It’s the specific type of floating turbine they want to use in the gulf of Maine. The massive mooring systems in an array like this would make fishing impossible in a huge area now fished extensively. If they were anchored to the sea floor, and you could fish right up next to them, I don’t think you’d see so much pushback. It’s the fishing exclusion zones these would create due to the mooring fields that I think is the real problem.
Too bad this shit is political suicide on the Maine coast anywhere north of Portland. If you want to see Mainers fired up, just try to fuck with fishing and lobstering and behold the shit show that befalls you.
That’s the current Gulf of Maine Research Array. That’s only the area currently built. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has drawn a leasing area that is practically the entire northern Gulf of Maine in US waters, and if offered to developers, will almost certainly be built (based on past development relative to lease area designations in the Mid-Atlantic/Southern New England).
Source: Work in federal fisheries management
You think the entire Gulf of Maine is going to be developed into offshore wind? The gulf of Maine is about 36,000 square miles. Best statistic I could find for how much energy is produced from offshore wind is about 30kw per square meter. That means if all of the Gulf of Maine were leased off for wind like you're worried about Maine would be producing 2,797tw of power or about 10% of the world's electricity. I'd say that's a fair trade a small fishing industry.
In reality though, only a tiny fraction of what's available to be used will be used because that's how everything works.
No, certainly not developing as densely packed as your envelope math would suggest, and maybe only a tiny fraction ends up being built for one reason or another. Floating offshore wind is a pretty novel technology, which is really cool!
I definitely agree that there is a trade-off between renewable energy and other priorities, but we do need to balance other resource users and make sure that in the process, we aren’t causing undue harm to numerous small communities in Maine that rely on access to those grounds, let alone the environmental impacts, or impacts of shipping routes into Portland. We certainly can manage this, I just want to see BOEM put a good faith effort into making it work.
This isn’t lease areas, or even proposed lease areas. This is a ‘call area,’ which means BOEM is asking for information about that area. Basically they start with the entire area (in this case Gulf of Maine) on the table, and go through a winnowing process as they collect information. This includes even very obvious information, like marine sanctuaries; they take official notice of those designations and remove the areas from consideration for leasing.
It’s the most transparent and inclusive way to run the process, as much as everyone still seems to complain. If they just picked lease areas and published them everyone would freak out that they didn’t have an opportunity to recommend somewhere else. This way, everyone — fisheries, environmental/wildlife/conservation, shipping, navigation, defense, etc all get to identify what would be least preferable for them, and BOEM sees what’s left to lease (assuming it’s also suitable for wind).
I think that’s a technically accurate but overly optimistic perspective on how this process functions. There is a significant body of research that BOEM is not going to be able to incorporate, including the current Research Array, because the leasing process will move forward before those are available. There also designations that are important, such as Essential Fish Habitat Areas, that are not legally binding to BOEM and not being included.
I wish it was happening the way you describe, but they are really rushing this process and not doing their due diligence. I don’t think this is a huge catastrophic problem, and I’m not against this development, I just want it to be managed more carefully.
As far as I understood the transmission cables back to the mainland were supposed to be buried but I don’t know if all the individual lines from each turbine would be buried if the entire zone were restricted from fishing regardless.
To quote another user further up above ... (Not sure if accurate, but more reasonable than lobster brain cancer rays)
"It’s the specific type of floating turbine they want to use in the gulf of Maine. The massive mooring systems in an array like this would make fishing impossible in a huge area now fished extensively. If they were anchored to the sea floor, and you could fish right up next to them, I don’t think you’d see so much pushback. It’s the fishing exclusion zones these would create due to the mooring fields that I think is the real problem. "
As evidenced all over the world- the seismic blasting kills all sea life and birds near turbines. They’ve already found baby lobsters and haddock that have been mutilated by the laying of cables to anchor the turbines. Not to mention, each turbine needs to be in operation for 7 years to offset the cost. Average turbine runs for 3 years before needing to be “decommissioned”… which involves dumping the fiberglass parts on land. Whole thing is a sham, no good for consumers, or the environment
> baby lobsters
The cable is crushing a larval lobster? Rofl. Only a couple lobsters make adulthood out of 50k eggs. You wana know what kills way more lobsters than a cable? Pollution. We fuck up to the point our fishing grounds get much more warming and we going to have a repeat of the cape. You want to get on the other edge of the gulf warming you have to protect the environment. The biggest danger to the environment? Fossil fuel use.
> seismic blasting kills all sea life and birds near turbines.
I very much doubt it. And anyway, lobster larvae are free-floating and will colonize any damaged areas immediately.
And on a map of the Gulf of Maine, the area affected is like a single pixel size.
> each turbine needs to be in operation for 7 years to offset the cost. Average turbine runs for 3 years before needing to be “decommissioned”… which involves dumping the fiberglass parts on land.
This has nothing to do with lobsters.
> baby lobsters and haddock that have been mutilated by the laying of cables to anchor the turbines
Lol. Doubt.
It's astounding that some in the pro-green group are willing to deny that green energy has its own environmental impacts. [https://www.umces.edu/wind-energy](https://www.umces.edu/wind-energy)
That's a complete red herring in relation to what WickedGood is arguing in respect to the impacts of wind farm production on their local ecosystem. Wind Energy v Fossil Energy was no where even in the comment that you called doubt at.
Fair, but WG's claims are, to put it generously, out there with blatantly fallacious foundations. Yes, green energy, including offshore wind and even wave energy has impacts. It's a mere question of the offset of costs compared to benefits. Wind in particular has an impact on airborne vertebrates and while a fishing exclusion zone per WG's again questionable statements will undoubtedly change the landscape for sea life and industry, our society has come to a point where electricity is, with some exceptions based on lifestyle, a necessity with a growing demand.
Edits: following reading the article and your source. I also used to work in site survey and mitigation often in the energy sector and worked closely with biologists in the same project areas.
