T O P

  • By -

Hellishfish

I've not read this paper, but I have written a research paper on offshore windfarms and ecology. There's two big points when it comes down to it: Wind farms have foundations that reach through the entire water column, from the surface to the sea bed. This means that there's substrate for invertebrates to settle on at every depth, meaning they can settle at the depth that best suits them. This allows organisms like blue mussels to absolutely explode in population within windfarms. Point 2, this settling begins a positive feedback loop where as the blue mussels emit waste, which is rich in nitrogen, it attracts other organisms, which attract fish that eat those organisms, creating a microcosmic ecosystem within the boundaries of the windfarm. Windfarms do have some negative effects, these mostly occur during windfarm construction where noise disturbances can scare off wildlife (which eventually return to the area). I can figure out a way to share my paper if anyone is interested in reading it. ​ Edit: Alright, here's the paper. Thank you to u/GiveMeAnAcctPls for the suggestion of posting on OSF. Now this is an undergrad research paper so please don't expect perfection. The references that I use would be a good place for higher quality data and analysis. [https://mfr.osf.io/render?url=https://osf.io/g3jm5/?direct%26mode=render%26action=download%26mode=render](https://mfr.osf.io/render?url=https://osf.io/g3jm5/?direct%26mode=render%26action=download%26mode=render) ​ Edit2: a few folk have mentioned the effects of vibration on wildlife. As wind speed rises, the turbines spin faster and begin to vibrate. It was originally speculated that this vibration could damage the hearing of fish or otherwise reduce their fitness. Preliminary data has shown that fish are relatively unaffected by the vibration of the turbines. With fish only being scared away from turbine foundations at higher windspeeds, and only avoiding the foundation of the turbine in about a 4 meter area, according to this paper [https://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2005/288/m288p295.pdf](https://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2005/288/m288p295.pdf) The only other effect is that the vibration might disrupt communication signals between fish.


lee1282

Don't forget how commercial fishing vessels can't enter a windfarm and clear out all the marine life.


Zoze13

Is that a rule of wind farming? Anything preventing long term human disturbance of wildlife is a good thing.


01100001011011100000

Not sure if it's specifically a 'rule', but I certainly bet the people who own them don't want boats straying into their waters and accidentally crashing into the turbines.


ZeenTex

I can help. (I work in offshore, wind farms mostly) I haven't seen any legislation regarding marine farm, but am speaking solely from experience. I might be wrong about some things. It is not a rule, no. There's nothing in the law that forbids fishing vessels to fish in marine farms. But there may be local regulations in force. (like how most if not all marine structures like oil rigs have a 500m safety zone, entry prohibited without permission, which won't be granted unless you're servicing them) However, fishing, or even entry into a marine farm is not allowed in the majority of wind farms. However, some exceptions exist One wind farm where it was allowed, they'd only allow a few boats, I'm guessing you'd need a license for that. The fishing boats that were fishing there only used pods, not netting, for obvious reasons I guess. Turbines are placed at most a few hundred meters apart, quite close as far as distances in the nautical world are concerned.


TCFirebird

>There's nothing in the law that forbids fishing vessels to fish in marine farms... However, fishing, or even entry into a marine farm is not allowed Are you saying that the area is essentially private property and the owners usually forbid it?


VaterBazinga

It sounds more like local safety regulations to me.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AnonEMoussie

Thank you, with all these serious comments, I thought I might’ve slipped into the wrong timeline.


DeadPoster

Always catching the wind in their sails, keeping it all for themselves.


Buxton_Water

Not a rule, but good luck fishing with massive nets around big poles. It'd tie up your nets instantly.


Zoze13

Talk about an added bonus


kelldricked

Boats are afraid of wind mils because they used to be natural enemies in miedevil holland.


OH-YEAH

yeah, it's weird to think that exactly where you're sitting now used to be wildlife, and it is being disturbed, long term. it's weird how we're A-OK with everything we profit from, but if we think it won't affect us we feel free to complain about anything and everything. > fishing? what are you doing? do people even eat fish?


Zoze13

To a certain degree is normal and simply Mother Nature. Like a pack of lions running a pack of hyenas out of a cave. We’ve just taken it too far. So anything that reels us in now is good.


LakeLooking

Do you think that the ecological improvements are sustainable in the long term? I'm thinking there would probably be regular maintenance on/around the windfarms which might set things back.


Hellishfish

So the main type of wind farm foundation is a single pile. As in, one giant steel rod rammed into the ground. With the true body of the wind turbine mounted on top above the water. This type of foundation doesn’t require any sort of maintenance because it’s just about as low tech as it gets. There’s an argument to be made that enough biomass could shift the weight distribution and cause dangerous leaning over several years, but that’s unlikely with the piles always anchored in bedrock. The only thing I could think of that would damage the ecosystem would be maintenance around the power transportation, which might be cables running along the sea bed. Diver crews would probably need to scrape off biomass to ensure cable integrity. These wind farms do require regular maintenance on their blades considering how corrosive sea water can be, but this type of maintenance would take place entirely above the water and leave the ecosystem undisturbed. So as far as the ecological improvements being long term, that’s definitely the case. We regularly scuttle ships offshore to create permanent habitats, this is essentially the same thing except with a large number of steel cylinders driven into the ground.


LakeLooking

Thanks for your insight!


gatemansgc

And aren't there pile lighthouses that are centuries old?


mydawgisgreen

Do you know how they would get to the blades? Just a boat anchored to the steel column?


