The Biggest Obstacle To Building Offshore Wind Farms Is Government
America gets about 42 megawatts of power from offshore wind. Another 18,000 megawatts are currently tied up in permitting battles.

Shortly after taking office last year, President Joe Biden announced an ambitious plan to vastly expand the amount of energy produced by offshore wind farms.
Along the Atlantic coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, the administration identified huge swaths of wind-swept sea that could be put to energy-producing use. Last year, the Department of Energy (DOE) made $3 billion available to upgrade ports so the equipment needed to install offshore wind turbines could be shipped out to sea, and the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act included measures providing tax credits of up to 30 percent for offshore wind projects that are started before 2026. This overall strategy to expand offshore wind production is "a cornerstone of Biden's plan to fight global warming and decarbonize the electricity sector by 2035," Reuters reported last month.
But the biggest impediment to the federal government's attempted development of offshore wind is, it turns out, the federal government.
According to DOE data published this month, the U.S. currently has offshore wind projects capable of generating 42 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Offshore wind projects currently under construction will eventually provide another 932 MW of electricity when fully operational. (For comparison's sake, an average-sized nuclear power plant can generate around 1 gigawatt of electricity—equal to 1,000 megawatts.)
But another 18,581 MW of potential offshore wind power are tied up in permitting battles. According to the DOE's data, that means a developer has signed a lease for the designated area but is still trying to complete environmental impact statements required by the federal government and the appropriate state authorities (for projects based in state-controlled waters). As with housing and other types of infrastructure projects, the permitting process provides an opportunity for various parties to slow or even stop construction. Even though the Biden administration has said it intends to speed up the federal permitting process for offshore wind projects, it's questionable whether that is happening. In July, for example, the DOE's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management canceled two potential wind energy developments off the coast of Long Island due to concerns that included "visibility from nearby beaches."

One might wonder about the administration's priorities when its cornerstone energy effort is disrupted by grumpy beachgoers.
I saw the local side of this debate up close during a recent vacation to Long Beach Island in New Jersey, where seemingly every other house is currently sporting a yard sign opposing a new wind project that would be visible from the beach despite being located 15 miles out at sea. A recent article from the island's The SandPaper spells out the regulatory complications: 1,400 pages of documentation, a 45-day public comment period (extended 15 extra days to accommodate "public outcry"), and now a lawsuit that seeks to put the project on hold.
Of course, locals object to new power plants of all varieties and deserve to have their say. Still, the fact that so much of the Biden administration's much-ballyhooed wind projects might be kneecapped long before they become reality ought to generate some skepticism about the usefulness of those big new tax breaks. Regulatory reforms that trim back environmental reviews—and that prevent them from being weaponized by NIMBYs—would be useful not only for getting offshore wind projects built but also for a host of other infrastructure efforts. As Reason's Christian Britschgi has reported, environmental impact statements take 4.5 years on average and run over 650 pages.
It's also worth considering the other tradeoffs involved in these projects. As I wrote last week, a major offshore wind project (one that actually is being built) near Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, will produce only about one-third of the energy that used to be provided by a coal-burning plant that the wind farm is meant to replace—and that's assuming the wind farm operates at full capacity all the time, which of course it won't because sometimes the wind doesn't blow. Even when it does, the electricity produced by offshore wind is more expensive than what is produced by nuclear or gas-powered plants.
Those are the kinds of tradeoffs that would matter even if the Biden administration could snap its fingers and see its stated goal of having America produce 30 gigawatts of electricity from offshore wind by 2030.
But with the regulatory and permitting hurdles facing those wind projects, it's hard to believe we'll get anywhere near that total in the near future.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So, fighting wind farms is unacceptable, but paying subsidies to them is the right idea.
The government is involved at all levels already.
I don't think wind farms would survive in my area without huge subsidies, regulation or no regulation.
They wouldn't survive anywhere without massive subsidies and favoritism.
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. (res-56) This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
After reading this article:>>> https://exxtra-cassh3.blogspot.com/
There was a study a few years back that found two regions of the US where land-based wind farms could be feasible without subsidies. I remember because one of the two is right around Cleveland. (Chicago got the name "The Windy City" because of its politicians. Cleveland has the highest average winds of any major US city.) Can't remember the other region.