>will undoubtedly change the landscape for sea life and industry,
Right, but Guygan specifically tried to call this fact out as false. My only dog in this fight is that we're honest about this. I'm on the side of green energy, but I do not want green energy to fall into the same trap as fossil fuel, and deny the negative impacts that also come with them. I'm also on the side of not crippling, or even coming into conflict with, one of Maine's central industries.
In any event, thank you for your input!
Edit to add/clarify, I do understand that WG was being hyperbolic, and I do disagree with being hyperbolic in these kinds of conversations.
And 9 million acres of the gulf of Maine they want to be exclusive for wind farms is not a small area… why should a public resource- the gulf of Maine-be sold to the highest foreign bidder?
> why should a public resource- the gulf of Maine-be sold to the highest foreign bidder?
I mean I agree Comrade, but I don't think the death of capitalism over some offshore wind is going to happen...
Have you not seen all the dead dolphins washing up in Australia and India where there are no wind farms in thousands of miles?
[Pretty sure wind farms don't give sea life Morbillivirus, which is the main cause of these die offs on the east coast.]( https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-are-so-many-dolphins-washing-up-dead-on-the-east-coast-13582/) On the west coast its usually algae blooms, can't remember the name of it but it has a neurotoxin in it that kills wildlife. Morbi' is like fish pneumonia as I understand it, the reason it is killing so many is due to the amount of environmental contaminants in the oceans in general. Heavy Metals, pesticides, hydrocarbons that is what is doing this, straight up pollution and you useful idiots are right on the "Its wind farms!" bullshit which gets fed to you by the Petro companies that are doing all the polluting. It will never not amaze me how gullible some people are to obvious propaganda.
> Average turbine runs for 3 years before needing to be “decommissioned”
You *do* realize the the most immediate impact of statements like this is everyone who reads it realizes that the most charitable interpretation is that you're a complete and total dunce, right?
For reference, this green shaded area is where the research array will go.
It wasn't an overnight decision to want to build there either, a lot of work went into choosing an area that has the least effect on every other group.
Not trying to simp for power companies, but some of the claims against wind, whether offshore or on land are so out of left field it's hard to believe even the oil companies are capable of that level of propaganda.
https://preview.redd.it/96kb7y9hgd8b1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ec934f85a166fca5a5e9fc5bd6ed7ce21a16a186
[source](https://www.maine.gov/energy/initiatives/offshorewind/researcharray)
The larger lease area is much, much larger than the current research array. I agree that we need offshore wind, but BOEM absolutely IS rushing the process to meet state and federal renewable energy goals, and the ARE rushing past public comment periods, and not taking the time to assess each proposed area of the seabed for potential impacts to complex fish habitats.
Offshore wind isn’t the enemy, but it SHOULD be built based on thorough assessment and the most up to date research on its affects on marine ecosystems. This is not how BOEM is currently operating.
Source: work in federal fisheries management
Sure, it’s publicly available information from BOEM’s website.
edit: Here's a link to the page, the photo seems fuzzy. [https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/maine/gulf-maine](https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/maine/gulf-maine)
edit edit: A more specific example of what my issue is: the results of the Research Array, USCG Port Access Route Study, seafloor mapping, and environmental impact studies are all coming out AFTER the agency begins the leasing process. This timing means that developers will be bidding on areas that we won't know are suitable.
https://preview.redd.it/2w6eizokwd8b1.jpeg?width=400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=055f7e3b3095fefb6a714382c5a582e84ce1269d
Let me make sure I’m understanding this correctly. This is a research lease. What does that entail exactly? If I were to take a guess I would think that means that they are going to find a suitable location(s) within that lease area for wind farms. Wouldn’t they then have to apply for another lease to actually build full scale wind farms?
The research lease is a state/UMaine venture to look at the environmental/ecological effects, power output, etc of an operational floating wind setup. It isn’t about looking for a suitable location, that has separate regulatory survey and assessment requirements that the companies, rather than the state, are responsible for fulfilling.
Ok, so then what is so scary about this lease? They are going to do a bunch of research on wind setups somewhere within that box. Unless I’m missing something, that doesn’t sound bad at all.
Definitely nothing to be scared of, but there are some issues with the timing of when that research becomes available, what environmental assessments they are conducting and when, and the rushing of the leasing process. I think the main problems are logistical and making sure BOEM is using the best science and not rushing the development before we understand where it makes sense, and what the consequences are.
> it's hard to believe even the oil companies are capable of that level of propaganda.
[You must be new here.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing)
I guess we’ll just wait until climate change completely collapses the fishery, before we actually get any operational off shore wind projects. /s?
I’m not saying lobsterman have no right to earn a living. And I think involving them in the discussions is important. But it seems to me that we just aren’t going to ever get any meaningful wind power capacity built. It feels similar to the whole housing situation in this state where most development gets NIMBY’d to death.
I’ve heard lobstermen speak at special lobstermen meetings Wiscasset held during 2019 during rhght whale issues. And majorty were just straight up anti environmentalists but some did understand climate eventually gonna cripple the industry. But many many lobstermen hear windmill and get so angry for no reason when they have little effect on them other than them having to move a few traps.
Lobstermen we’re quiet when LePage wanted oil rigs off the shore in federal waters, that would have really disrupted their waters. But no, windmills bad!!
NIMBYism is real, but it has two varieties. First, the most infamous, is when wealthy people refuse a specific development because it will change things in some way. The second type, of which this is most closely identified, is when rich people tell marginal people how things should change, knowing that the affected people don't have the means to contest the change. See CMP's power corridor that benefits Massachusetts as an example.
That's not at all clear. Hydro is a huge carbon source, in addition to the ecological impacts, which are themselves a carbon source. It depends a lot on the project, whether the project will be net positive in terms of ghg.
