Ocean City, Maryland, is gearing up to possibly file a federal lawsuit concerning offshore wind developments. The town council has sought legal advice on pursuing legal action if US Wind’s proposed offshore wind project moves forward. This initiative involves 114 turbines, planned to be situated roughly 10.7 to 10.9 miles from Ocean City’s shoreline, each reaching an impressive height of 938 feet—about three and a half times taller than any existing building in the town. The town opposes the project, arguing that placing the turbines further offshore could achieve the same objectives without impacting the view.
Should the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) approve US Wind’s permit application, Ocean City plans to challenge the decision in court. US Wind, an Italian-owned enterprise partially funded by Maryland ratepayer subsidies, is applying to develop on federally leased waters.
Earlier this month, US Wind received its final Environmental Impact Statement for its federal permit application, advancing its offshore wind project off Ocean City and in nearby areas. The project is divided into three phases, with MarWin and Momentum Wind already awarded offshore renewable energy certificates by Maryland. The company’s Construction and Operations Plan envisions the full development of the federal lease area, potentially generating up to 2 gigawatts of offshore wind power.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is expected to issue a Record of Decision on the construction plans in September 2024. Additionally, other federal and state agencies are anticipated to make favorable decisions by the end of 2024.
Issues with Offshore Wind
The discussions by the Ocean City mayor and town council are occurring against the backdrop of recent issues with offshore wind energy projects in Massachusetts and newly released research on noise pollution. In the coastal town of Nantucket, Massachusetts, an offshore wind turbine blade disintegrated, sending fragments of fiberglass onto the beaches. This incident led to the closure of the beaches and raised safety concerns for beachgoers who were at risk of injury from the debris. Fishermen also expressed worries about potential damage to their boats. Authorities collected over six truckloads (17 cubic yards) of debris from the affected beaches.
This malfunction prompted the federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to halt operations at the Vineyard Wind project while they assess whether this “blade failure” could affect other turbines. The installation of new wind turbines has also been paused. The GE wind turbine blade failed on a calm summer day, raising concerns about the potential damage if a hurricane were to strike the U.S. East Coast. Such an event could have significant repercussions for both beaches and fisheries. This blade is part of the Vineyard Wind project, a major offshore wind energy initiative supported by the Biden-Harris Administration as a key component in combating climate change.
Vineyard Wind utilizes GE Haliade-X turbines, which are mounted on monopiles anchored to the sea floor off Nantucket and extend 853 feet into the air at the tip of the blade—nearly the height of the Eiffel Tower and shorter than those planned for offshore Ocean City. The trend towards larger offshore wind turbines is driven by their increased efficiency: larger turbines generate more energy from the same capacity. However, their size and weight also mean that their components face greater stresses. The GE Vernova Haliade-X turbine used at Vineyard Wind stands 260 meters tall and covers an area of 38,000 square meters. Its blades measure 107 meters (351 feet) in length and weigh 70 tons each. The rotor spans 220 meters, which is approximately six and a half times wider than the wingspan of a Boeing 737.
Additionally, recent whale and dolphin fatalities on the Eastern seaboard, coupled with concerns about the acoustic impact of offshore wind farm construction, prompted an independent investigation to measure and assess underwater noise emissions from pile driving activities. The assessment focused on the operations of the pile-driving vessel Orion within the Vineyard Wind project area, with recordings taken in the waters southeast of Nantucket Island. The findings include:
- Pile driving noise, even with advanced noise-mitigation techniques, rivals the loudness and frequency range of seismic air gun arrays, with impulsive peak noise levels measured up to 180 dB over 1 kilometer away and RMS levels over 160 dB at over 3.3 kilometers.
- The standard metric (90-percent RMS) used by the National Marine Fisheries Service underestimates the sound level experienced by cetaceans by as much as 6 dB, potentially cutting the protective distances in half and reducing marine mammal safeguarding zones by up to 75 percent.
- The continuous noise generated by vessel propulsion and dynamic positioning thrusters significantly surpassed the federal threshold for behavioral harassment, with noise levels exceeding 120 dB out to over 6 kilometers.
Another challenge is the disposal of wind turbine blades. Made from fiberglass or fiber-reinforced plastic, these blades are not recyclable. The Biden-Harris administration has yet to clarify how it plans to address the substantial waste that will accumulate as thousands of turbine blades reach the end of their service life in 20 to 25 years—or even sooner in many cases. Currently, used blades are accumulating in Texas and Iowa without proper disposal solutions. Large “wind blade graveyards” have emerged on the outskirts of Sweetwater, Texas, covering over thirty acres with stacks of blades reaching the height of basketball hoops. Additional blades are being stored on ten acres a few miles south of town and at other locations within the county. This problem has been worsened by the federal tax subsidies that are applied a second time when wind turbines are re-powered, replacing their blades. Since these subsidies are tied to wind energy production and are time-limited, the Biden-Harris Administration’s approach to subsidies effectively resets the clock when turbines are re-powered.
Moreover, offshore wind energy is exceptionally costly—one of the priciest technologies according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The EIA estimates that building offshore wind infrastructure costs $5,338 per kilowatt, which is 4.5 times more than a natural gas plant, with a capital cost of $1,176 per kilowatt. Operating costs for offshore wind are also significantly higher, even though wind is a free resource when available. The levelized cost of operation is $100.34 per megawatt-hour, including tax credits, compared to $42.72 per megawatt-hour for a natural gas plant without tax credits—making offshore wind 2.3 times more expensive. Additionally, the cost of backup power, needed when wind conditions are unfavorable, is not included in these figures. Utility-scale battery storage has a levelized cost of $117.27 per megawatt-hour. Nonetheless, if states like Maryland and others mandate the development of new renewable energy projects through “renewable portfolio standards,” the cost becomes secondary, with consumers expected to cover the expense.
Conclusion
The Ocean City Town Council is preparing to sue the federal government over its pending approval of a wind farm off of its coast that contains 10 miles of beautiful, clean beaches that numerous visitors flock to year-round. The town’s major issue is the location of the wind turbines, which would be located less than 11 miles offshore. But offshore wind comes with many more problems including noise pollution that would affect fishermen’s livelihoods, expensive electricity costs for residents, blade disposal issues that mount up as Texas and Iowa have found, and dangerous effects from hurricane damage. The Biden-Harris Administration has leased federal waters to foreign offshore wind installers and is approving their construction plans supposedly to save the climate, but without considering the environmental damage.
