Since even before “climate change” and “green energy” became part of the vernacular, Gov. Jay Inslee has touted the crisis as an opportunity.
Among the many quotes reflecting his persistent optimism: “We have had a loss in manufacturing base and a loss of some of our productive capability that can be filled with the green-collar jobs of tomorrow. But it will only happen if we recognize the scale and scope of both the challenge and the opportunity.”
So it is no surprise that Inslee and port and maritime representatives have announced a new initiative designed to make Washington a key player in the offshore wind industry. Officials are hoping the state will become a leader in the manufacture and installation of wind turbines, the platforms they stand on, the cables that anchor them to the ocean floor and the boats used to maintain them.
In the process, they have chosen a side in the debate over offshore wind power. They have chosen wisely.
New methods are allowing for the development of wind farms 40 or 50 or 90 miles from shore, rather than the 10 or 13 miles that are typical along the East Coast.
As The Seattle Times reports: “Until recently, offshore wind turbines were built on top of steel structures that extended 100 to 200 feet into the ocean floor. That method is unfeasible to install on the Pacific Coast due to its steep drop-offs from the continental shelf of more than 600 feet. Now, new technology has made it possible to install wind turbines taller than the Space Needle on floating platforms tethered to the ocean floor.” And last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the Offshore Wind Expediting Act to ease the permitting process for turbines off his state’s coast.
The impetus behind offshore power generation is, of course, climate change. Ocean-based turbines typically have 265-foot-long blades, which are longer than land-based turbines, and one rotation can generate enough electricity to power one house for one day. Developing alternative energy helps reduce the use of fossil fuels that contribute to climate change.
President Joe Biden has set a goal of deploying 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind-generated power by the end of the decade, a central theme of the bipartisan infrastructure law passed in 2021. But questions remain.
The Department of Defense has opposed vast wind farms off the East Coast, saying they would hamper military operations and nearby naval bases. And developers of such projects say the farms would not be profitable without government subsidies.
In addition, as The Washington Post wrote in an article about offshore wind projects in Norway, environmentalists “want to be assured that the deep ocean turbines are not harming whales, fish and birds,” and there are concerns about the lifespan of the turbines and their eventual removal.
Studies suggest that the typical lifespan of a turbine is 20-25 years, and the U.S. Department of Energy reports: “Decommissioning is the removal of a wind energy project (wind turbines and associated infrastructure) and the restoration of any land that was used as part of a wind energy project.”
All of that is secondary to Washington’s goals, however. The point is that local manufacturers should be prepared if the offshore wind industry takes off.
It is the same argument that surrounds the entire issue of climate change. Whether or not Washington’s efforts to limit carbon emissions can make a global difference, they should be viewed as an opportunity rather than a burden.