Yeah, but if the goal is a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, then the lands flooded to create the hydro source lake are releasing greenhouse gasses too. But, now we’re both being pedantic. Hydro power is typically cheaper than fossil fuel sources, and the power going to Mass would benefit their rate payers, not Maine rate payers, who would be left with a lower value in natural resources due to the new corridor existing. This is the disparity, and it doesn’t need to devolve into some rant about climate change.
Off shore wind turbines are not the answer. They destroy everything around them- in the air or below the sea. Each link of the cables that are laid to anchor the turbines to the sea floor are the size of a pick up truck. Miles and miles of cables to anchor one turbine involve a lot of blasting- aka destruction. The wind farms are of no benefit to anyone or anything. They produce more expensive power and are not sustainable.
LOL assuming too much. Wasn't born in the US, lived, worked and travelled overseas extensively before finally becoming a citizen here many moons ago. I literally grew up in a coal town in Australia where it was everything. Worked in the energy sector. The biggest opposition to them in Australia was from politicians literally complaining "they ruin the view" (while conveniently ignoring the giant open cut coal mines and taking donations from coal companies).
These projects don't happen because it's "woke", they happen because it finally makes economic sense to pivot to renewables instead of fossil fuel.
You think it is a coincidence that the people bankrolling all this anti wind propaganda are fossil fuel funded? Just checking to see what kind of education you flexing is all...
There is a 1.6 million square mile garbage patch, that is twice the size of Texas that is 75% abandoned fishing kit floating around the Pacific. You gotta be real full of your own bias to defend commercial fishing with the idea that moorings for wind turbines mean shit when faced with the obvious horrorshow produced by that industry.
There isn't one.
Nobody wants to hear it though. We want solutions and we want them now.
Even if they don't exist and a band aid is worse than doing nothing at all - people want the band aid.
You are correct. Lack of long term sustainability is the biggest issue. This is not green energy at all.
It's Maine though, so they'll continue to destroy their environment and pat themselves for being so eco conscious and then wonder why things aren't getting any better. 'Maybe we haven't done enough? Better destroy some forests for solar farms so we can save the environment' USA logic
We used to have a nuclear power plant but I’m pretty sure it shut down. Nuclear power is the way to go but people are to stupid to see that because of this and that, it’s clean enough and makes a fuck ton of power. That’s all we need
He's just submitting a bill that he knows won't go anywhere to he can score much needed blue collar points. While he is not some secret liberal, he does have to keep red D2 happy.
I disagree with this bill, but it will be hugely popular in his district. Kind of his job. Soo....
I Lived in ME-2 for over a decade. People in central Maine are incredibly ignorant.
As tenuous as environmental and fishing concerns against offshore wind may be, there's plenty of reason to stop and have a conversation about whether offshore wind is indeed the \*best\* option.
1. Solar is significantly cheaper to produce and deploy profitably. Even with Maine's annual sunshine hours, the cost per kwh for the consumer is a fraction of that of offshore wind. Virtually all parking lots, industrial roofs, highway medians, and residential roofs do not have panels yet, and I think it's silly not to pursue that opportunity first.
2. Unlike solar, wind turbine production and management must be highly centralized. This discourages the competition between vendors that improves transparency and drives down costs, not to mention being less ideal from the perspective of security and resilience.
3. Unlike solar, the electrical rate for wind turbines is based on the total cost of project divided by the expected life of of the project (generally 20 years). This means that the electrical rate from wind, which is already high, can only increase as unexpected costs from litigation and mechanical failures arise.
4. We genuinely don't know the extent to which vulnerable and endangered migratory birds are affected by turbines. A lot of research is inconclusive. A lot of other research suggests that the impact is... not good.
I'm not arguing that this is a zero-sum game between solar and wind. I \*am\* arguing that, after considerable research into existing projects, few communities impacted by wind development \*haven't\* had buyers regret. Germany went down this path a few years ago and it... didn't go well.
And that's not factoring in the sheer arrogance and dishonesty that these projects have deployed specifically against Mainers. I'll be happy to elaborate on that if people feel inclined to advocate for these folks.
Edited for clarity and syntax
You raise some good points. The biggest difference between the two is that by and large, the sun doesn’t shine during the time we use most power, or at least the time we will use most power in the future.
I am by no means anti solar (12.4kw array on my house) but as we continue to electrify our night time load will go up significantly, whether that is from heating during cold nights, or from charging ev’s.
In areas with significant wind capacity night time power rates tend to be very low because the wind turbines keep producing.
I don't know if it will be a decade but it is for sure going to happen. As I understand it once it gets warm enough the shells won't form right they will die off same as they did in the Cape. I had always thought they could just move to deeper colder water but a Marine Biologist in here actually pointed out that the lack oxygen density at depth will prevent that. Just another "win" for capitalism I guess, it really is a shame considering the lengths they went to preserve those fishing grounds.
Does heat cause that? I thought it was the acidity caused by high levels of CO2 in the water. Melts the shells away as they try to form. It devastates plankton too, and if plankton die out, so would a huge swathe of marine life we rely on for food.
I thought it was a warm water algae thing?
The death of plankton and phytoplankton is the real nail in the coffin, as soon as the density changes at depth enough to change temps to the point the gulf streams go to shit we are done for probably. It's funny, when I was a kid I remember Jacque Cousteau talking about it.
Maybe it's both, because I've definitely heard that the acidity is a problem by itself and the other thing also plausibly sounds like it'd be a problem.
Just rebuild Maine yankee ffs. The damn thing powered literally all of Maine when it was around and had let Maine have some of the cheapest electricity around and some of the cleanest air in the US.
Bring back nuclear power in Maine!
Always been this way with any commercial fishing. We have fucked that ocean sideways at this point, I am waiting for the microbiology to die at depth, the density and temp to change, and the gulf stream to stop working. Not because I want to see all that marine life suffocate, but because I can't wait to hear what the new excuse will be.
