AnonymousSource: Office of Rep. Salud Carbajal
[On Thursday], Congressman Salud Carbajal applauded the announcement by the Biden-Harris Administration of the first-ever offshore wind lease sale in California’s history.
The area available for offshore wind development in Morro Bay would span 376 square miles, enough to produce 3GW of energy, which represents the largest proposed floating offshore wind project in the United States.
“After years of collaboration with our local, state, and federal partners, today’s announcement of the sale of California’s first-ever offshore wind leases proves that the Central Coast is leading the way to our clean energy future.” said Rep. Carbajal. “Offshore wind holds incredible promise as a means to tackle climate change, and will serve our environmental, clean energy, national security, and economic prosperity goals for generations to come. The proposed sale in Morro Bay will help secure the Central Coast’s dominance as a renewable energy powerhouse, which will attract new businesses and good paying, future-oriented jobs in a burgeoning sector of the economy.”
The proposed sale area has the potential to unlock over 4.5 gigawatts of offshore wind energy, power more than 1.5 million homes, and support thousands of new jobs.
[Thursday’s] announcement comes a year after Rep. Carbajal joined Administration leaders to unveil an agreement to allow offshore wind development off the coast of Morro Bay. More details of today’s announcement can be found here.
This offshore wind lease sale is the product of negotiations conducted by Rep. Carbajal’s Offshore Wind Working Group, which was created in August 2019 to coordinate between federal, state, and local partners and is composed of representatives from the offices of Rep. Carbajal and Rep. Panetta (D-Carmel Valley), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Department of Defense (DOD), Department of the Navy, and California Energy Commission (CEC).
Negotiations had previously stalled amid hesitation from the Navy, until Rep. Carbajal offered an amendment to the FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act in order to move the development forward off of Morro Bay and get negotiations back on track.
Following the amendment’s passage, Carbajal secured a written commitment from the Navy indicating a willingness to collaborate with the Working Group to identify an area for development that would meet energy production goals.
Offshore wind is one component of a multi-pronged strategy to transform the Central Coast into a renewable energy hub. The Central Coast is already home to the California Valley Solar Ranch and Morro Bay could soon host the largest battery plant in the world. With the addition of an offshore wind project, the Central Coast is positioned to lead the country in renewable energy construction and output.
Rep. Salud Carbajal represents California’s 24th congressional district, encompassing Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and part of Ventura County. He sits on the House Armed Services Committee, Agriculture Committee, and Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where he serves as the Chair of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
The Chinese love these minimal engery wind machine projects in the U.S. as they supply 90% of all the parts and components … The Chinese lobbyists (Ex Republican and Democratic Senators and Congressmen win again).
Wind turbines won’t leak millions of gallons of oil or explode. No long term contamination like a nuclear melt down. Renewables made up nearly 20 percent of utility-scale U.S. electricity generation in 2020, with the bulk coming from hydropower (7.3 percent) and wind power (8.4 percent). Solar generation (including distributed), which made up 3.3 percent of total U.S. generation in 2020, is the fastest-growing electricity source. Get used to it, no longer a need for your grandparents coal mines.
Great feedback MESARATS!! It was the ingenuity and integrity of our grandparents generation that built upon this planet- Nuclear power is by far the cleanest, cheapest, AND MOST RELIABLE energy source available! I’m pro-solar but as far as wind is concerned…. not so much!
Has any one seen the dead birds by the wind turbine in Palm Springs.
Say what generaltree?
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-wind-farms-patricia-pitsel-ph-d-
Not to mention with climate change their won’t be any wind in the channel to power the turbines.
A friend of mine used to work at the wind farm out by Tehachapi/Mojave, his job was to drive a pickup around and pick up all the dead birds. He did multiple truck loads EVERY DAY. After a month he quit, it was too sad. The birds get sucked into the blades and sliced up. In the ocean their dead bodies will pollute the sea and attract sharks. It will be a massive change to the whole ecosystem.
LUCKY 777 There won’t be any sharks or whales in the area. The underwater noise and electrical disturbance from the turbines and transmission lines will drive them away.
Hooray!
We’ll soon be rid of those ugly oil platforms and have several beautiful propellors in their stead.
California Brown Pelican Slaughter machines
Some facts, I’ve posted many times before:
“Solar: Anywhere from about 1,000 birds a year, according to BrightSource, to 28,000 birds a year, according to an expert at the Center for Biological Diversity.
Wind: Between 140,000 and 328,000 birds a year in the contiguous United States, according to a December 2013 study published in the journal Biological Conservation. Taller turbines tend to take out more birds.
Oil and Gas: An estimated 500,000 to 1 million birds a year are killed in oil fields, the Bureau of Land Management said in a December 2012 memo.
Coal: Huge numbers of birds, roughly 7.9 million, may be killed by coal, according to analysis by Benjamin K. Sovacool, director of the Danish Center for Energy Technologies. His estimate, however, included everything from mining to production and climate change, which together amounted to about five birds per gigawatt-hour of energy generated by coal.
Nuclear: About 330,000 birds, by Sovacool’s calculations.
