Derrick Z. Jackson

US Targets 30,000 Megawatts of Offshore Wind. How We Get There

, Senior energy analyst | March 31, 2021, 2:41 pm EDT
Bookmark and Share

The Biden administration has just set a goal of 30,000 megawatts of US offshore wind by 2030, and that’s got me thinking about the pieces that need to come together to make that possible. And there sure are a lot of them. The good news is that there’s positive movement with a whole lot of those pieces.

In terms of what it’ll take to get to 30,000 megawatts (MW) as fast as possible, here’s what I’m thinking about: Robust demand for those clean electrons. A solid leasing and permitting process to allow good project proposals to proceed. Solid infrastructure to get parts, people, and power where they need to be. Continued technological innovation for even greater affordability and efficiency. And an approach that does right by people from start to finish.

The Biden administration’s effort is a multi-pronged push to “jumpstart” offshore wind in the US, with the push at the federal level involving the Departments of Interior, Energy, Commerce, and Transportation, plus members of the administration’s climate team. That’s important.

But there’s also a whole lot that needs to happen at local and regional levels, and a lot that already is. Here’s how things look in a few key areas.

Demand for offshore wind: States in the lead

Surprising to say, but demand is increasingly seeming like the easy part of all this, thanks to incredible state leadership. Starting with commitments like Massachusetts’s in 2016 (1,600 MW of offshore wind by 2030), states have been outdoing each other over and over to attract offshore wind. They’re doing that for not just the megawatt-hours of clean electricity that offshore wind offers, but all the job creation, economic development, and increasingly attractive prices that come with it. (And there’s this breaking news: a new Massachusetts climate law ups that state’s offshore wind target yet again.)

The 30,000 MW in the new Biden plan are approximately what state commitments—statutory requirements, actual contracts, or both—add up to. But getting all that offshore wind installed by 2030 will require even faster progress than envisioned in some of those states.

The where and how: Offshore wind leasing and permitting

Part of getting there quickly and sensibly is making sure we have well thought-out places to put the turbines. The administration’s announcement includes a commitment to move toward identifying a new offshore wind leasing area in the waters off Long Island and New Jersey, to help in meeting the Tri-State area’s clean power needs.

Another piece is making sure that proposed projects are well designed, and avoid, minimize, and compensate for (in that order) harms. The federal government’s role in that includes conducting timely and thorough environmental reviews, and we were encouraged by the release earlier this month of the final environmental impact statement for the first large-scale US offshore wind farm, and progress in reviewing a second.

This week’s announcement includes the next steps in the environmental review of the next big offshore wind project in the queue, an expectation of starting the reviews of up to 10 more this year, and 16 completed reviews by 2025. It also mentions protecting biodiversity and “partnering with industry on data-sharing… to fill gaps in ocean science areas.”

Offshore wind infrastructure: If we build it, they will come

Part of creating a welcoming environment for offshore wind is getting the infrastructure in place, and there are lots of dimensions to that.

  • Offshore wind is big. Port infrastructure investment is an important piece, since offshore wind turbines involve a lot of very large components (nacelles, blades, tower sections, foundation) that need staging room onshore. States have been preparing through investments and upgrades, as in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Virginia.
  • Big turbines need big ships. Or at least special/“purpose-built” ones, to do the hauling and installing. And a federal law, the century-old Jones Act, means we need US-built ships for that. Fortunately, progress on that is underway.
  • Power needs transmission. Getting the offshore wind power where it’s going involves collecting the electricity in a central location within a wind farm and getting it to shore—no mean feat. But it also involves making sure that the land-based components of the state or regional electricity grid can handle the power across the existing grid.

There’s also the tantalizing prospect of manufacturing. US-made components may start with pieces like the foundations and cabling, but there’s a lot of value in fabricating the big components close to project sites once the scale of activity is large enough.

Here’s how the administration’s announcement addresses some of these pieces:

Meeting the 2030 target will catalyze significant supply chain benefits, including new port upgrade investments totaling more than $500 million; one to two new U.S. factories for each major windfarm component including wind turbine nacelles, blades, towers, foundations, and subsea cables; additional cumulative demand of more than 7 million tons of steel—equivalent to 4 years of output for a typical U.S. steel mill; and the construction of 4 to 6 specialized turbine installation vessels in U.S. shipyards, each representing an investment between $250 and $500 million.

Offshore wind innovation, the mother of offshore wind progress

Offshore wind turbines are already marvels of modern engineering and craftwork, and the progress in recent years has helped make the case for offshore wind even stronger. More innovation, though, can lead to even higher efficiencies, greater economies of scale, more electricity from a given number of turbines, and even lower costs.

I recently commented excitedly on a prototype 13 MW turbine, but other proposed turbines are set to eclipse even that impressive size, like these 14 MW and 15 MW ones. Offshore wind for the West Coast and the Gulf of Maine will require floating wind turbines, a whole new area for innovation.

The administration is proposing to help innovation via new awards through the National Offshore Wind Research and Development Consortium, a partnership of the US Department of Energy and several states’ energy agencies. President Biden’s just-announced infrastructure plan, too, includes a nod to floating offshore wind turbine technology.

People matter. Offshore wind needs to happen accordingly

There are lots of ways that equity and economic justice come into play in offshore wind, and it’s important not to let our fascination with the technology make us lose sight of that. Where projects happen matters, and the same goes for all their associated pieces, in the water and on land. The process for figuring all that out matters, too.