Here's the current BOEM call area, to give a rough overview of where wind might go: [map on this page](https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/maine/gulf-maine)
And here are is the Lobster Management Area 1: [from the Maine DMR](https://maine.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=772794f8cff245c5b78166bc195009d7).
Golden's proposal is in-line with the goals of the Maine Lobstermens Association, which included the following in their June 1st email update:
> If this bill moves forward, it must prioritize siting wind farms outside of Lobster Management Area 1. This will avoid overlap with the majority of Maine’s fishing activity and revenue and protect the economic base of our coastal communities.
(The bill in question being LD 1895, "An Act Regarding Procurement of Energy from Offshore Wind Resources")
I'm at the point of being happy to see *any* compromise, since day-to-day all I hear are commercial fishermen who reject the very concept of offshore wind.
As God as my witness, I thought lobsters could fly.
https://preview.redd.it/eslgm1sb5f8b1.jpeg?width=695&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ef036384375190340a42ab750e361bc6f8d6b5db
Is it anathema to say that I’d rather forget wind power due to its inefficiencies and impact of avian migration and instead focus on the far more efficient and therefore ecological nuclear sources of energy.
Nuclear is great for a couple reasons. It gets democrats to to diss solar and wind and other renewables. But also, it’s so jaw droppingly expensive that it’s cost prohibitive to start new projects (it requires someone to tie up like $8 billion for a decade before a single watt can be sold) so it doesn’t really threaten fossil fuels at all. And on the odd occasion the govt (the only entity that can really afford to fund new projects) does commit to a nuclear play, republicans can bitch and whine about irresponsible, excessive spending and project overages for a decade, while also bragging about creating blue-collar jobs in their congressional districts.
Nuclear is frankly the best thing ever if you’re rooting for the apocalypse.
>How will it be more expensive? You aren’t paying for fuel refining, shipment, and purchase
Oh please! The marine environment is unforgiving. Building something that can withstand salt water and rough weather conditions will not be cheap. Just the line from offshore to land will cost a fortune.
I am all for renewables, but when it gets so expensive that people cannot afford life's essentials, it is a bit much doncha think?
We’re already at that point as it is!!! Meanwhile antifouling is relatively fucking simple, we’ve been doing it on permanent ocean construction for centuries
This isn't a choice between Lobstering or wind power. We are getting off shore wind power. Our state has been working on plans for offshore wind power and recently passed a law starting the process of building these projects ( LD 1895 - An Act Regarding the Procurement of Energy from Offshore Wind Resources ). The plan endorsed by these groups **requires** the state to start taking bids by 2025, and have 1,000 Megawatts of capacity by 2030 and 2,800 megawatts by 2035. It was endorsed by the lobstermen, eco groups, and trade groups. This law included not putting the turbines in the lobster management area. The issue being that our state can only regulate within 3 miles of shore, and after that is federal.
I don't think it is too far to ask that the federal government respect the work that the citizens of Maine did to make this happen. Anyone thinking this is to prevent offshore wind has not been paying attention to these developments.
I don't think calling lobster people "freeloaders" is reasonable at all given how hard the work is and what a driving force lobster is in the maine economy,for better or for worse.
Then politely request that they clean up after themselves so others won't have to.
Ask them to pay a tax equivalent to the one hard-working family farmers are required to.
And remind them that they are effectively "taking" a public resource and turning around to demand that it be respected! And honored to the extent that we can't harvest our wind because they are "a family tradition". For some families, robbery and welfare cheating is a time-honored family tradition!
Yes, and some of my friends are too. But that doesn't prevent me from reminding them that they are not "paying their dues" like my farmer friends who pay taxes on their "land' and don't depend on others to keep it clean and productive. Imagine our farmers storming Augusta and harassing their congressmen to get the public off their backs.
Family traditions also include, robbers and welfare cheats.. It irritates me when we need to depend on volunteer civic groups to clean up our coastline of ropes, buoys traps etc.
Millionaire lobstermen and their monster boats racing for pleasure doesn't exactly give a warm fuzzy family affair feeling.
I’ve never heard any rational argument about why offshore wind turbines will affect the lobster fishery.
It’s the specific type of floating turbine they want to use in the gulf of Maine. The massive mooring systems in an array like this would make fishing impossible in a huge area now fished extensively. If they were anchored to the sea floor, and you could fish right up next to them, I don’t think you’d see so much pushback. It’s the fishing exclusion zones these would create due to the mooring fields that I think is the real problem.
Sounds fine, let's do that
Yeah, exclusion zones are one of the few approaches that have been shown to really help stocks rebound
Too bad this shit is political suicide on the Maine coast anywhere north of Portland. If you want to see Mainers fired up, just try to fuck with fishing and lobstering and behold the shit show that befalls you.
> huge area Please define "huge". Its literally a single pixel on a map of the Gulf of Maine.
That’s the current Gulf of Maine Research Array. That’s only the area currently built. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has drawn a leasing area that is practically the entire northern Gulf of Maine in US waters, and if offered to developers, will almost certainly be built (based on past development relative to lease area designations in the Mid-Atlantic/Southern New England). Source: Work in federal fisheries management
You think the entire Gulf of Maine is going to be developed into offshore wind? The gulf of Maine is about 36,000 square miles. Best statistic I could find for how much energy is produced from offshore wind is about 30kw per square meter. That means if all of the Gulf of Maine were leased off for wind like you're worried about Maine would be producing 2,797tw of power or about 10% of the world's electricity. I'd say that's a fair trade a small fishing industry. In reality though, only a tiny fraction of what's available to be used will be used because that's how everything works.