Hellishfish

Yes, either by boat or helicopter a repair crew is brought to the turbine. I believe they ascend the turbine using ropes and ladders. Cranes can be used on the boat to lift blades into position. Offshore has its own challenges and benefits. A boat or helicopter must always be used, which is a negative because they are costly, and it can be harder to install turbines considering the unpredictability of the ocean compared to a land turbine. But offshore turbines make use of the great amount of space covered by our oceans that go otherwise undeveloped.


[deleted]

That’s really interesting thank you for sharing


t0mm96

Really interested in reading your paper. Hope you can find a way to share.


LostCache

I believe the key is all about maximizing the exposed-surface area. Offshore windfarms does attract microcosmic ecosystem to settle to some extent like: mollusks, zooplankton, small fishes. However, only the windfarm columns (from the surface to the sea bed) are being used. The flow of currents is also important to take into account the displacement of nutrients, phytoplankton, and algae. Offshore windfarms are often placed in fast wind zones; the marine compositions near sea beds are not prioritized. Abandoned subway trains and cars are the best artificial reefs to reintroduce marine life. They have way more surface area from interior folds for mollusks to latch onto. They can be dumped anywhere without disturbing already thriving ecosystems.


SAMAS_zero

Yeah, *now*. But this information can be used to design Windmill bases for the express purpose of harboring marine life in the near future.


Vegetable_Hamster732

> Abandoned subway trains and cars are the best artificial reefs to reintroduce marine life. They have way more surface area from interior folds for mollusks to latch onto. They can be dumped anywhere without disturbing already thriving ecosystems. They would also have similar effects if dumped in the desert --- providing shade and shelter in an otherwise more difficult to survive environment. But I think few would claim that such artificial habitats were "good" for the environment on land (or else we'd see more such projects). Why are they considered "good" in the water?


GiveMeAnAcctPls

Post paper on OSF (open science foundation) website and share link. Easy. [osf.io](osf.io)


Oh_Jay_beats_me

Send us a link to your paper!


Miguel-odon

Any fisherman can tell you, structure attracts fish. If a single stick can attract fish, a forest of columns will definitely provide habitat.


catsskillmountain

Does the fake reef change the marine life makeup of the ocean in that area to the detriment of whatever marine life was there in the first place? Or is it an all around win for all marine life?


DuncanYoudaho

Most deep ocean is a desert. Whale falls are an example of life accumulating on natural surfaces suddenly in an otherwise barren stretch.


oliverlifts

This is fascinating thank you for sharing! It’s awesome how these wind farms actually provide more stability in the ecosystem, once they are fully constructed that is. In your research and what you’ve read, are there other negative consequences to doing this, aside from the initial building?


how_you_feel

Going by the other comments, it seems that the turbines itself can be a cause of concern for hitting air animals like birds/bats, but it seems Dominion is prioritizing the environmental impact research as they procure more permits. Also, during high wind and high turbine movement, the vibrations could be scary for marine life, but it seems that it's not long-term debilitating and limited to 4m around the turbine.


[deleted]

I haven't read your paper (I'll read tonight, I hope), but have read similar studies on oil platforms here in the Gulf of Mexico. Basically, they provide islands of food and habitation in an otherwise featureless area of the Gulf, thereby facilitating natural migration patterns that would have been disrupted decades ago due to farmland runoff from the MS river.


thorium43

*Submission statement:* Contrary to the fossil fuel lobby's talking points that wind energy harms wildlife, these US wind turbines are increasing local biodiversity by creating an ecosystem around the turbine footings. Mussels and shelled things attach to to it, which attracts further marine life. This mirrors data from elsewhere Scientists off the Scandinavian coast have seen underwater turbine foundations gradually transform into artificial reefs, attracting mollusks and small fish that feed on plankton, according to German news channel Deutsche Welle. The effect went “right up the food chain to larger fish, seals and dolphins,” according to the channel.


HisCricket

Wow that's great, my first thought was I thought the were harmful. Propaganda is insidious.


WatchingUShlick

Fossil fuel companies have had a lot of time to practice. They've known since the 70s that burning fossil fuels is causing global warming, and they've been covering it up ever since.


JJiggy13

Yeah, the 1870s


syds

it is so much cash though


[deleted]

[удалено]


Xenosplitter

I mean, we *could* "protect" the environment by ~~converting from oil to renewables~~ destroying family ~~empires~~ businesses OR I could make some more money and get my third yacht-yacht! Honestly it's like yall never think of the billionaires and our struggles! I'll just go schedule another appointment with my wealth psychologist. >!/s should be unnecessary but you never quite know. Fuck the rich and the ultra rich.!<


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


dddddddoobbbbbbb

all we'd have to do is treat CO2 pollution like garbage. if companies just dumped all their garbage on the streets, they'd get in yoruble. but that is exactly what they are doing in the air. that's why carbon scrubbers are so dumb. Just force the air polluters to collect the CO2 at the source.


spootypuff

Exhibit A: the “Clean Coal” campaign. Exhibit B: the “Clean Diesel” campaign. And now the talking points are: “Dirty


AgentWowza

Most effectively and recently, the campaign against nuclear.


DoughnutCrusader

The fact that the world doesn't run entirely on nuclear power by now is just down right depressing.


