U.S. Department of Interior Jump Starts Vineyard Wind, Approving Final EIS
The department announced that a long-awaited environmental analysis of the plan to build the first commercial-scale offshore wind farm 12 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard is complete.
In a major boost for Vineyard Wind, the U.S. Department of Interior announced Monday that a long-awaited environmental analysis of the plan to build the first commercial-scale offshore wind farm 12 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard is complete.
The announcement signals a sea change in the outlook for the emerging offshore wind industry under the Biden administration, and it puts the $2 billion Vineyard Wind I project solidly back on track to be first in the race to harness hundreds of square miles of ocean for the development of renewable energy.
Map shows leasing areas for offshore wind.
Map shows leasing areas for offshore wind.
“The United States is poised to become a global clean energy leader,” said Laura Daniel Davis, principal deputy assistant secretary for land and minerals management, in a press release Monday.
Completed by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the final environmental impact statement is due to be published in the Federal Register later this week, the announcement said.
Vineyard Wind I is a joint wind energy venture between Copenhagen Infrastructure Projects and Avangrid Renewables. The $2.8 billion plan to build a 108-turbine, 800-megawatt wind farm in federal waters south of the Vineyard has been working its way through the dense federal permitting process for the past three years.
The process had seen repeated delays and slowdowns. Late last year with the finish line in sight, project developers temporarily pulled the plan from the federal review process, deciding to wait until the Biden administration took office.
The project was quickly jump started again last month.
The final EIS still needs a signoff by the Army Corps of Engineers and National Marine Fisheries Service.
The four-volume document is available for viewing online.
“Offshore energy development provides an opportunity for us to work with tribal nations, communities, and other ocean users to ensure all decisions are transparent and utilize the best available science,” said BOEM director Amanda Lefton in the Monday press release. “We appreciate everyone’s participation in the process and look forward to continuing to work with stakeholders on the future analysis of offshore wind projects.”
In a statement, Rep. Bill Keating also hailed the news.
“The release of this environmental review not only represents a leap forward for the Vineyard Wind project itself, but also a clear message for the stakeholders who have invested so much to make sure that the offshore wind industry has the educated workforce and facilities required to thrive in Massachusetts here,” he said.
Comments
Great news! We need this!!
Joe OBGreat news! We need this!!
If we are going to erect
Lorraine EdgartownIf we are going to erect edifices in the ocean, let us do geothermal. The wind stops, the tide never, so far. I have been to Scotland and seen the work they are doing. I have seen windfarms around the world and geothermal is better. I have relatives with geothermal heating/cooling systems and they are fabulous. Why scar the landscape with those giant (going to be problems) windmills? My opinion, probably not popular, but mine own.
I have a wind mill very
Peter NY EdgartownI have a wind mill very pleased with the results... this is 2021 not 1970...
Cars, trucks and buses soon will all be electric By 2030 that’s not far away
I see no scars. I see
T Bone Oak BluffsI see no scars. I see renewable energy. Why can't we have solar, wind, AND geothermal?
All the nay sayers... this is
Fiona OBAll the nay sayers... this is a great project!
Wind is better. It does not
Mike SomewhereWind is better. It does not bring warm water to the surface and then dump it back into the ground the way geothermal does - raising the earths crust temp - hello global warming contributor. Look at heat maps where geothermal is prevalent, much more surface heat than comparable areas where geothermal is not used.
I agree Geothermal is the way
Marine Engineer Woods HoleI agree Geothermal is the way to go. Much less impact all around. I have been around the world a few times and have seen both.
Having worked on geothermal
Marine Scientist BarnstableHaving worked on geothermal projects around the world I can assure you the maintenance costs on a geothermal plant are astronomical. The sea is not forgiving on underwater assets.
Great news! We need this.
Carol formerly ChilmarkGreat news! We need this. And before the flood of comments here claiming that this will hurt sea life: all sea life is in much more dire and comprehensive danger from ocean acidification (climate change - oceans are absorbing more CO2 & becoming acidic) and warming, including the Greenland ice sheet melt that is slowing the Gulf Stream (see link below). As for the real reason so many fought this: yes you may see a small portion of these in your views. Gee - how tragic.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/02/climate/atlantic-ocean-c…
Let's compare what we pay now
islanddogsLet's compare what we pay now to what we will be paying once these awful looking windmills are up.
We will get the shaft I'm sure when this is all said and done and we won't see ANY REDUCTION in our electric bills. Their excuses will probably be, costs overrun blah blah blah.
I have zero faith in these windmills and in my opinion, they won't be anything but a problem for years to come.