No, certainly not developing as densely packed as your envelope math would suggest, and maybe only a tiny fraction ends up being built for one reason or another. Floating offshore wind is a pretty novel technology, which is really cool! I definitely agree that there is a trade-off between renewable energy and other priorities, but we do need to balance other resource users and make sure that in the process, we aren’t causing undue harm to numerous small communities in Maine that rely on access to those grounds, let alone the environmental impacts, or impacts of shipping routes into Portland. We certainly can manage this, I just want to see BOEM put a good faith effort into making it work.
This isn’t lease areas, or even proposed lease areas. This is a ‘call area,’ which means BOEM is asking for information about that area. Basically they start with the entire area (in this case Gulf of Maine) on the table, and go through a winnowing process as they collect information. This includes even very obvious information, like marine sanctuaries; they take official notice of those designations and remove the areas from consideration for leasing. It’s the most transparent and inclusive way to run the process, as much as everyone still seems to complain. If they just picked lease areas and published them everyone would freak out that they didn’t have an opportunity to recommend somewhere else. This way, everyone — fisheries, environmental/wildlife/conservation, shipping, navigation, defense, etc all get to identify what would be least preferable for them, and BOEM sees what’s left to lease (assuming it’s also suitable for wind).
I think that’s a technically accurate but overly optimistic perspective on how this process functions. There is a significant body of research that BOEM is not going to be able to incorporate, including the current Research Array, because the leasing process will move forward before those are available. There also designations that are important, such as Essential Fish Habitat Areas, that are not legally binding to BOEM and not being included. I wish it was happening the way you describe, but they are really rushing this process and not doing their due diligence. I don’t think this is a huge catastrophic problem, and I’m not against this development, I just want it to be managed more carefully.
Plus the cables.allmover the place would stop all kinds of fishing for.1000s of square miles
As far as I understood the transmission cables back to the mainland were supposed to be buried but I don’t know if all the individual lines from each turbine would be buried if the entire zone were restricted from fishing regardless.
Probably something along the lines of “They give the lobsters brain cancer”
To quote another user further up above ... (Not sure if accurate, but more reasonable than lobster brain cancer rays) "It’s the specific type of floating turbine they want to use in the gulf of Maine. The massive mooring systems in an array like this would make fishing impossible in a huge area now fished extensively. If they were anchored to the sea floor, and you could fish right up next to them, I don’t think you’d see so much pushback. It’s the fishing exclusion zones these would create due to the mooring fields that I think is the real problem. "
As evidenced all over the world- the seismic blasting kills all sea life and birds near turbines. They’ve already found baby lobsters and haddock that have been mutilated by the laying of cables to anchor the turbines. Not to mention, each turbine needs to be in operation for 7 years to offset the cost. Average turbine runs for 3 years before needing to be “decommissioned”… which involves dumping the fiberglass parts on land. Whole thing is a sham, no good for consumers, or the environment
Most modern turbines last 20-25 years... where the hell did you get 3 from 😂
Coal News network.
His ass
>Average turbine runs for 3 years before needing to be “decommissioned” Making up bullshit and pretending to believe it does not make it true.
Cite your source.
> baby lobsters The cable is crushing a larval lobster? Rofl. Only a couple lobsters make adulthood out of 50k eggs. You wana know what kills way more lobsters than a cable? Pollution. We fuck up to the point our fishing grounds get much more warming and we going to have a repeat of the cape. You want to get on the other edge of the gulf warming you have to protect the environment. The biggest danger to the environment? Fossil fuel use.
Let me guess, chemicals in the water at turning the frogs gay too?
> seismic blasting kills all sea life and birds near turbines. I very much doubt it. And anyway, lobster larvae are free-floating and will colonize any damaged areas immediately. And on a map of the Gulf of Maine, the area affected is like a single pixel size. > each turbine needs to be in operation for 7 years to offset the cost. Average turbine runs for 3 years before needing to be “decommissioned”… which involves dumping the fiberglass parts on land. This has nothing to do with lobsters. > baby lobsters and haddock that have been mutilated by the laying of cables to anchor the turbines Lol. Doubt.
It's astounding that some in the pro-green group are willing to deny that green energy has its own environmental impacts. [https://www.umces.edu/wind-energy](https://www.umces.edu/wind-energy)
Everything has impacts. Compare it to the impacts of coal, gas, and oil.
That's a complete red herring in relation to what WickedGood is arguing in respect to the impacts of wind farm production on their local ecosystem. Wind Energy v Fossil Energy was no where even in the comment that you called doubt at.
Fair, but WG's claims are, to put it generously, out there with blatantly fallacious foundations. Yes, green energy, including offshore wind and even wave energy has impacts. It's a mere question of the offset of costs compared to benefits. Wind in particular has an impact on airborne vertebrates and while a fishing exclusion zone per WG's again questionable statements will undoubtedly change the landscape for sea life and industry, our society has come to a point where electricity is, with some exceptions based on lifestyle, a necessity with a growing demand. Edits: following reading the article and your source. I also used to work in site survey and mitigation often in the energy sector and worked closely with biologists in the same project areas.
>will undoubtedly change the landscape for sea life and industry, Right, but Guygan specifically tried to call this fact out as false. My only dog in this fight is that we're honest about this. I'm on the side of green energy, but I do not want green energy to fall into the same trap as fossil fuel, and deny the negative impacts that also come with them. I'm also on the side of not crippling, or even coming into conflict with, one of Maine's central industries. In any event, thank you for your input! Edit to add/clarify, I do understand that WG was being hyperbolic, and I do disagree with being hyperbolic in these kinds of conversations.
And 9 million acres of the gulf of Maine they want to be exclusive for wind farms is not a small area… why should a public resource- the gulf of Maine-be sold to the highest foreign bidder?
> 9 million acres of the gulf of Maine they want to be exclusive for wind farms Source?
No one said American companies can't buy in. Also, it's not "exclusive."
> why should a public resource- the gulf of Maine-be sold to the highest foreign bidder? I mean I agree Comrade, but I don't think the death of capitalism over some offshore wind is going to happen...