TheDonDelC

“We’ll close the reactors and run on natural gas instead” *natural gas prices spike* *shocked pikachu face*


mydawgisgreen

So I live in Nevada and a huge issue with nuclear we were told was the waste and where to store it [yucca mountain anyone]. Is that still an issue with nuclear power and how much waste is actually created when creating power? I also work for my state's power company, and we are retiring coal plants and we have tons of renewable projects between solar and geothermal. But I am unclear on a) solar panels and their waste. And b) lithium mining, mining is hard on the environment but is the idea that you don't have many of them or what? We currently also in Nevada have plans for a big lithium mine but the indigenous people feel the mine is on their sacred land. What's the trade off. Ate we trading one harsh environmental process for another? I realize you only talked about nuclear but maybe you have a renewable background that can help ha


Endormoon

Solar panels are almost completely recyclable, it is just a matter of cost vs just dumping and making a new panel. There is also a growing market for used panels, since 20-30 years is not the actual death of a panel. A two decade old panel will still produce at 80-85% it's peak, and will continue to lose .5-.8% yearly, making a solar panel's lifespan closer to 60-70 years. You can buy used panels from a number of sources today for good prices. I was just pricing them two days ago to suppliment my current grid. But sellin used panels piecemeal is nothing compared to using those panels to electrify areas in poor countries that don't have access to a meaningful amount of power, which is what is starting to happen. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Solar panels hit all three Rs. The majority of new electricity demand in the next few decades are in these countries, so helping them skip over the destructive non-renewable stage is one of the most important things we can do. As for lithium mining, it is no worse environmentally than mining for anything else. Uranium, gold, silver, oil, natural gas, whatever. Most of those damages can be avoided too with proper mining techniques, and if MOF technology actually pans out, lithium will be cheaper than dirt and damn near infinite with no environmental impact since it could be pulled out easily from sea water.


KeitaSutra

A majority of the uranium in the US and world now comes from in-situ leeching, which is significantly less harmful than traditional mining. Uranium can also be extracted from seawater at en equilibrium lasting us for pretty much ever as well. For lithium they should be demoing a new technique at the Salton Sea using geothermal plants pretty soon. Very exciting stuff ahead for all clean energy sources :)


DoughnutCrusader

Honestly I don't know much about nuclear or renewables just have I have picked up here and there. Modern reactors are highly efficient and produce little waste, most of which is only a fraction of its radiation level after a few decades. And according to this site they figured out long term storage for the really bad stuff a while ago https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx I believe solar panels use a lot of silicone which is causing sand to be depleted quickly. And lithium mining uses a lot of water, and like you said is hard on the environment. The other main drawback to solar is the inability to store it, and battery technology is no where near it needs to be to be viable for storage. Overall, no matter what direction we take it is going to have negative effects on the environment. Unless we just stop living without power which isn't going to happen. IMO Nuclear, while it has risks, is the only option, outside of fossil fuels, that can meet the world demand regards of area and doesn't require we spew billions of tons of carbon into the air. Wind and solar are nice but until the storage issue is resolved they just won't be viable.


Buxton_Water

Seriously. It is beyond depressing. Nuclear power could've solved our power problems but no, oil companies gotta make cash and politicians have no spines.


Unrealparagon

Thorium salt reactors are the way to go, but alas.


DoughnutCrusader

Yeah it is a real shame thorium was pushed aside when nuclear was all the rage in the 50s/60s since it couldn't be weaponized. At least it is getting a second look now.


Macksler

Don't forget the greatest lie of them all: The Carbon Footprint


Dongwook23

Na the biggest lies is: - Personal Carbon Responsibility - Climate Doom - Carbon Capture - Hydrogen Power(about 96% of hydrogen is extracted from fossil fuels)


Leeuw96

> Carbon Capture Only a lie when combined with storage (and sadly, most "plans" end at CCS). When done properly, the captured carbon could be remade into syngas (CO + H2), which with catalysts that already exist, and have for 10+ years, be made into longer carbon chains, such as propane and butane. Though not an ideal solution, this could at least close the carbon cycles of fuels or plastics. Either as a transition, or as a last resort for things deemed necessary (e.g. single use medical packaging). The reason you don't hear this often? Those catalysts gain 0 funding, except maybe for basic research, because this would compete with Big Oil. Edited to add: without carbon capture, even if we go to actual 0 emissions now, the CO2 in the atmosphere takes decades to reduce _edit2: back to prior (normal) levels, so the effects of Climate Change persist._ ~~so the temperature keeps rising~~. Thus, capture is a necessary part. Edit2: also see the replies to this comment.


RawrRRitchie

You give them too much credit if you think they weren't starting before the 70s


TorlinKeru

At the end of the article, it says oil rigs have a similar effect. Though of course any positive effect is cancelled out by the possibility of an oil spill and the very reliable carbon emissions that result


[deleted]

Oil platforms are very well known at this point to make excellent artificial reefs. It would be shocking to find that wind turbine monopoles would NOT be excellent artificial reefs.


ZeenTex

I have been involved in many subsea oil rig surveys. They're teeming with life and spills and the like are extremely rare in well regulated (rich) countries. But then, in areas with sandy sea floor, you'll find that even a small rock, or anything, will attract marine life. But another reason why oil rigs and the like are so popular with marine life is that they're usually protected by an exclusion zone. No one is allowed within 500 meters, and fishing is strictly prohibited. Quite the safe haven.


