. Commenters weigh factors such as stronger and more consistent ocean winds, proximity to dense coastal cities, land-use conflicts, and legal hurdles like the Jones Act and NIMBY opposition that shape where projects can realistically be sited. Others highlight cost, maintenance, and grid integration challenges, while noting that offshore wind is maturing globally and can complement existing renewables, especially in regions with high winter demand or limited land.
Why Offshore Wind and Why Now
- Offshore is pursued despite high costs because it can:
- Serve dense coastal areas (e.g., Long Island/NYC) where large onshore sites are scarce.
- Provide evening/winter power that complements daytime solar.
- Offshore has stronger, more consistent winds, larger turbines, and potentially higher capacity factors.
- Grid connection can be easier offshore than finding/permting onshore transmission in populated areas.
- Long Island is cited as effectively “out of land” for large new plants yet in dire need of capacity.
Economics and Cost Debates
- Consensus: offshore is more expensive than onshore wind and utility-scale solar, but often still cheaper than fossil fuels and nuclear.
- Some claim the latest sea turbines no longer need subsidies; others emphasize low profits and heavy dependence on policy support.
- One back-of-envelope calculation for a project suggests about $175/MWh before maintenance, with high operating costs relative to gas.
- Disagreement on whether offshore can be cheaper than onshore solar; answer is framed as highly site- and grid-dependent.
- Critics note backup and storage costs for intermittent wind aren’t always included.
Policy, Logistics, and the Jones Act
- The Jones Act requires US-built/crewed vessels, complicating use of specialized foreign installation ships.
- This forces longer routes (even via Canadian ports) and higher logistics costs.
- Some argue the law preserves shipbuilding capacity and national security; others say it mainly inflates shipping and infrastructure costs.
- Offshore construction benefits from ship transport of very large blades, which are difficult to move over land.
NIMBY, Aesthetics, and Public Opinion
- Offshore is partly a workaround for onshore NIMBY resistance over noise, views, and health fears.
- Examples from the Netherlands and UK: land constraints plus opposition push more expensive offshore build-out.
- Debate over whether people genuinely dislike turbines or are influenced by attitudes toward wind energy itself.
- Suggestions include sharing financial benefits with nearby residents or community cooperatives; others insist people have a right to object without bearing uncompensated costs.
- Views diverge: some find offshore turbines and even oil rigs “cool” or iconic; others see them as beachscape blight.
Environmental and Technical Considerations
- Claims that large offshore farms can weaken hurricanes (by up to a category) are mentioned, with requests for more evidence.
- Concerns raised about corrosion and long-term maintenance offshore; assessment is described as “still new.”
- Fisheries impacts are framed as mixed: worries about whales vs. possible gains in lobster spawning grounds.
International and System-Level Context
- Commenters stress this is the first large offshore farm; the US is already a top onshore wind producer by total output, though wind is only about 10% of US electricity.
- Comparisons to Germany, Austria, New Zealand, and Canadian provinces highlight:
- Different mixes of hydro, wind, and solar.
- How cheap solar and changing climate/hydro patterns are shifting economics.
- Broader theme: progress is constrained less by technology than by politics, planning, transmission permitting, and public tolerance for trade-offs.