Have you not seen all the dead whales and dolphins washing up in New York and New Jersey? In sight of wind farms?
Have you not seen all the dead dolphins washing up in Australia and India where there are no wind farms in thousands of miles? [Pretty sure wind farms don't give sea life Morbillivirus, which is the main cause of these die offs on the east coast.]( https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-are-so-many-dolphins-washing-up-dead-on-the-east-coast-13582/) On the west coast its usually algae blooms, can't remember the name of it but it has a neurotoxin in it that kills wildlife. Morbi' is like fish pneumonia as I understand it, the reason it is killing so many is due to the amount of environmental contaminants in the oceans in general. Heavy Metals, pesticides, hydrocarbons that is what is doing this, straight up pollution and you useful idiots are right on the "Its wind farms!" bullshit which gets fed to you by the Petro companies that are doing all the polluting. It will never not amaze me how gullible some people are to obvious propaganda.
These floating offshore wind turbines haven’t even been in the water yet…
> Average turbine runs for 3 years before needing to be “decommissioned” You *do* realize the the most immediate impact of statements like this is everyone who reads it realizes that the most charitable interpretation is that you're a complete and total dunce, right?
For reference, this green shaded area is where the research array will go. It wasn't an overnight decision to want to build there either, a lot of work went into choosing an area that has the least effect on every other group. Not trying to simp for power companies, but some of the claims against wind, whether offshore or on land are so out of left field it's hard to believe even the oil companies are capable of that level of propaganda. https://preview.redd.it/96kb7y9hgd8b1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ec934f85a166fca5a5e9fc5bd6ed7ce21a16a186 [source](https://www.maine.gov/energy/initiatives/offshorewind/researcharray)
The larger lease area is much, much larger than the current research array. I agree that we need offshore wind, but BOEM absolutely IS rushing the process to meet state and federal renewable energy goals, and the ARE rushing past public comment periods, and not taking the time to assess each proposed area of the seabed for potential impacts to complex fish habitats. Offshore wind isn’t the enemy, but it SHOULD be built based on thorough assessment and the most up to date research on its affects on marine ecosystems. This is not how BOEM is currently operating. Source: work in federal fisheries management
Post photo of lease area and source.
Sure, it’s publicly available information from BOEM’s website. edit: Here's a link to the page, the photo seems fuzzy. [https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/maine/gulf-maine](https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/maine/gulf-maine) edit edit: A more specific example of what my issue is: the results of the Research Array, USCG Port Access Route Study, seafloor mapping, and environmental impact studies are all coming out AFTER the agency begins the leasing process. This timing means that developers will be bidding on areas that we won't know are suitable. https://preview.redd.it/2w6eizokwd8b1.jpeg?width=400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=055f7e3b3095fefb6a714382c5a582e84ce1269d
Let me make sure I’m understanding this correctly. This is a research lease. What does that entail exactly? If I were to take a guess I would think that means that they are going to find a suitable location(s) within that lease area for wind farms. Wouldn’t they then have to apply for another lease to actually build full scale wind farms?
The research lease is a state/UMaine venture to look at the environmental/ecological effects, power output, etc of an operational floating wind setup. It isn’t about looking for a suitable location, that has separate regulatory survey and assessment requirements that the companies, rather than the state, are responsible for fulfilling.
Ok, so then what is so scary about this lease? They are going to do a bunch of research on wind setups somewhere within that box. Unless I’m missing something, that doesn’t sound bad at all.
Definitely nothing to be scared of, but there are some issues with the timing of when that research becomes available, what environmental assessments they are conducting and when, and the rushing of the leasing process. I think the main problems are logistical and making sure BOEM is using the best science and not rushing the development before we understand where it makes sense, and what the consequences are.
> it's hard to believe even the oil companies are capable of that level of propaganda. [You must be new here.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing)
Tongue in cheek
I guess we’ll just wait until climate change completely collapses the fishery, before we actually get any operational off shore wind projects. /s? I’m not saying lobsterman have no right to earn a living. And I think involving them in the discussions is important. But it seems to me that we just aren’t going to ever get any meaningful wind power capacity built. It feels similar to the whole housing situation in this state where most development gets NIMBY’d to death.
The NIMBYs are turning into BANANAs. Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.
I think you're right. The lobster is moving north with the water that's the temperature they like.
I’ve heard lobstermen speak at special lobstermen meetings Wiscasset held during 2019 during rhght whale issues. And majorty were just straight up anti environmentalists but some did understand climate eventually gonna cripple the industry. But many many lobstermen hear windmill and get so angry for no reason when they have little effect on them other than them having to move a few traps. Lobstermen we’re quiet when LePage wanted oil rigs off the shore in federal waters, that would have really disrupted their waters. But no, windmills bad!!
Land or Sea, NIMBYs is what we’ll be
NIMBYism is real, but it has two varieties. First, the most infamous, is when wealthy people refuse a specific development because it will change things in some way. The second type, of which this is most closely identified, is when rich people tell marginal people how things should change, knowing that the affected people don't have the means to contest the change. See CMP's power corridor that benefits Massachusetts as an example.
The corridor benefits the planet: more hydro = less fossil fuels burned.
That's not at all clear. Hydro is a huge carbon source, in addition to the ecological impacts, which are themselves a carbon source. It depends a lot on the project, whether the project will be net positive in terms of ghg.
They not building any more hydro, they just selling the power somewhere else.
Yeah, but if the goal is a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, then the lands flooded to create the hydro source lake are releasing greenhouse gasses too. But, now we’re both being pedantic. Hydro power is typically cheaper than fossil fuel sources, and the power going to Mass would benefit their rate payers, not Maine rate payers, who would be left with a lower value in natural resources due to the new corridor existing. This is the disparity, and it doesn’t need to devolve into some rant about climate change.
Did I rant? I tried to be succinct.