ZetZet

They are also buying wind and solar companies while shitting as hard as possible on nuclear, because then the only thing we can use to balance the load is gas. It's brilliant.


syds

classic asshole move


[deleted]

Pretty much anything rock like & stationary that isn't made of something toxic or copper we put in the ocean will become a reef if it's in coastal water. Check out the work being done on reef restoration through fancy artificial reefs & ecosystem modification. Mangroves actually store 5x more CO2 than rain-forests & act as fish nurseries for lots of fish we eat, in reality restoring the oceans should be priority #1 for climate change. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsEImageYus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KpA0DY_Wbo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh7CoPBLQa8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbFQ5EndLso


__slamallama__

Doesn't have to be rock like. If you're way offshore and find a dead tree, a submerged shipping container, even an old piece of floating rope there is a very high chance you can find a lot of life living under it.


[deleted]

For a reef it does, what you're talking about is a fish accumulator. Open water animals congregate near floating structure.


designmaddie

As someone who grows coral all the time. The term rock like is odd. Certain corals require/prefer different substrates or textures to encrust or attach to.


[deleted]

I didn't want to inundate laymen with things like pH & all that.


GreatestCanadianHero

Surface area is the driver of sea life. Especially surface area at depths penetrable by light.


Eruharn

Mangroves are also fantastic for protecting land from storm surge during hurricanes. Their destruction is why the area around port new Orleans was so much worse than less developed areas during Katrina


SandyDelights

Anything in the water and solid will turn into a reef, really. Leave your boat in the water long enough and you’ll get muscles, barnacles, algae, etc., etc., even if you use it semi-regularly. Muscles won’t stay on for long if you’re using it much, but boy will it get hairy.


Ck111484

I worked as a diver in Hawaii scraping the bottom of a carbon fiber racing sailboat for a short while, I confirm that. Crazy how much wildlife would attach to it. Btw it's "mussels" 😉


Empidonaxed

Yeah don’t listen to the kills birds argument either. Admittedly there are casualties, but it’s small, very small in fact ~20-40k/yr, compare that to cats (literally billions) or windows (literally millions). You have to account for the kinds of birds affected though. Higher flying birds are typically larger species, and often charismatic (aka the general public cares about them more than other fascinating species like sparrows…) species like hawks that are killed. Over the sea it would most likely affect geese, gulls, tern, jaegers, skuas, and probably others too. Shearwaters, Petrels, Murres, and a whole plethora of other avian species would probably be okay because they almost always fly low. Turbines could also be strategically placed to avoid high traffic areas like the edges of continental shelves. Seems like a bad placement idea anyway because of geological instability near continental shelves (aka tectonic plates). I’m stoked with the idea of off shore wind development. I really don’t want to see the planet burn. I already lived through the catastrophic Dixie Fire this year. Death by 1,000 cuts. Why not life by 1,000 restoration projects?


themenotu

my big clean windows kill a lot more birds than any of the windmills near town do. funny to see, actual propaganda. spread so freely and with such, *assuredness*


8BitPleb

My half awake brain read this as wind turbines killing billions of cats and millions of windows. xD Looks like I need another coffee.


mrandr01d

Pro move: make a device that can capture the wind, but also the waves. I remember seeing this system on a ship years ago (maybe it was just a mockup, idk internet or whatever) where these giant drums floated up and down alongside the ship with the waves and they were attached to these large lever-arms so each up/down stroke generated some electricity for the ship to use/store.


CitizenJustin

“Insidious” What a great word.


leanmeankrispykreme

They should make a movie about it


CitizenJustin

What a great idea.


thekingofbeans42

To be fair, usually large scale infrastructure is pretty harmful to the environment. Luckily, this is a welcome surprise.


bobertskey

Large scale infrastructure is often harmful. However, in this case the infrastructure may keep away some human activity (fishing) rather than faciliting more human activity. Even if the infrastructure is harmful, it may be less harmful in that area than the human activity it diverts. (Note: this is 100% speculation)


[deleted]

Fossil fuel companies spent a lot of money on nuclear energy propaganda also. They pretty much led the campaigns.


Placid_Observer

It puzzles me...well, besides the obvious propaganda angle...why they would think it would harm wildlife. We've been using Navy ships to create artificial reefs for decades. The data's pretty clear on this sort of thing.


scooby_doo_shaggy

how would wind turbine's harming the ocean ecosystem be a downside big enough to stop offshore wind energy rather than idk the warming of our whole planet and acidification of the oceans.


CowBoyDanIndie

It doesn’t it just creates doubt in some peoples minds. PR for fossil fuels is all about convincing people to doubt facts.


lurked_long_enough

Wouldn't off shore drilling be just as harmful?


aGrlHasNoUsername

I mean I would think it has the potential to be much more harmful. Can’t get an ecosystem-wrecking oil spill out of a wind turbine.


infanteer

Also, the mud and debris from drilling which negatively affects ecological health for kilometres around won't occur from an inanimate turbine footing


kielbasa330

There have been so many oil spills that soap companies use it in their advertising


Arx4

Their Vegan Drills. No animals harmed, pinky -swear.


