Talk:List of offshore wind farms in the United States

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of offshore wind farms in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110304042728/http://www1.eere.energy.gov:80/windandhydro/pdfs/national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf to http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of offshore wind farms in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120612164556/http://www.marinecadastre.gov/MMC%20Pages/wind.aspx to http://www.marinecadastre.gov/MMC%20Pages/wind.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100905183253/http://www.capewind.org:80/FAQ-Category6-Offshore+Wind-Parent0-myfaq-yes.htm to http://www.capewind.org/FAQ-Category6-Offshore+Wind-Parent0-myfaq-yes.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101018142351/http://www.nae.usace.army.mil:80/projects/ma/ccwf/deis.htm to http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/projects/ma/ccwf/deis.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Changes for consideration:

• The "Under Construction" section should be eliminated until instances exist. After completion of the five turbine Block Island Wind farm, there are no wind projects actually under construction *offshore* in US waters. Listing *onshore* turbine installation as somehow part of an offshore project is misleading.
• Under "Operational", the VolturnUS reference should be eliminated or moved to an experimental or under-investigation section. VolturnUS is i) a single turbine, not a wind "farm", ii) 1:8 scale, and iii) is not actually offshore, meaning in the Atlantic, but in the river/bay system of Maine near Castine, involving a quite different set of mechanical loads. Experimental marine turbine projects have been under investigation for decades, not only in the US but also in Europe.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.186.139 (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC) 

Partially corrected. Installation usually means putting in place permanently. Turbines installed onshore are thus onshore not offshore, but turbines assembled onshore are sometimes counted as "in construction" due to complexity (casting of concrete foundations etc.). This is particularly the case for the Hywind 2, which is being assembled (turbines + float structure) onshore in Norway before being towed to Scotland. The main construction happens onshore, with minor work offshore. It is not meaningful to limit construction to offshore work; ships are counted as "in construction" when the keel is laid at the shipyard.

Previously, there were references saying "no current construction" - please supply some again. TGCP (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Split article

This article has grown about large enough to be split, into List of offshore wind farms in the United States and Offshore wind power in the United States. Not sure where to put the Projects list. TGCP (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. 121a0012 (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Added map

This article is hard to understand without any visual references, so I added a map showing the current Massachusetts/Rhode Island projects (of which one is operational, two are under construction, one is in permitting, and three more are in design and exploration phases. I also added some references that make it clearer why this location was the first to be commercially developed at large scale. I did not go into detail about why this location is favorable from a grid injection standpoint (that would take an essay, and more digging up of references than I care to do tonight), but the ultimate explanation is that the retirement of Pilgrim and Brayton Point power stations have left the SEMA/RI region import-constrained, but have also left the region with significant export capacity. (The two New York-focused projects in this area will deliver power to Long Island, which is also import-constrained.) The recent ISO New England study of grid needs to support the renewable energy transition found that existing transmission infrastructure in southern New England can support injection of up to 8 GW, although the high end of that range may require uneconomically long transmission lines; additional offshore or onshore wind development is a matter for further study. 121a0012 (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Cleaning up the tables

I'd like to propose removing some of the duplicative or uninformative columns from the tables. The regulatory authority is the same for all of the projects (it's BOEM) and shouldn't be confused with the state energy regulator or the state agency responsible for managing PPA solicitations. The long-winded descriptions of the locations were written by the proponents to market them to state energy regulators, and thus describe projects in the same location as being X many nautical miles offshore Y state for different X and Y. The coordinates and BOEM lease number should be sufficient and would reduce the amount of scrolling required to read the table. 121a0012 (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with removing the location descriptions column. The coordinates column already conveys location - perhaps more BOEM images (similar to the MA/RI lease area image in the article) for other areas too, would give a visual reference if desired. JasmineSambac (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

A verbal description gives a reader a clear, identifiable sense of location. BOEM lease numbers do not and references to link to BOEM maps are not provided in most cases. Most entries lack coordinates, so until such time as table is complete any removal discussion should be postponed if that is offered as a reason to remove descriptions.Djflem (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)