Biden Administration Opens California Coast to New Offshore Wind Turbine Siting

[UngulateNerd92]

“Properly sited wind power that avoid undue impacts to wildlife is an important ingredient in cutting carbon emissions and averting worst-case climate scenarios.”

Today, California Governor Gavin Newsom joined U.S. National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, and Under Secretary for Defense for Policy Dr. Colin Kahl to announce the opening of hundreds of square miles off the California coast to offshore wind turbines. The announcement marks the first time the California coast has been opened to commercial-scale clean energy development.


“Climate change is the biggest threat facing California seabirds,” said Audubon California executive director Sarah Rose. “Audubon’s climate science shows that unless we can keep warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we may lose 389 species of birds across the continent. Wind power is an important ingredient in cutting carbon emissions and can be properly sited to avoid and reduce impacts on birds and other wildlife.”

The initial areas identified for development include nearly 400 square miles just north of Morro Bay, as well as additional areas along the North Coast off Humboldt County. The Newsom administration estimates that the initial sites could eventually provide electricity to power 1.6 million homes.

Biden Administration Opens California Coast to New Offshore Wind Turbine Siting

 

[birdsandbats]

I have never understood the Audubon Society’s like for wind turbines.

 

[UngulateNerd92]

I have never understood the Audubon Society’s like for wind turbines.

Yeah same here...

 

[nczoofan]

I have never understood the Audubon Society’s like for wind turbines.

Because climate change and the fossil fuel industry are far more destructive to bird populations…

 

[UngulateNerd92]

Because climate change and the fossil fuel industry are far more destructive to bird populations…

I can definitely see that. Oil spills case and point.

 

[nczoofan]

I can definitely see that. Oil spills case and point.

All energy has tradeoffs. The key with wind or solar or nuclear is location. Hence the Audubons focus. Look up oil pit deaths especially. I mean the Trump admin tried to exempt those deaths from the migratory bird treaty act, a decision that was recently overturned.

Heres the estimates from USFWS

“An estimated 500,000 to 1 million birds are killed annually in oil pits and evaporation ponds. In one study, 51 % of all birds found at oil and gas facilities were in heater-treaters, 30% in various pits, 4% in wastewater ponds, 4% tanks and trays, and 1% spills”

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Migratory Bird Program | Conserving America's Birds

 

[birdsandbats]

Because climate change and the fossil fuel industry are far more destructive to bird populations…

I understand their reasoning, but it has still never felt right to me, especially when the American Bird Conservancy is also against wind power. I also live in an area where I’ve been able to observe the effects of wind turbines on bats and birds, and it isn’t pretty, especially where bats are concerned (they suffer from wind turbines much more than birds do).

 

[Westcoastperson]

I understand their reasoning, but it has still never felt right to me, especially when the American Bird Conservancy is also against wind power. I also live in an area where I’ve been able to observe the effects of wind turbines on bats and birds, and it isn’t pretty, especially where bats are concerned (they suffer from wind turbines much more than birds do).

Yes but at the same time you have to compare that to extinction rates. Once we fix our climate and energy issues then we can work on solar panels or tidal turbines to replace wind turbines.

 

[Coelacanth18]

I have never understood the Audubon Society’s like for wind turbines.

especially when the American Bird Conservancy is also against wind power.

Are they? From reading the official statements about it on their website, it seems more that the ABC are concerned about minimizing the consequences to the greatest extent - including avoiding placing wind energy sites along migration corridors or in critically important habitat areas. None of the statements I've found from the organization says they outright oppose it. The Audubon statement also says that different bodies will be working together to minimize the impact on local bird populations, so it's not as though the environmental impacts of the project are being ignored.

Collisions is obviously an environmental drawback of wind power. There are others: manufacturing and transporting the turbines requires a large amount of energy and materials, the site development can contribute to habitat loss/disturbance, and the turbines themselves are currently made of non-recyclable material that only lasts a decade or two. All of that being said, *every* energy production method has drawbacks; wind's issues appear far more manageable compared to fossil fuels or hydropower, and it's functional (and cheap) across a large swath of the planet. There are bladeless wind turbines currently in development that may minimize environmental impacts even further.

Bottom line is, climate change is a far greater threat to wildlife - including birds and bats - than wind energy, and considering the rapidly growing proportion of renewable energy it makes up I find it hard to see how the world can achieve net-zero emissions without deploying it somewhere. This is especially true given the emotional cooling there has been towards nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima incident (though ultimately nuclear will have to be utilized to reach net-zero as well).