Power Lines: Between 12 and 64 million birds a year are felled by transmission lines, according to a study published July 3 in the journal PLOS ONE.” —- https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/08/22/pecking-order-energys-toll-on-birds
Who did you expect to defend the environment SACjON? Hunters and fishermen are the leaders in conservation efforts.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills
1:40 – Yes, they CAN be recycled. Many wind companies are making huge strides in that department. —– https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/11/30/fact-check-recycling-can-keep-wind-turbine-blades-out-landfills/8647981002/
Thing is, wind and solar aren’t perfect, but they ARE far better for our planet than the other sources. The technology is advancing rapidly and we’re now able to recycle blades and use devices to deter/scare off wildlife. It’s pretty amazing if you take the time to research it!
From the study itself: “Whether looking at absolute avian fatalities or fatalities per unit of energy delivered, this article has demonstrated that nuclear power and fossil fuels are hazardous to birds and that, contrariwise, wind energy is far less harmful to wildlife.” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1943815X.2012.746993
Yes, it is an older study, but consider what technological advancements have happened in this industry in the last 8 years. Some here are really grasping at straws to oppose wind and solar power and I don’t understand why. Politics have there sway (remember windmill noise “causing cancer?”), but I truly hope our leaders come to realize we need all the clean energy we can get to reduce our dependence on oil as much as possible.
Sail380…
“The leaders”.
AHAHAHAHA!!!!
This study and line of thinking is flawed and not an apples to apples comparison. Only birds striking wind turbines are used to estimate wind avian fatalities yet they include the mining of uranium for nuclear and …. climate change! for oil/nat gas amoung others (let’s set aside the near impossibility of accurately avian deaths from climate change). How about the drilling/mining/manufacturing of the raw fiberglass materials, the carbon emissions of the furnaces need to heat the materials to high temperatures during manufacturing, the mining of the rare earth elements actually used in the turbine, the pollution from disposed blades, the petrol-based vehicles to transport and build the turbines in their final location? What about the mining and manufacturing for all the batteries that will be need make an unreliable power source (wind) reliable at the scales needed to replace fossil fuels. An intentionally skewed study/article that purports to compare avian deaths from different energy sources but falls well short of an accurate comparison.
I’m for onshore wind energy but wonder if the carbon footprint for the offshore location is worth it. It will take much more effort – AKA burning diesel from boat/helicopter trips – to install and maintain these offshore sites vs. onshore sites. Plus, it will exclude commercial fishing in these locations.
CAN and ARE = two very different things. We CAN do just about anything we really wanted to, that doesn’t mean we do. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/11/30/fact-check-recycling-can-keep-wind-turbine-blades-out-landfills/8647981002/
Didn’t take long to lure you out (no pun intended) did it?
It’s hilarious that someone who thinks the covid vaccine is the same as the viral treatments like Paxlovid also considers themselves an expert on everything. Yeah, oil is WAY better for animals than wind. No one really cares man. No one is listening and I will not engage. Have fun!
SBZZ – Good points. The initial construction will be just like any other large scale energy project development. I will say though, I agree and prefer the onshore wind farms as well. Disrupting commercial fishing is a concern. The benefit though is the unobstructed wind patterns that exist offshore. Whether it’s more or less beneficial than onshore will be seen.
But, progress must continue if we are ever to reduce our dependence on oil. We need more sources of energy, all of them will damage the environment to some extent, but we can’t wait for 100% perfectly “Green” (ie, zero footprint) sources. To sit and drill for more oil saying no, no, windmills used to kill a lot of birds or this or that, is irresponsible. The time to start change is NOW.
The truth is, at this point we need to be utilizing (and tapping into) as many sources of energy as possible. The future (presumably) is with green energy…so we need to maximize that…so sure, wind! But we can’t cut off fossil fuels at this point…it’s truly not an either/or situation…
I don’t think it’s funny at all. But you did provide yet another example where, being unable to address the content of the comment, instead choose deflect, distract and make things up. Here’s a little taste of your own medicine: Liar! where did I say oil is better for animals the wind! (FYI, nuclear is still the best option).
Look it up Alex
The real conservationist will be waiting for your apology
The view is really boring from moonstone beach up in Cambria, nothing but a vast empty ocean. A cluster of 600 foot tall swirling white towers will be a great addition. The best part is, they will be lit up at night. It’s so dark and empty after dark up there, now there will finally be something to look at. When they wear out or become obsolete in 10-20 years they can be dismantled and dropped into the ocean to form artificial reefs where they sit. It will be a marine sanctuary one day too.
CHIP – every. single. thing. you wrote is flat out, verifiably WRONG. Here we go….
1) The view is great.
2) They’re not 600 ft, they’re half that and the closest will be over 25 miles away from the beach.
3) They have lights, yes, but not that you’ll be able to see from 25-50 miles from some of the least populated areas of the CA coast.
4) The decommissioned turbines will not be simply dropped into the ocean. Where did you even read that? Even if they did, what’s wrong with artificial reefs? Plenty of commercial fishing over such reefs.
5) There are no plans to turn your fabricated reef theory into a “sanctuary.”
Just stop with the blatant misinformation. It helps no one.
For those truly concerned about the view, take a look at page 15 of this presentation: https://www.morrobayca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9133/MorroBayOffshore_151013_CityConcil?bidId=
That’s from the shore near a wind farm in Oregon that is only FIFTEEN miles off shore, not 25-50 as Morro Bay will be.
MEBK – has anyone seen the millions of dead birds and other wildlife at the oil sites and nuclear plants?
Here they come…… all the conservatives who all of a sudden are “environmentalists.” Cute.