You are certainly entitled to
Robert Skydell Granada, NicaraguaYou are certainly entitled to your view on wind turbines but you might consider other factors as well such as reduced dependence on fossil fuels, clean energy, zero contribution to acid rain and heavy metals in the ocean fish, less smog...etc. Your electric bill ignores all of those things which do have an environmental cost. As far as the aesthetics are concerned, just put down your binoculars and don't try to find them lurking beyond the horizon.
Sadly, we'll have a wind farm
Mrs. T Bone Oak BluffsSadly, we'll have a wind farm offshore before our island high school kids get playing fields. Whether the wind farms are popular or not, at least decisions are being made. The fields? Hopefully in my lifetime.
And no opposition to the pfas
Really?!? TisburyAnd no opposition to the pfas plastic coated cable. Why applaud this known toxic agent for wind energy and bash the fields. Because one makes you feel good? Or it is a reasoned trade off. I just don’t understand.
Great! We're way behind a lot
ZephyrGreat! We're way behind a lot of the world on offshore wind. Martha's Vineyard and Massachusetts will become important business centers in making this happen, meaning clean, green jobs too.
One step closer to hire
Bob EdgartownOne step closer to hire electric bills and just hope it’s worth it. We are all being used as guinea pigs and only time will really tell the true story about whether this experiment was worth it or not.
The rest of the world has
Corn Fused Vineyard HavenThe rest of the world has been enjoying cheap power from windfarms for years. Many nay-sayers simply refuse to educate themselves.
This has to be the largest
Don Edgar Oak BluffsThis has to be the largest environmental and economical disaster designed by man in a long time for the waters off Martha's Vineyard. I can't think of anything as bad!
How long until this
Mark EdgartownHow long until this enterprise goes bankrupt and we are left with rusting monoliths off our coastline.
Sad.....why aren’t we worried
Marie EdgartownSad.....why aren’t we worried about our sewerage and the run off and preserving our waters and fish life?? This all makes no sense to me. If Europe and the world is ahead of us why are we sending them all our millions?????? Just a few questions to ponder.....Let’s start looking around our beautiful island with eyes wide open.......Stop the madness.
I support this project...more
Pablo OBI support this project...more the better...I am tired of the expensive electric costs..
Stupidity and high costs in
Charlie Callahan So Boston/EdgartownStupidity and high costs in the future with these things. Natural gas ,solar,and nukes are the way to go.There is almost no pollution from any of them and they have been proven.
Charlie, perhaps you are old
Robert Skydell Granada, NicaraguaCharlie, perhaps you are old enough to remember that at the onset of the nuclear energy age it was touted as being so cheap to produce that it wouldn't even require electric meters. So how did that work out in the decades that followed? Nuke plants are extremely expensive to build, maintain and decommission. Not to mention that they still have no significant plan to deal with radioactive waste products that stay toxic for tens of thousands of years. Wind power is both proven technology and produces no pollution.
Nukes is the way to go?? No
Mary ChilmarkNukes is the way to go?? No way!!
NO to Nuclear power Guess
gina Menemsha/NYCNO to Nuclear power Guess you forgot the Fukushima Japan tragic event .. The technology isn't available to clean up any radiation spill. It's forever.. NO NUKES !!
Typical Vineyard. I read an
James Oak BluffsTypical Vineyard. I read an article and comments about how great this wind farm is going to be and then a day later read an article about a right whale and her baby calf swimming through the very same waters that this wind farm will occupy. Whats more important?
James, there has never been a
Robert Skydell Granada, NicaraguaJames, there has never been a single documented case of a whale swimming head first into a wind turbine monopile. Certainly there is a more significant threat to the endangered Right whale population than wind turbines.
how many offshore wind farms
James Oak Bluffshow many offshore wind farms are in whale migration paths? and I believe the number one killer of whales is ship strikes. Are these "wind turbine monopile" going to be flown in? construction phase will have how many ships?
Who pays? This is fine if
Peter New York, EdgartownWho pays? This is fine if equity funded and/or has support from the Federal or State governments but incremental energy costs should not be borne by Cape and island ratepayers.
The government is not in the
Robert Skydell Granada, NicaraguaThe government is not in the energy business. All power generation in the U.S. is private sector. The power generated by the individual suppliers is sold to the grid via an anticipated need a day ahead (or less) bidding process called a 'Dutch Auction'. The price paid per MW to the last accepted bid required to fulfill the power needs of the grid is the price paid the all of the bidders in the pool. Large producers can bid zero knowing that they will be price adjusted upwards by the last accepted bid.
2.9 billion for 800 mw just
Mark West Tisbury2.9 billion for 800 mw just isn’t a good deal. If that money was spent on solar or on shore wind you would have closer to 2500 mw and it would be done much sooner. Offshore wind is expensive and as we know big construction projects on the water always take longer and cost way more than estimated. The way to get off of fossil fuels is to get a lot of the cheapest energy and spend the big money on storage.
Add new comment