But outside those two areas, yeah, wind farms are just not practical. The critical issue is not just wind speed & reliability - there are multiple places in the American West with good wind. You also have to be close to where the power is needed, otherwise you lose more in transmission and infrastructure than you gain. Only those two regions had the combination of good wind close to large masses of the people & industries that need it.
Right; Propaganda is so powerful to sheeple minds they don't even have enough common-sense left to comprehend the power cost to run a house fan is always going to be less than the power earned from a windmill of the same speed/size. Generally running at maximum efficiency of 80%. If the wind isn't blowing as hard as sticking you face directly in your house fan; it isn't blowing hard enough to power a house fan.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best (alp--579) assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://shortest.link/3Rbg
This!
So fine, tie them up in court until we run out of oil and gas. We'll all be far better off, and by that time, maybe the greenheads will have realized that splitting atoms isn't such a bad idea afterall.
(Note to those who don't frequent the marshy coastal areas of the eastern US: a greenhead is a particularly nasty fly that shows up in mid-summer to feast on you, making life generally miserable for anyone trying to be outside. Happily, they all drown with the first full or new moon in August. They are almost as nasty as the Greens in politics, although not quite so stupid.)
"So, fighting wind farms is unacceptable, but paying subsidies to them is the right idea."
Or more to the point -- if paying subsidies for things deemed unacceptable by the same ones taxing for them; where the F is the money going? ( The mysteries of a commie-government -- between what they sell and what they provide.. ) We'll just all forget that a monopoly of GUNS is their only 'machines' in their factory. GUNS make everything! insists the sheeple of mind.
Wind power is a sad joke.
Back to the future. Using 12th century technology to generate electricity is progress?
They're so much sleeker looking, though.
Right. That hard plastic look and the oil products needed to keep the turbines and rotors lubricated is full on greenie!
Kill some more birds, bees, bugs and bats to save the planet. We are all in this together. Except the creatures whose space we are changing forever.
Idiots.
Progressives want to go back to trains too. That's only 3 centuries old tech.
Makes you wonder what the "progress" part is supposed to mean.
"progress" the socialist agenda of-course.
i.e. Destroy the USA for National Socialism (syn; Nazism)
How’s Atlas gonna Shrug without trains?
Wind farms in the gulf will make for great TV footage after getting smashed by the yearly storm season. They built a wind farm in our rural MO area, and they have had to replace a lot of broken blades in the 2 years it has been up. We are yet to see our first tropical storm or hurricane, so I can only imagine what real weather will do to them.
...and of course those broken blades went to a land fill.
Good news! If they break offshore, they just go into the ocean, and we get to increase our annual ocean waste quotas. It's unfair that we're trailing so far behind China and even Indonesia when it comes to ocean-dumping waste. We can thank Biden for his efforts to ensure America keeps up Asia.
That's a very good point. Do the heavy metals in the hub give us bonus points if we get lucky enough for the whole thing to break off?
Only if they end up in our fish supply. Then we have a new crisis to battle with tax dollars.
That's called an 'artificial reef' and it's now considered protected habitat.
Just think how fast your Prius will charge when those blades are spinning in 120 mph wind!
Well, really the biggest obstacle is the fact that offshore wind generates a fraction of label power so it's not economical.
Greenies apparently have no idea how the electric grid works.
They don't care.
It's about sniffing their own farts. A bunch of virtue signaling smug pricks.
Don’t think for a minute SleepyJoe wants to see windmills from his beach.
That's the biggest issue. Not enough poors live near the beach. Can't be putting those ugly farms up in the elite's views.
Even when it does, the electricity produced by offshore wind is more expensive than what is produced by nuclear or gas-powered plants.
Then it seems to me that it's unlikely government is the BIGGEST obstacle in offshore wind farms. Even with massive subsidies the government was already paying for "renewable" energy, and the new subsidies on top of that, the energy costs can't compete with other sources of energy. That seems to imply there's significant engineering and practical issues, probably including transmission, maintenance, stability, and efficiency.
In fact, if it's so cost-ineffective compared to other sources, I would say government might be only IMPETUS for offshore wind farms. Nobody would be trying to do it if the mere attempt wasn't getting them a fat government check.
Someone should make a law that says we need to harness unicorn farts to lower global temperatures by 1 degree Celsius by 2024. Because if it's the law they'll make it happen, right?
Might as well go for 20 degrees. That's about as likely as us dropping it 1 degree by anything we do.