Offshore wind developers and policymakers have to continue to find ways to minimize conflict with existing uses of the marine environment, including commercial and recreational fishing. That will need to involve continued and meaningful engagement and coordination, and potentially design changes, and compensation.

Same with where the cables might come ashore, and what kind of on-land infrastructure happens where (like the substations and associated transmission). Communities should be valued partners in those decisions. And environmental justice should be a key criterion, so that new renewables aren’t perpetuating any of the negative aspects of old fossils.

The Biden plan includes a modest grant program for research aimed at benefitting “a diversity of stakeholders, including fishing and coastal communities” and “further[ing] understanding of the effects of offshore renewable energy on the ocean and local communities and economies as well as opportunities to optimize ocean co-use.”

This week’s announcement also talked about who should do the work of building our offshore wind-rich future, and particularly the importance of thinking about climate action as “people and jobs—good-paying, union jobs,” in the words of National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm committed the Department of Energy to

…marshal[ing] every resource we have to get as many American companies, using as many sheets of American steel, employing as many American workers as possible in offshore wind energy…

While the coasts have been the focus of offshore wind, its positive effects should be felt much more broadly, the administration suggested, with “new supply chains that stretch into America’s heartland.” It gave as an example the “10,000 tons of domestic steel that workers in Alabama and West Virginia are supplying to a Texas shipyard” for that first Jones Act-compliant installation vessel.

And a whole lot more

So that’s what I’m thinking about, ingredients-wise, for making 30,000 MW a reality over the next decade. There’s certainly more that needs to fall into place, though, and others’ must-do lists would look different. (I didn’t, for example, talk about the money dimensions, though offshore wind involves big investments.)

But for me there are two key overarching ingredients, maybe most important: ambition and vision. Thanks to this week’s announcement, we have both. The commitment to 30,000 MW—30 gigawatts (GW)—by 2030 is huge and important in and of itself. But the plan also envisions this first stage “unlock[ing] a pathway to 110 GW by 2050” (emphasis added), which is equally crucial.

Getting all the pieces in place and offering a credible vision for the near and long term are key to making offshore wind the valued piece of our electricity mix we know it can be.

Photo by Derrick Z. Jackson
Photo: Kim Hansen/Wikimedia Commons

Posted in: Energy Tags: ,

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Show Comments


Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, self-promotional, obscene, rude, or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. UCS respects your privacy and will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.

  • skyhiker9292

    A comprehensive article but containing a major error with huge implications:

    Offshore wind farms do NOT require the use of huge new expensive construction ships and manipulation of the Jones Act. The turbines can be installed on floating jackup platforms at dockside and towed into place. A Texas company, Offshore Wind Power Systems of Texas, has patented a new design of this solution, and the first one has been installed in Sweden to support a meteorology tower. See http://www.windbaseoffshore.com.

    The European companies funding the offshore wind farms are not discussing or even acknowledging the existing of this solution because they can’t make money off it themselves. They want to use pile driving and ships because they are partners with the companies and owners who own those technologies. Yet the mobile jackup platform eliminates the need for those construction ships that cost half billion each, and have day rates of a million dollars a day or more. So the European solution raises costs by billions, and they will try to force those costs on American ratepayers. This is technology fraud and corruption that will hurt millions of Americans, especially those of lower income whose monthly costs will rise.

    The situation gets worse. The National Renewable Energy Lab and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management have bought into this deception. NREL published a guide to ocean wind development that says mobile jackup platforms are not available for wind. That is a flatout lie. They have known about the platforms for over ten years. Then, the BOEM has published the Vineyard Wind EIS. The main environmental concern of Vineyard Wind, addressed in the EIS, is the impact of noise from pile driving on endangered Right Whales. Under NEPA the EIS must describe reasonable alternatives to reduce these impacts. But the EIS completely ignored the alternative jackup foundations which eliminate pile driving completely. The obvious, available and well known alternative was ignored. Why? Because the Vineyard Wind developers want to funnel $1.2 Billion of construction contracts to their partners. Yet they have no proof they can install a 15MW turbine on a jacket platform in 150 feet of depth. It’s never been done, it’s high risk, if the install fails they have to remove the pile-driven jacket, which makes even more noise.

    I wrote a protest to the draft EIS for Vineyard Wind informing them of the jackup solution that solves the greatest environmental threat of the project. They responded, in writing in the Final EIS, that it was rejected because it is “not commercially available”. This again is a flat out lie. See the platform here http://www.windbaseoffshore.com. It exists! It’s for sale! It’s been available for 10 years and the Assistant Director of BOEM, Walter Cruikshank, was briefed for an hour about in 2018.

    Reporters should immediately investigate why NREL and BOEM are deliberately misleading the public and regulators about this. There are 18 offshore wind leases on the Atlantic coast. The turbine foundations will likely cost about $20 million each (this can be debated). If each lease uses 100 turbines, x 18 leases, that’s $36 BILLION in spend. Who gets that money? The European developers are setting up to funnel most of it to European companies and their new ships, and American rate payers will literally get the shafts of higher costs, higher environmental impact and more risk. I look forward to learning what NREL and BOEM officials say when they are interviewed in the next articles here.

    • ucsjrogers

      Thanks for weighing in, SkyHiker. Good to know about this option.

      I’ve got to imagine that NREL, BOEM, and the developers are familiar with the range of options. I’ve worked with NRELians for more than 25 years, and have great respect for their analyses and perspectives.

      But you’re right that I could have been broader in my blogpost about options. There’s proof in US waters, in the two projects to date (off Rhode Island and Virginia), that it *can* be done with what we’ve got even now.

      – John