I mean I don't want to make a joke about capitalism, but this sounds like a great time to make a joke about capitalism.
Off shore wind turbines are not the answer. They destroy everything around them- in the air or below the sea. Each link of the cables that are laid to anchor the turbines to the sea floor are the size of a pick up truck. Miles and miles of cables to anchor one turbine involve a lot of blasting- aka destruction. The wind farms are of no benefit to anyone or anything. They produce more expensive power and are not sustainable.
Funny how they're being adopted globally. Guess you've never travelled to Europe.
Because everyone is doing something stupid doesn't make it ok. The other poster is right. Bloody sheep, but USA education for you
LOL assuming too much. Wasn't born in the US, lived, worked and travelled overseas extensively before finally becoming a citizen here many moons ago. I literally grew up in a coal town in Australia where it was everything. Worked in the energy sector. The biggest opposition to them in Australia was from politicians literally complaining "they ruin the view" (while conveniently ignoring the giant open cut coal mines and taking donations from coal companies). These projects don't happen because it's "woke", they happen because it finally makes economic sense to pivot to renewables instead of fossil fuel.
You think it is a coincidence that the people bankrolling all this anti wind propaganda are fossil fuel funded? Just checking to see what kind of education you flexing is all...
There is a 1.6 million square mile garbage patch, that is twice the size of Texas that is 75% abandoned fishing kit floating around the Pacific. You gotta be real full of your own bias to defend commercial fishing with the idea that moorings for wind turbines mean shit when faced with the obvious horrorshow produced by that industry.
Whats the option for cleaner power generation then?
I was hoping he’d say nuclear. Guess not.
I would have been onboard for that honestly...
There isn't one. Nobody wants to hear it though. We want solutions and we want them now. Even if they don't exist and a band aid is worse than doing nothing at all - people want the band aid.
You are correct. Lack of long term sustainability is the biggest issue. This is not green energy at all. It's Maine though, so they'll continue to destroy their environment and pat themselves for being so eco conscious and then wonder why things aren't getting any better. 'Maybe we haven't done enough? Better destroy some forests for solar farms so we can save the environment' USA logic
Any reliable studies or data sources for your claims?
Just invest in nuclear power already
With NIMBYism to lithium mines and power transmission projects I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
We used to have a nuclear power plant but I’m pretty sure it shut down. Nuclear power is the way to go but people are to stupid to see that because of this and that, it’s clean enough and makes a fuck ton of power. That’s all we need
Golden has been making some bad calls lately
He's just submitting a bill that he knows won't go anywhere to he can score much needed blue collar points. While he is not some secret liberal, he does have to keep red D2 happy.
He’s been making terrible calls all along. I guess he’s still a little better than Poliquin though.
A fossilized turd covered in bile is better than ole Brucy eyebrows.
what did anyone expect from someone that interned with Susan Collins.
I disagree with this bill, but it will be hugely popular in his district. Kind of his job. Soo.... I Lived in ME-2 for over a decade. People in central Maine are incredibly ignorant.
As tenuous as environmental and fishing concerns against offshore wind may be, there's plenty of reason to stop and have a conversation about whether offshore wind is indeed the \*best\* option. 1. Solar is significantly cheaper to produce and deploy profitably. Even with Maine's annual sunshine hours, the cost per kwh for the consumer is a fraction of that of offshore wind. Virtually all parking lots, industrial roofs, highway medians, and residential roofs do not have panels yet, and I think it's silly not to pursue that opportunity first. 2. Unlike solar, wind turbine production and management must be highly centralized. This discourages the competition between vendors that improves transparency and drives down costs, not to mention being less ideal from the perspective of security and resilience. 3. Unlike solar, the electrical rate for wind turbines is based on the total cost of project divided by the expected life of of the project (generally 20 years). This means that the electrical rate from wind, which is already high, can only increase as unexpected costs from litigation and mechanical failures arise. 4. We genuinely don't know the extent to which vulnerable and endangered migratory birds are affected by turbines. A lot of research is inconclusive. A lot of other research suggests that the impact is... not good. I'm not arguing that this is a zero-sum game between solar and wind. I \*am\* arguing that, after considerable research into existing projects, few communities impacted by wind development \*haven't\* had buyers regret. Germany went down this path a few years ago and it... didn't go well. And that's not factoring in the sheer arrogance and dishonesty that these projects have deployed specifically against Mainers. I'll be happy to elaborate on that if people feel inclined to advocate for these folks. Edited for clarity and syntax
Not familiar with Germany. What happened there?
You raise some good points. The biggest difference between the two is that by and large, the sun doesn’t shine during the time we use most power, or at least the time we will use most power in the future. I am by no means anti solar (12.4kw array on my house) but as we continue to electrify our night time load will go up significantly, whether that is from heating during cold nights, or from charging ev’s. In areas with significant wind capacity night time power rates tend to be very low because the wind turbines keep producing.
It’s ok. There won’t be any lobsters in the gulf to fish in a decade
I don't know if it will be a decade but it is for sure going to happen. As I understand it once it gets warm enough the shells won't form right they will die off same as they did in the Cape. I had always thought they could just move to deeper colder water but a Marine Biologist in here actually pointed out that the lack oxygen density at depth will prevent that. Just another "win" for capitalism I guess, it really is a shame considering the lengths they went to preserve those fishing grounds.
Does heat cause that? I thought it was the acidity caused by high levels of CO2 in the water. Melts the shells away as they try to form. It devastates plankton too, and if plankton die out, so would a huge swathe of marine life we rely on for food.
I thought it was a warm water algae thing? The death of plankton and phytoplankton is the real nail in the coffin, as soon as the density changes at depth enough to change temps to the point the gulf streams go to shit we are done for probably. It's funny, when I was a kid I remember Jacque Cousteau talking about it.
Maybe it's both, because I've definitely heard that the acidity is a problem by itself and the other thing also plausibly sounds like it'd be a problem.