Greens that don't advocate for nuclear power are not interested in actually solving their mostly nonexistent problem. The only way to reduce CO2 in the production of electricity at the scales required is nuclear energy, everything else is just a fantasy. Therefore, I assume their concerns are just fantasy as well.
I've pursued this debate and the "Big Greens" go down this funnel:
1) Climate Change, CO2 emissions, is an emergency
2) Therefore all generation must be renewables (aka wind/solar)
#2 is a false equivalence. Nuclear is not renewable but is zero CO2.
Why? They even lump ethanol and wood burning in the renewable category , because they are renewable, but also emit CO2.
And the BG's would rather burn natural gas (emits CO2) than continue operations of already built nuclear plants, see Germany , see CA
Or maybe.... The whole things is just hoax.
Plants need CO2 so killing plant necessary compounds is suppose to be "greener"?? It's amazing how retarded the Power-Mad can be.
And hey... Lets print more money to reduce inflation... /s
So retarded one has to laugh at it.
Even just 30 years ago, the environmentalists were still talking about the need to solve air pollution. For the children, of course-we needed to ensure our offspring would have breathable air! But that was them clinging to the smog issue that was big in the 60s and 70s, when we were burning energy much cleaner than the 90s. Donations were trying up because it looked like we'd actually fixed the air pollution problem. We do such a good job of waste management, also, that there's no real point in donating to green advocacy groups.
So they shifted to a new problem. It's on that is going to be a constant specter. It can't be solved, it exists on way too long a time scale to measure the results of any policy, and it's easy to maintain as a permanent threat. Plus, literally everything can be evidence of climate change. An unusually cold winter is evidence of climate change, just like a massive heat wave in the summer. The lack of severe hurricanes is evidence of climate change, just like an especially severe hurricane. Too much rain and flooding is evidence of climate change, and extended periods without rain are also evidence of climate change. Fucking wildfires are evidence of climate change. Like the most primitive humans, every disaster imaginable is used as evidence that someone has angered the gods of nature.
They don't want the problem solved. They want to continue solving it for generations so they can enrich themselves. They'll continue making a grand show of how they're fighting against the invisible monster, which is so pervasive that even if they keep winning, it can never be slain.
It's the same with the race grifters.
"The only way to reduce CO2 in the production of electricity at the scales required is nuclear energy, everything else is just a fantasy."
The nuclear power plants in use and under construction in China and India are not fantasy.
I can't wait to get my Indian and Chinese nuclear-generated electricity sent to my house in the Midwest.
High voltage DC transmission is also being developed, particularly in China to deliver electricity from hydro and coal mining areas to distant cities. Transmission of AC results in much greater waste of electricity. A globe spanning HVDC grid should allow needy midwesterners to avail themselves of electricity from Australia or other distant places.
What ever lies you want to preach...
As long as it can be learned and not dictated by Gov-Guns; then and only then can your theories become reality instead of B.S. imagination being insisted upon by gun-threats.
I understand, the future has become a scary place. It was not all that long ago that the future was more hopeful. Check out Jacques Derrida if you are feeling ambitious, or otherwise Mark Fisher if you are interested in our 'lost futures.'
I don't see how high voltage DC transmission will work. Line losses will take too much out of it.
It's why we have alternating current instead of DC for our energy transmission.There are line losses but not as severe as with DC.
It's why Tesla's AC system was accepted and Edison's DC was not.
Every skyscraper would have to have a DC generator of its own just to provide enough electric power.
It's also worth considering the other tradeoffs involved in these projects.
You mean like the trade off of exchanging borrowed money for unicorn farts while eliminating electricity, food, automobiles, healthcare, running water, and civilization? Yeah, that might be worth considering.
Ha ha the ONLY reason anyone even tries to build offshore wind is to get subsidies.
We have all of that unused space above everything. I suggest we subsidize airborne nuclear power plants.
every other house is currently sporting a yard sign opposing a new wind project that would be visible from the beach despite being located 15 miles out at sea.
Signs are beautiful; turbines are ugly.
Can't they make pinwheel yard signs, and hook them up to the grid?
Blah blah blah, government is always the issue. Broken record.
It shouldn't bother anyone, because they all seem to be deaf.
Truth hurts.
What.. You think a monopoly of guns that makes death-threatening demands against a non-gun-dictated reality isn't broken?