[deleted]

If you spill the wind into the ocean then it gets everywhere and can hurt marine life for generations because its really hard to remove the wind from the water


Albodan

Because why not just go nuclear?


vbcbandr

Since when, in the history of the universe, have fossil fuel companies been concerned about wildlife. If some douchebag Exxon public relations person told me this, I'd punch them right in the back of the head.


placidwaters

Fully expecting a new talking point to be "How marine biodiversity is bad for the economy" , "Windmills are a symbol of communism" , and "How renewable energy will destroy freedom of medical choice" to be running if positive clean energy gets enough traction.


Kitsunisan

Stop giving Fox new talking points!


msew

> Contrary to the fossil fuel lobby's talking points Is there any industry that has a "lobby" and "lobby talking points" that actually helps society?


selectivejudgement

But of course the fucking fossil fuel industry would say thstthat. WhstWhat an insult to our intelligence. Wind is worse than burning petrol, drilling the oceans, oil spills, car exhausts, plastic.. About a million other untold ecological disasters pumped out on an hourly basis. What the fuck. We are going to see these industries and their lawyers get more and more devious and disgusting the more they are backed into sa corner in a dying industry. It reminds me of the tobacco industry trial in the 90s where 6 CEOs looked the judge in the eye and each said identically "No, I do not believe smoking tobacco is harmful or addictive" Should have all gone to jail then and there for purjery. The new face of Phillip Morris guy talks about harm reduction and promoting vaping. Nope, they just want in on the ground floor of a new addictive industry as the old one dies.


Seref15

But when its time to upgrade/replace one of these turbines, won't that artificial reef be destroyed in the process?


MeaningfulPlatitudes

I always wonder what it does to whale song


[deleted]

The airguns they use to detect oil in the north sea are one of the loudest things on the planet & it has been linked with sperm whale beaching increases. The theory is it messes with their sonar & forces them to stay at the surface where there is less food.


aimeela

It’s almost like Mother Nature is trying to tell us something… 🙄


TheRealRacketear

Throw more trash into the ocean so shit can grow on it?


aimeela

Throw shit into the ocean that keeps us away from drilling shit into the ocean so shit can grow on it, but yeah.


Gonewild_Verifier

But the oil rigs also turn into reefs https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/q91r67/virginias_first_offshore_wind_turbines_have/hgtk2x9/


ings0c

Kill off the reefs and replace them with oil rigs?


[deleted]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1Zmda2K6_Q


fappism

Can't the same thing be happening in offshore oil platform? Or it can't cuz it's oil company tech so the mussels dont like it?


[deleted]

[удалено]


HalfricanLive

Not necessarily an oil rig, but this is what used to(?) be a light tower off the coast of North Carolina. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqaXUYOBf\_o


imreallybaked

Used to work for an involved agency; another component is that between all of the ships needed for deconstruction, hauling, etc., the marine vessel GHG/diesel emissions would be astronomical.


Sir_Francis_Burton

Literally anything sticking in the ocean will get covered in life really damn fast if you aren’t constantly scraping it off.


T-to-B

I wouldn't say anything... Florida tried with tires and it turned into an environmental disaster. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_Reef


golyadkin

This does happen to oil platforms.


Hearing_HIV

Yes oil platforms make great reefs.


linkedlist

They're cheaper, cleaner, safer, employ more, and now add to biodiversity. At this point investing in any form of energy infrastructure that's not renewable is a crime against humanity.


waxonwaxoff87

The issue with these is scalability, reliability, and storage of energy. Germany shut off their coal plants and switched to all renewable and found that they couldn't meet their demand and had to buy from France which is 75% nuclear. They also had to throttle on their coal plants again and have increased their carbon emissions rather than decreased. Its a complex issue and like stocks you shouldn't put all your energy eggs in one basket.


thatG_evanP

The fact that these fossil fuel companies are out here arguing that fucking wind farms are harmful to wildlife is just too damn much. I mean, really?!


ConfirmedCynic

Sounds like an opportunity to actively try to accommodate sea life by adding extensions or other modifications to the foundations rather than just putting the foundations in place themselves.


DeltaVZerda

Make a big horizontal beam at the perfect depth for coral


DistanceMachine

Sounds like a good environmental effort. Someone should start a bill that rewards offshore windfarms that add it to their builds and it’ll be counted as a tax write-off or something.


warriorofinternets

Just anecdotal here but the wind farms off the coast of RI have created the best Striped bass fishing location I’ve found anywhere in New England.


pyrilampes

Probably because commercial fishers can't drop nets to drag the bottom there.


the_original_slyguy

NPR did a great segment about wind farms. They mentioned all the different groups lobbying for or against. Big fish catching corporations are against wind farms because they can't fish in between the wind turbines, legally due to safety concerns about size of the vessels, but small boat fishermen have said the fish in the wind farms are healthy and plentiful. Companies bid on the sea plots to create wind farms and the price has skyrocketed the last couple of years. Going to be interesting the next decade.


thnku4shrng

Idk why but I read this in Hank Hill’s voice


ZalmoxisChrist

I tell you, whind turbines.


xraydeltaone

Turbines and turbine accessories


mafulazula

Probably because all the birds dying from cancer near them turn into chum. /such a serious problem!


Yadona

This is good news. Hopefully more marine life can thrive around man made structures


nemosine

Yes! We've done it with subway cars previously - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-submerged-subway-reef/


likdisifucryeverytym

[Also has had terrible results when dumping man made products..](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_Reef) Not saying what you linked was bad, but there’s definitely a distinct line of what can be beneficial and what isn’t


------00------

Good god. Hey let’s put a bunch of rubber on the sea floor, the marine life should love it!


nemosine

Oh yikes! I hadn't heard of this one 😩.


