6 days ago
New York's monstrous new wind farm threatens environmental disaster
Earlier this month, the Trump administration temporarily took the wind out of New York's green energy ambitions by halting the enormous Empire Wind project off the state's coast. Doug Burgum, the Interior Secretary, directed the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to cease all construction activities on the farm, citing rushed approvals and insufficient interagency consultation under the Biden administration. He also ordered a broader review of federal wind permitting practices for both existing and pending projects.
Following blowback from New York politicians, however, the Interior Department has once again allowed the project to proceed. It was right the first time. As president Trump has observed, wind power is both ugly and noisy. These projects are also of dubious economic and environmental value, and have sparked a backlash among voters that their advocates have little answer to.
The Empire Wind project, developed by Norwegian energy giant Equinor ASA, will be the first offshore wind farm to deliver electricity directly to New York City. Granted approval in November 2023, it was the sixth such project approved by the Biden administration as part of its goal to reach 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030. With a projected capacity of 810 megawatts and a gross book value of $2.5 billion, construction began last month with rock installations around the turbine bases.
Some local residents have always opposed the Empire Wind project. Bonnie Brady, executive director of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, condemned it as 'the industrialisation of our ocean, rubber-stamped by federal agencies and delivered by a foreign-owned corporation under the guise of climate action'.
She warned that the project involves dumping 3.2 billion pounds of rock into the ocean and pile-driving 180-foot monopoles into the seafloor – activities that she said could destroy marine habitats and threaten the fishing industry. Endangered species like the North Atlantic right whale could also be harmed, she added.
Opposition to Empire Wind is not an isolated case. In Massachusetts, the Vineyard Wind 1 project – a 62-turbine wind energy plant off Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard – recently survived a Supreme Court challenge. Approved in 2021, it was the first large-scale offshore wind project in the US and is expected to deliver 800 megawatts of capacity. Construction began in 2022 with cable installation and continued in 2023 with turbine installation. It is on track to be completed this year but has faced a substantial backlash.
The Nantucket-based ACK for Whales group has criticised the 'environmental damage caused by offshore wind projects like Vineyard Wind'. It added: 'for way too long the 'all of government approach' advancing offshore wind has been reckless'.
Meanwhile, in Rhode Island, the Revolution Wind project is also facing hostility. The nonprofit Green Oceans has formally requested that the Environmental Protection Agency revoke the project's permits, citing a failure to consider emissions from potential blade failures. Despite this, construction continues.
The SouthCoast Wind project, approved only recently, is one of the largest of them all. Spanning 127,388 acres and potentially costing $5 billion, it is claimed that it could produce up to 2.4 gigawatts of energy for Rhode Island and Massachusetts.
Yet the environmental costs could be significant. The National Marine Fisheries Service has authorised the 'take' of marine mammals due to pile driving, unexploded ordnance detonation, and high-resolution geophysical surveys. The noise from pile-driving can exceed 225 underwater decibels – comparable to standing next to a Boeing 747 engine underwater – posing serious risks to marine life.
The SouthCoast Wind Project's record of decision includes pages of comments from individuals citing safety risks, aesthetic concerns, and threats to whale populations. These voices are often drowned out by the political momentum behind green energy, but they deserve to be heard.
Radar interference is another concern. According to a Government Accountability Office report, wind turbines could reduce radar performance. Offshore wind plants may also obstruct military exercises and vessel movement. The full extent of these effects remains unknown, but experts warn that turbine position, height, and spacing could have significant consequences.
The UK is also seeing blowback on wind. Earlier this month, the Danish company Orsted pulled out of building Hornsea 4, a large wind farm off the coast of Yorkshire, due higher interest rates and increased supply chain costs.
This should be a moment of reflection. Both the UK and Europe have embraced wind power as a pillar of their net-zero strategies, but opposition is beginning to surface. A similar phenomenon is happening in the United States, after the Biden administration's precipitous decision-making.
States which require use of renewable energy tend to have higher prices than states that use fossil fuels and nuclear power. Offshore wind is noisy, and ugly, and it becomes less desirable when approached with transparency, scientific rigour, and respect for the ecosystems it affects.
Rushing through approvals without rigorous oversight is not climate leadership – it's recklessness. Green energy must meet the same standards we demand of any major infrastructure project.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth is the director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment at The Heritage Foundation
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