How about this.. A monopoly of guns ONLY PURPOSE should be to ensure Individual Liberty (freedom) against gun-toting dictators (i.e. Gov-God Nazi(National Socialist) worshipers) and Justice for all.
What is this power source costing us in subsidies? 1 billion per megawatt?
Learn to understand capacity factor in electric power generation.
A power plant has a rated nameplate capacity, but no power plant actually produces it's full rated capacity, (due to maintenance down time and other factors).
The capacity factor is expressed as a percentage and represents on average how much of it's nameplate capacity a given power plant will actually produce.
The average capacity factor for nuclear plants is around 80%.
The average capacity factor for wind farms is around 20%
So your 1GW nuclear plant will actually produce around 800MW.
The 42MW of active wind capacity + 932MW of under construction wind capacity will actually generate around 195MW of electricity.
...an inconvenient truth.
You’ll find the average nuclear generating station generates way more than 1000MW. Maybe a typical unit generates 1000MW, but most stations have more than one unit, for instance Diablo has two, and Kori in South Korea has eight. Off shore wind generation, or any greenie scheme at that, will never come close to nuclear’s potential, no matter how much billions governments throw at it.
And consider that the nuclear industry in the US was effectively ended by the tsunami in Fukushima. How much money will it require to repair the damage to an 42MW offshore wind farm due to foreseeable storms? How much to continuously repair 18GW of this crap?
The whole thing is a pipe dream, might as well just burn the $100 US dollars and turn a turbine with that. “Green Power” indeed.
If they use small denominations to burn, there should be a good deal of heat generated.
Well...government and economic reality.
How many years before the Greens decide that oceanic wind farms are a grave threat to Gaia?
There is no method of producing energy to sustain a modern civilization that is not disruptive of nature and has no downside.
Nuclear power still has the greatest potential to be the most Gaia friendly.
p.s. I'm not talking about fusion either, which is just as radioactive as fission.
Controlled fusion doesn't produce radioactive waste and I don't believe it can be converted to weaponry, either.
If you have radiation then you end up with radioactive waste. Not necessarily all in fuel waste but still waste. There is still some fuel waste though, as nothing is free. If there is fuel then there is fuel waste. There are more outputs to fusion than just head and H2O, after all.
But no, the biggest waste is the equipment. Which is also the problem with fission. Decommissioned reactors are still radioactive as hell, half a century later. The same will be true of fusion reactors. We already have radioactive waste from fusion experiments.
It will of course be cleaner, but it won't be the utterly clean green solution that so much sci-fi has portrayed it to be. It will be cleaner due to the relative lack of radioactive heavy metals taking thousands of years to decay down into lead. But there will still be waste.
This video, which is pro-nuclear/pro-fusion, addresses the issue as a side note. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0H-NWk_FDI
"It will of course be cleaner,"
Not only cleaner but more produce more electricity, and much lower effort and difficulties in providing the required fuel. There are so many advantages to fusion over fission. It shares some of the disadvantages, too. It's centralized and authoritarian unlike some decentralized renewables and fossil fuels, to an extent.
There many advantages to fusion over fission. You omit the big disadvantage, though. It doesn't exist yet.
Fusion does exist. Hydrogen bombs, the sun and countless other stars. What we need is controlled fusion. The capacity to harness this source of energy. It's not inconceivable that we may be able to do so with effort and human ingenuity.
Yep, people need to understand that the end goal of the green movement is not clean energy, it's no energy.
I once had a green movement. It came after eating green cotton candy. I didn't realize at the time it had such a nefarious goal, being only a naive country lad of 6.
You joke, but why are the greens so insistent on pushing intermittent power sources?
Because they want to force us to get used to power that isn't always there, before they pull the plug on even that.
"But with the regulatory and permitting hurdles facing those wind projects, it's hard to believe we'll get anywhere near that total in the near future."
Because we are a nation that chooses lawyers to rule over us. Lawyers are paid to argue. China is ruled by engineers, people paid to build things.
Perhaps these delays are a blessing. More modern, solid state windmills are being developed with no moving parts, no hum, no flicker, no bird strikes, and lower maintenance. There are also studies in how best to place mutually interacting windmills in large groups rather than considering each unit as an isolated individual. And we also need more efficient battery storage and transmission.
> China is ruled by engineers
Mwa ha ha! Ha! Ha! Ha ha ha!
No moving parts produces electricity? Run by engineers? Sounds like it's run by people who fundamentally deny not only the nature of individual human beings, but also the nature of reality itself if that's the case.