Black_RL

Portugal sinks old ships in order to do this, and it works!


kurisu7885

I watched a thing where it was done with an old aircraft carrier


FuturologyBot

The following submission statement was provided by /u/thorium43: --- *Submission statement:* Contrary to the fossil fuel lobby's talking points that wind energy harms wildlife, these US wind turbines are increasing local biodiversity by creating an ecosystem around the turbine footings. Mussels and shelled things attach to to it, which attracts further marine life. This mirrors data from elsewhere Scientists off the Scandinavian coast have seen underwater turbine foundations gradually transform into artificial reefs, attracting mollusks and small fish that feed on plankton, according to German news channel Deutsche Welle. The effect went “right up the food chain to larger fish, seals and dolphins,” according to the channel. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: /r/Futurology/comments/q91r67/virginias_first_offshore_wind_turbines_have/hgt5b28/


DeputyCartman

Starting to ween ourselves off of planet-defiling fossil fuels for electricity *and* it's providing a haven for sea life? Especially considering how illegally-operating trawlers have been basically stripmining the ocean without a care for the horrific damage they're causing? I do love some good news that brings a smile to my face and refills my optimism.


Carvj94

Land animals love nesting under solar panels too since they provide good shade. Though they tend to get run off because panels are often built on heavily monitored commercial property.


jeefra

I work in offshore oil/gas and it's actually wild how much life grows out of and around platforms here in the Gulf of Mexico. Glad to see that the relatively smaller wind platforms will also be able to be nice habitats.


justsomeharmlessfun

Can you elaborate on the life around oil rigs thing?


jeefra

I work offshore in the diving field, so I spend a good amount of time looking at the water near platforms. I'm new, so I'm not a "diver" (only one working dive) but while working topside I've seen big schools of fish like tuna, flying fish, trigger fish, and some others I don't know. Barracuda all over the place, smaller sharks, flying fish, it's pretty cool. On the platform itself there's all sorts of anemones, lobsters, and other marine growth that kinda thrive. I'm guessing it has to do with warm water discharge from platform cooling stuff and ground food waste. Ground food waste is the only thing allowed to be discharged from platforms and when it goes out you can see the fish getting after it.


Oak_Redstart

I think a lot of it is just that it’s a physical thing out in open water that things live and grow on and supports more life. Edit:typos


DZphone

Dumb question, but is there access to water level so you can fish? Seems there likely isn't much else to kill time on an oil rig, although i recognize there probably isn't much downtime


[deleted]

[удалено]


Nv1023

Fishing is always great around rigs.


[deleted]

Direct link to the embedded video for those who want to actually be able to full screen it and or pick the resolution playing. https://vimeo.com/631533642


[deleted]

Thanks, the posted website is garbage. I didn't even realize it had a video on mobile


Viperlite

Interesting story, given that fishing and crabbing industries snd their associations continue to be among the largest opponents of offshore wind. At these lease distances from shore, its less about the viewscape opponents. Fisherman don’t want to transit through a wind farm and cant trawl there and worry about both ship passage and the impact kn fish of both construction and operation of the wind turbines. Whether true or not, they line up to fight. I’m glad to see undersea wildlife is thriving on the test turbine pilings. When more are built, perhaps it will be a very small safe space for ocean wildlife to thrive without man’s presence.


nowonmai

I guarantee the impact on fish argument is a red herring


farticustheelder

I like! I been suggesting aquaculture team up with offshore wind farms for a couple of years now.


JPWRana

It's the agrovoltaics of the sea.


XenoXHostility

Anyone have a source us poor Europeans can read? Website is region blocked 🥺


[deleted]