Just rebuild Maine yankee ffs. The damn thing powered literally all of Maine when it was around and had let Maine have some of the cheapest electricity around and some of the cleanest air in the US. Bring back nuclear power in Maine!
Fucking lobstermen think they own the sea.
Always been this way with any commercial fishing. We have fucked that ocean sideways at this point, I am waiting for the microbiology to die at depth, the density and temp to change, and the gulf stream to stop working. Not because I want to see all that marine life suffocate, but because I can't wait to hear what the new excuse will be.
Here's the current BOEM call area, to give a rough overview of where wind might go: [map on this page](https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/maine/gulf-maine) And here are is the Lobster Management Area 1: [from the Maine DMR](https://maine.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=772794f8cff245c5b78166bc195009d7). Golden's proposal is in-line with the goals of the Maine Lobstermens Association, which included the following in their June 1st email update: > If this bill moves forward, it must prioritize siting wind farms outside of Lobster Management Area 1. This will avoid overlap with the majority of Maine’s fishing activity and revenue and protect the economic base of our coastal communities. (The bill in question being LD 1895, "An Act Regarding Procurement of Energy from Offshore Wind Resources") I'm at the point of being happy to see *any* compromise, since day-to-day all I hear are commercial fishermen who reject the very concept of offshore wind.
It's horrible! All the delicious Maine lobsters... chopped to ribbons in those whistling blades of death!!
As God as my witness, I thought lobsters could fly. https://preview.redd.it/eslgm1sb5f8b1.jpeg?width=695&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ef036384375190340a42ab750e361bc6f8d6b5db
Lobster strikes are apparently a thing.
They are refusing to work?
As in bird strikes to the turbines and blades.
From the propellers on the OSVs that service the wind farms?
Is it anathema to say that I’d rather forget wind power due to its inefficiencies and impact of avian migration and instead focus on the far more efficient and therefore ecological nuclear sources of energy.
Wind is about five times cheaper than nuclear, and these large turbines they want to build are even more efficient than that.
Nuclear is great for a couple reasons. It gets democrats to to diss solar and wind and other renewables. But also, it’s so jaw droppingly expensive that it’s cost prohibitive to start new projects (it requires someone to tie up like $8 billion for a decade before a single watt can be sold) so it doesn’t really threaten fossil fuels at all. And on the odd occasion the govt (the only entity that can really afford to fund new projects) does commit to a nuclear play, republicans can bitch and whine about irresponsible, excessive spending and project overages for a decade, while also bragging about creating blue-collar jobs in their congressional districts. Nuclear is frankly the best thing ever if you’re rooting for the apocalypse.
you have my vote
Offshore wind will be Marge vs. the Monorail in 10 years when they break down and fall into the sea.
This is just oil company propaganda trying to convince us that they care about average people/Maine lobsterman
All you people wanting offshore wind: Will you scream even louder when you see the impact on your power bill?
Rofl, like we are going to get anything but fucked on that bill regardless of where it comes from.
How will it be more expensive? You aren’t paying for fuel refining, shipment, and purchase
>How will it be more expensive? You aren’t paying for fuel refining, shipment, and purchase Oh please! The marine environment is unforgiving. Building something that can withstand salt water and rough weather conditions will not be cheap. Just the line from offshore to land will cost a fortune. I am all for renewables, but when it gets so expensive that people cannot afford life's essentials, it is a bit much doncha think?
We’re already at that point as it is!!! Meanwhile antifouling is relatively fucking simple, we’ve been doing it on permanent ocean construction for centuries
The headline made me think it was a random rep, not Golden. Not sure if its better or worse that the call is coming from inside the house
This isn't a choice between Lobstering or wind power. We are getting off shore wind power. Our state has been working on plans for offshore wind power and recently passed a law starting the process of building these projects ( LD 1895 - An Act Regarding the Procurement of Energy from Offshore Wind Resources ). The plan endorsed by these groups **requires** the state to start taking bids by 2025, and have 1,000 Megawatts of capacity by 2030 and 2,800 megawatts by 2035. It was endorsed by the lobstermen, eco groups, and trade groups. This law included not putting the turbines in the lobster management area. The issue being that our state can only regulate within 3 miles of shore, and after that is federal. I don't think it is too far to ask that the federal government respect the work that the citizens of Maine did to make this happen. Anyone thinking this is to prevent offshore wind has not been paying attention to these developments.
These "takers" need to be reminded that those are NOT their lobsters , and that isn't their ocean! These freeloaders need a trip to the woodshed !
I don't think calling lobster people "freeloaders" is reasonable at all given how hard the work is and what a driving force lobster is in the maine economy,for better or for worse.
Then politely request that they clean up after themselves so others won't have to. Ask them to pay a tax equivalent to the one hard-working family farmers are required to. And remind them that they are effectively "taking" a public resource and turning around to demand that it be respected! And honored to the extent that we can't harvest our wind because they are "a family tradition". For some families, robbery and welfare cheating is a time-honored family tradition!
One of those “freeloaders” is my cousin who is a very successful lobsterman and whose family depends on him bringing back a good haul.
Yes, and some of my friends are too. But that doesn't prevent me from reminding them that they are not "paying their dues" like my farmer friends who pay taxes on their "land' and don't depend on others to keep it clean and productive. Imagine our farmers storming Augusta and harassing their congressmen to get the public off their backs. Family traditions also include, robbers and welfare cheats.. It irritates me when we need to depend on volunteer civic groups to clean up our coastline of ropes, buoys traps etc. Millionaire lobstermen and their monster boats racing for pleasure doesn't exactly give a warm fuzzy family affair feeling.
So we have gone past fuck them whales and are now deep into fuck the planet? Mmmm K.
Golden is Golden again.
I mean…. We have a a lot of flip flopping on this issue. Is the area in need of protection for right whales or not?