"No moving parts produces electricity? "
The designs I've seen rely on vibration. They work something like a speaker in reverse. Does a speaker have moving parts? Not in the traditional sense of the word.
"Sounds like it's run by people who fundamentally deny not only the nature of individual human beings,"
They also aren't crazy about waiting around for permits and environmental reviews.
Vibration is motion, you fucking retard.
It's not likely to chop up any birds, though, it is, you thoughtless person of at best average intelligence.
Big giant fans to chop up all the migratory birds! And wind patterns being what they are, these big giant fans will literally be placed in the migratory pathways.
I've got nothing against wind power per se, we've been using windmills for a couple thousand years. But let's not imagine that this "green" technology has not downsides. If we have to stop nuclear power because we're handwringing over where to store a miniscule amount of waste, let's stop wind power while we handwring over a design that won't chop up birds like a cuisanart.
Anyone have any idea as to what happened to the helical shaped windmill blades that were touted several years ago?
They didn't "lobby" correctly
"Big giant fans to chop up all the migratory birds!"
This is why solid state is preferable. Windmills with no moving parts should eliminate the problem. Also cut down on the hum and flicker that causes humans psychological distress, and presumably doesn't do any good for our feathered friends.
"If we have to stop nuclear power... "
It really doesn't matter. America is probably always going to be in thrall to fossil fuels, if only out of habit and convenience. India and China have expanding programs to exploit both nuclear and wind.
"And wind patterns being what they are, these big giant fans will literally be placed in the migratory pathways."
Because birds have learned over years to exploit the wind to conserve the energy needed to fly the great distances. Given time, money and human ingenuity, it's conceivable that humans will develop designs to minimize the risk. Solid state windmills for example. There is research being done on this today, in Holland, no less.
Brandon: "this one is blue!"
If I were King of America, the biggest impediment to building offshore windfarms would be the lack of government subsidies.
I'm sure glad the adults are back in charge.
You are retarded. They are expanding coal far more than the other 2. Stop sucking the ccp dick
"They are expanding coal far more than the other 2."
You are of average intelligence. And I'm not sure China is expanding their exploitation of coal. They are building more coal plants closer to the coal fields, and closing down the older plants which were located near the cities. I haven't been to China for a while, but the air quality of the cities was horrendous, thanks to these obsolete power plants. Within a day of arriving, I noticed black mucous in my nose thanks to the soot. It's responsible for many of China's respiratory problems. The increase in distance from the power plant to the city has necessitated the development of HVDC, high voltage direct current power transmission, a method to deliver electricity over large distances with minimal loss due to heat etc.
Windmills kill birds!
"The biggest obstacle to building" a life is govt.
Government must crush freedom, or freedom will crush it. Why? Government is the initiation of force, threats, fraud, so a few can exploit the many. The majority pretend to not see it, are willfully blind to their slavery. As children they were told they should be grateful to their govt. for their freedom and show that gratitude by performing a daily ritual that committed them to honor & obey those who are called "the govt.", e.g., authorities, officials, politicians, bureaucrats, LEOs, judges. Could they use their "freedom" to abstain? No. Do free people worship the govt. on command? That question will be answered by violent punishment. I know. I tried it in 1951, at 9, got expelled, again in 1952, same. In 1945, the SCOTUS ruled the "Pledge" couldn't be forced. But the govt. makes the law to benefit itself; it doesn't follow it.
Green energy is a hoax. A cruel and expensive joke played on the American taxpayer.
Wind farms damage the environment, kill wild life , are expensive to maintain and cannot be recycled. The same for solar which is yet another huge joke.
Another green raw deal.
You need to do a little more research on the difference between AC and DC power transmission. You have been misinformed.
Biden has proposed a wind farm off one of the most spectacular coastlines in the United States, the Boardman Corridor in Southern Oregon, a magical paradise of sea stacks. spruce-covered islands, wild birds and seals, a public access park. (Google Secret Beach, Curry County.) The view is way out to sea, as the coastline bluffs one hikes down from are 200-600 feet above sea level. Out of curiosity, I checked the voting records of the few Pacific NW coastal counties he had picked for these proposed wind farms. My friend says it is about the wind, and not about the fact that these were the only coastal counties that went for Trump. I am not a NIMBY usually but I would join ELF to protect this view from being despoiled.