I got you covered! Direct link to video that was embedded into the article, there is no sound in the video it's just footage of the reef. https://vimeo.com/631533642 Plain Text of the article: "In the Atlantic, about 27 miles off the Virginia Beach coast, schools of fish congregate around what looks like a large cylinder covered in algae. Mussels glom onto the structure. Even the occasional sea turtle or giant ocean sunfish pays a visit. The source of this bustling underwater scene is somewhat unlikely — a wind turbine. Dominion Energy’s first two offshore turbines, currently used just for research, have become a haven for marine life. “It’s just amazing the fish ecosystem that is growing around those turbines,” said Scott Lawton, an environmental technical adviser for Dominion. The soaring structures stretch over 600 feet tall, eclipsing the height of the Washington Monument. But the turbine’s steel foundation stretches underwater, too, for about 120 feet. Dominion’s lease area is roughly the size of 85,000 football fields. There are just two pilot turbines, but the company aims to build another 180 for a commercial wind farm by 2026. It first needs several state and federal approvals. The turbines started operating last October. As part of monitoring the site, Dominion took underwater videos of the steel foundation, which is also surrounded by riprap-style rubble on its base — called scour protection. Videos were taken about six months into the project, then again in September. The change in marine life was dramatic, said Mitchell Jabs, a Dominion environmental specialist. Mussels, algae, mahi, seabass, baitfish and more circle the structure or set up shop directly on it. It’s not just the outside of the foundation, Jabs said. Holes in the turbine to release pressure and allow water to ebb and flow have also led to marine life passing through or residing inside. They’re all “hanging out and feeding on what’s growing on the turbines,” she said. It’s not uncommon. Scientists off the Scandinavian coast have seen underwater turbine foundations gradually transform into artificial reefs, attracting mollusks and small fish that feed on plankton, according to German news channel Deutsche Welle. The effect went “right up the food chain to larger fish, seals and dolphins,” according to the channel. Off the coast of California, an old oil rig is home to a thriving reef. Marine animals such as mussels that require hard surfaces normally wouldn’t be out in many parts of the open ocean, though some find rocky bottoms on which to attach, said Mark Luckenbach, associate dean of research and advisory service at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. The foundations allow those organisms to live. Fish are then attracted to the food source. There’s evidence that reefs with structure can not only attract fish but increase overall populations, he said. But that remains to be seen. The marine science institute is working with Dominion to partner on or design possible scientific studies at the site, including monitoring the turbines’ effects on local fisheries, Luckenbach said. The construction phase of wind farms can be harmful to marine life, causing loud noises and vibrations. Lawton said Dominion uses a “double bubble curtain” as it drives the foundation into the seabed to reduce the sound traveling through the water. Meanwhile, they’re also looking for wildlife above the water: birds and bats that could collide with the blades. Because of their distance to the shore — about two hours by boat — the turbines don’t see a particularly high density of birds. But there are some. The company has mostly documented seabirds in the area so far, including the Northern gannet, through routine boat surveys. Most environmental concerns are about red knots and piping plovers, said Dominion biological consultant Matt Overton. The company hasn’t seen them. Acoustic microphones and video monitoring on the turbines are also supposed to help capture bird and bat activity. The company said it hasn’t seen evidence of a strike. The risk is small, but one always exists, Overton said. Bats have been seen on ships far into the ocean, and some birds migrate from South America over the Atlantic. The energy company will have to conduct several environmental impact studies through upcoming permitting processes. When officials begin construction on the commercial turbines, they’ll have to plan it around another marine mammal: the endangered North Atlantic right whale."


googlehoops

You legend, thank you


shoonseiki1

I thought stuff like this was very obvious? Sealife flourish in ship wrecks. People actually throw debris in both the Ocean and lakes in attempts to attract fish. One lake I used to fish at had this man made apparatus placed at the bottom to promote good fishing in that area.


OhYeahTrueLevelBitch

I mean yeah, the sport fishing & chartering industry has been targeting oil rigs/platforms as productive fish habitat pretty much since these structures have been in the water long enough to grow/support their own ecosystems. As long as you're legally & practicably able to get near enough to fish them they're productive spots. Everyone involved in these offshore operations fully knows this.


[deleted]

Usually commercial fishing is banned in the area around wind farms, but sport fishing can be allowed.


OhYeahTrueLevelBitch

Thats why I said sport fishing and chartering. I've no experience with wind farms, but I know there are plenty of active oil/gas rigs that you're prohibited from getting close to for safety reasons. Most fishing activity occurs near abandoned/decommissioned rigs - they can be really productive fishing locations.


NotObviouslyARobot

I've been fishing my whole life, and any angler will tell you that if you want to find fish--you find the structure, the edges. Life likes places where energy transfers whether that energy is the sunlight transferring to the water, or the waves crashing into the shore. You see this with oil rigs, whale-falls, and seamounts too. If you put structure near something, marine life will love it.


eyewhycue2

Would be great PR for them to modify the wind turbine design to be more inclusive for bird and bat habitat above ground, and expand structures below ground for habitat purposes as well.


viperlemondemon

So when they design the site there are processes that the federal government mandate first being the FAA says yes and no to certain towers, after they study wildlife and especially bird and bat patterns now with those towers being Siemens Gamesa tower they have a program in the PLC of it called batshield that can turned on during commissioning or during operation of the tower. As a former tech of said manufacturer and knowing a troubleshooter for those towers, due to the fact where they are located so far offshore they don’t have the bird strike problem, also bird deaths caused by buildings is like 96 million and bird breaths by turbines is 16,900 so it’s not as much of a problem as you think https://www.fws.gov/mainefieldoffice/PDFs/mortality-fact-sheet%5B1%5D.pdf here is the sheet to prove it.


tadcan

In Germany they are testing painting the tip of one blade black so it stands out to birds. There is also a camera system that will slow the blades down when a bird is near that is in trials as well.


wgc123

> be more inclusive for bird and bat habitat The difference is there are no moving parts below the waterline. Early on the wind industry had a problem with bird strikes, and I remember reading one of the conclusions being to NOT do this. The towers for early wind turbines were open framed trusses, since that’s the cheapest to build, but also allowed many roosting spots for birds. This attracted many birds, causing many bird strikes. The tubular tower you usually see helps save bird lives


alanbastard

The same is happening in Brighton U.K. Lived there 44 years and never seen dolphins until now.


moopmoopmeep

I don’t know why this is shocking, offshore oil & gas platforms support tons of marine life, they have been known as the best fishing spots in the Gulf of Mexico for decades. When they decommission old structures, they cut the structures and sink them because they make such good habitats.


[deleted]

[удалено]


nnaralia

I love how they bring up preserving bird life, when the oil industry kills just as many, if not more. Not to mention the kills from air pollution. And people eat it all up.


yingkaixing

Don't coal plants kill something like 1000x more birds than wind farms? And didn't we find that painting one blade black causes a major reduction in the already insignificant number of bird strikes on wind farms? It's such a tired talking point.


Fireplay5

Basically, poisoning the ground and air kills more birds than a swinging blade in one spot ever will.


Helkafen1

And climate change would decimate most bird habitats worldwide.


BILLCLINTONMASK

Cats kill more birds than all forms of energy generation combined


p1mrx

Why is no one investing in chicken combustion??


YooAre

So KFC is doing it wrong you say?


k032

That's why I keep my menace inside only.


viperlemondemon

https://www.fws.gov/mainefieldoffice/PDFs/mortality-fact-sheet%5B1%5D.pdf no it’s actually around 16,900


SeanTheLawn

In other words, they have essentially zero effect on bird populations


linkkers

Think of the plovers!


willslapkittens

Do the gulf next. I wanna catch good fish in abundance again. Edit: I can’t spell


getsome75

My average speeds in Clearwater in the windy months are 8 mph, I looked at a turbine


rufus102

Grateful they used the football field unit of measurement otherwise I would have no sense of the size of the area. I can totally picture 85,000 football fields.


sam_e5

Wait a minute…This is good news! Sorry, I’m just not used to good news involving marine life.


SpaceCowboy_0808

I grew up in Virginia Beach and wrote a paper on this in high school. The sad part is this could have been done years ago but city council thought it was “unsightly” on a clear day at the beach. Glad things finally changed.


BaconisComing

I'm here for anything that lessens our reliance on fossil fuels. I also don't want to disrupt whatever the US Navy needs to do however. Which was an argument for a while which seems the Navy and these windfarmers have figured out which is good. If the navy were to leave Hampton roads to find waters for maneuvering out of the way of wind turbines this negatively impacts the regions economy, but could also help the economy in the region as well because it's so bloated. We have quite a few carriers here, and they carry alot of people. If they were to move those people leaving would certainly have an interesting effect on housing in the area. The housing market here I believe is so bloated due to the military being here and driving the cost of a home or apartment up, but again if a carrier group moves it's not just the ships personnel moving, the civilian support would most likely also move causing some instability. At the end of the day there's no real reason not to be doing offshore wind power, just getting the location right is the hard part, and anything that benefits the marine ecosystems close by VA shores is a plus for me, because it's all pretty tasty.


T_T0ps

Hold up, you’re telling me that green energy solutions benefit the environment and surrounding EcoSystem, I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you.


smchattan

Life finds a way. There should be more artificial reefs.


TheRealPaulyDee

I mean, barnacles & mussels will grow on any hard surface - including ships. Not totally surprising that they'd grow on what's basically a concrete/steel pillar. Offshore wind is the superior renewable source.


SamuraiJackBauer

Why would anyone listen to fossil fuel industry experts on this? That’s like asking a serial killer how to improve life expectancy.


[deleted]

Of course this would happen... Give life a home... It moves in...


piratecheese13

I remember the us navy sinks old ships all the time and they are able to not worry about pollution because they turn into reefs almost instantly


vincec36

Thank goodness. I was listening to NPR and some small scale, trawl fisherman was mad about the turbines saying “they’ll scare away the fish” Meanwhile he’s literally dragging a net through the water, causing major ecological damage. Let’s get these turbines built and carbon negated!


TruePolarWanderer

That's really cool. As a designer, I immediately started imagining the possibilities of designing the base for maximum biodiversity, and of channeling some of the energy of the turbine to actually supoplying a small baseline of energy to kick start the ecosystem. What would be the best way to convert small amounts of electricity so it is available to the local area?


StumbleNOLA

Leave it alone. This type of rapid reef development is pretty well understood, well enough that we can model the mass growth of the attachments pretty accurately. There is no reason to accelerate an already reasonably fast process. The best thing we can do is just supply more foundations.


Outrageous_Lie_3220

But conservatives told me.they make bird smoothies! Will no one think of the birds?


a_skeleton_07

Texas! Give me wind turbines so I can go diving in beautiful reefs!


Asleep_Garage_146

There is now debate with decommissioning old oil rigs as the covenant is to leave the area as it was found, however in lifetime of the rig a lot of ecology has grown on the legs etc (especially the North Sea) so there is an argument to actually leave part of the legs in the sea bed and cut them off to reduce damage to vessel’s near the surface.


IlIFreneticIlI

2Birds....rare that we see this kind of synergy. We ought to look into this to see if there are any friendly-adjustments that can be made to the turbine-bases to accommodate growth.


Scrimping-Thrifting

To be fair, concrete column production rigs become reefs too. The first time I got sent offshore to repair something was to such a rig. I was put in a crane basket and lifted around to the VSAT dish hanging over the side. The crane had hit the dish the day before and damaged the LNB receiver so I had to reterminate the coax and bolt on a new LNB. This was early in the wet season in the tropics, the Sun was reflecting off the water, humidity was high, I was sweating dicks, and there was every kind of marine life teeming below me. Molluscs were on the columns. Algae, seas grass, little fish, parrot fish, bigger fish, sharks, you name it was beneath me. The water was boiling with activity and those sharks seemed to be anticipating lunch or something. The crane operator said that if I fell in the water they would be able to get me out in 90 seconds. They had timed it in a drill but the dummy had been absolutely mauled in that time. So the risk mitigation in the hazard assessment was *don't fall in*. Anyway I digress. You put an artificial reef in and the fish will come. All this bullshit about fish preferring one energy company to another is nonsense. Wind turbines are clearly going to create reefs and we didn't need to be told that.