The Environmental Impact of ESG Development: Offshore Wind for New York & New England

By: Iain Jaeger

Apr 07, 2025

The Push for ESG Development

The United States and nations worldwide have made substantial efforts to distance their energy needs away from petroleum-based products over the past decade. Countries and companies have set net zero deadlines within the next few decades to achieve environmental sustainability goals. Heightened efforts and demand for these renewables have been expedited via the Paris Agreement, which primarily emphasized utilizing two energy sources, solar and wind. Ultimately, their goal was to achieve worldwide reductions in greenhouse emissions to prevent global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the Industrial Revolution’s average temperature (1).

Certain nations bordering the world’s vast oceans and seas have leveraged the natural stronger winds offshore to attempt to reach energy neutrality. While using wind as a renewable energy source is commendable, offshore turbines have their adverse environmental effects that must be considered.

While onshore wind turbines have environmental issues, the development of offshore turbines could prove as harmful over the long term. This article will focus on the potential negative effects of the large-scale offshore wind development between Long Island and Nantucket. The project, which aims to supply New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island with a substantial quantity of renewable energy, could adversely impact regional biodiversity and local economies.

Saltwater Erosion

Wind turbines generate energy by utilizing the angle of attack on their airfoil-like blades, resulting in a circulating motion of their rotors (2). A major issue with turbine blades is erosion, which is further exacerbated by salinity. This erosion becomes particularly prevalent in surrounding waters when considering that the primary composition of these nearly football field-long blades consists of glass-fiber composites such as glass-reinforced plastics (GRP) and carbon-fiber-reinforced plastics. These materials are coated to reduce erosion. The leading edge and blade tips are typically formed using a post-mold application that employs a polyurethane-based coating, while in-mold coatings use a blend of epoxy and polyester (3).

In a study conducted at Strathclyde, as reported by ‘The Turbine Group’, on a 120 m diameter turbine with a given weight of 700 kg, there was an annual loss of 62 kg per turbine. They also noted this measurement was done with “particle-free freshwater of 50 mm per month” rather than seawater. It was later calculated that the wear of seawater, with 3.5% salinity, would be 40% greater than that of freshwater. It should also be noted that these calculations were made with the notion that the turbines were utilized at maximum efficiency, even during rainstorms.

The process the study discovered in erosion was divided into three phases:

“Phase 1 - wear on polyurethane coatings, the Leading-edge protection (LEP), which is not as environmentally critical but it releases microplastics that contain isocyanates and other substances that are carcinogenic and allergenic. Some turbines have epoxy as (LEP) instead of polyurethane.
Phase 2 - wear on Gelcoat- which is an epoxy. This gives emissions but not major mechanical weakening on the turbine blade.
Phase 3 - wear into the glass epoxy layer under the gelcoat. This results in increasing emissions and structural problems on the turbine blades.” (4)

What is Bisphenol A?

One specific ingredient in the epoxy used in turbine blades is called Bisphenol A, or BPA. Bisphenol A is a chemical commonly found in plastic products, including packaging, plastic bottles, and various other everyday plastic items. This toxic compound is continually monitored by the Mayo Clinic and the World Health Organization for its long-term effects and makes up approximately 13-15% of the total rotor blade weight, as noted by ‘The Turbine Group’. The Mayo Clinic specifically states:

“Exposure to BPA is a concern because of the possible health effects on the brain and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children. It can also affect children's behavior. Additional research suggests a possible link between BPA and increased blood pressure, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease” (5).

Numerous studies have been performed on various populations of men, women, pubescent teens, and infants around the world in order to monitor the long-term effects of BPA. Studies of both male and female reproductive organs have shown relationships between infertility of both sexes and higher BPA counts in their urine (6).

Referring to the calculation provided earlier regarding the 120 m turbines, with 62 kg of mass loss per turbine, one can account for approximately 8 - 9.3 kg of BPA pollution every year per turbine of this size. Given the sheer scale of the planned maximum-size development of 926 turbines across all projects, with 167 m diameter Siemens Gamesa (7) and 220 m diameter Haliade-X turbines (8), BPA pollution is poised to be even higher than the study’s findings.

Fisheries & Fishing Economies Surrounding Long Island and Nantucket

New England is renowned for its exceptional fisheries and migratory species. This biodiverse environment not only offers weekend fishermen rewarding experiences but also supports the local fishing ports of Point Judith, Stonington, Montauk, and New Bedford. Since 2001, New Bedford has been the most valuable fishing port in the United States. This is largely due to its proximity to several fishing grounds located between the port and Georges Bank, which lies east of Cape Cod and Nantucket. New Bedford’s port represents 2% of Massachusetts’ GDP, amounting to $9.8 billion. Furthermore, a 2019 report indicates that the port supports employment for 39,697 individuals within the seafood and fishing industry. All of this can be attributed to the millions of pounds of fish that enter and exit the port daily, which are shipped across the globe.

A map of a map

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A map coverage showing where bottom fishing activities, such as dredging, bottom fishing, pots and traps are utilized relative to undersea cables and turbine maps. Green indicates less commercial fishing efforts, while red and pink indicate areas with more fishing effort. The blue lines show undersea cable connections between turbines and shore, and the highlighted areas show some of the planned projects coverage (12).

The map above illustrates the undersea cable connections relative to dredging, bottom fishing, pots, and trap styles of fishing for a variety of seafood and bait. These proposed cable connections between the turbines and shoreline would travel through highly concentrated commercially fished areas. A type of fishing specifically affected would be dredging, which requires significant contact with the seafloor to catch various species. By displacing sea grounds and laying cables through these areas, the construction process for these farms will directly impact this type of fishing.

In the Summer of 2024, these waters were significantly impacted by a turbine blade implosion in the Vineyard 1 development. This resulted in a substantial debris field affecting the beaches of Nantucket and the surrounding waters. The cleanup of this disaster took months and there is bound to be remaining fragments plaguing the surrounding water where these fisheries are (13). This disaster has already affected seafood supply with microplastics getting consumed and carried up the food chain, ending with human or other predatorial consumption.

Impact of Turbine Substructures

To provide further insight into the effects of underwater construction for supporting wind turbines, it is critical to discuss the impact of man-made underwater structures on biodiversity.

“The term ‘man-made structures’ (MMS) is commonly used to refer to any artificial structure in the coastal and marine environment, encompassing jetties, breakwaters, shipwrecks, aquaculture facilities, oil and gas infrastructure, pipelines, wind turbines and artificial reefs amongst others” (14).

Turbines consist of a structure that stretches from a foundation on the seafloor to a platform where they are placed above the surface. Whenever a foreign body, such as these bases, is put into a new environment, the environment will begin to adapt to it. Over time, the environment will return to suitability for wildlife which may encourage invasive species and predatory wildlife to become a part of the new ecosystem produced by the installation of these man-made structures.

“One study in Holland found that over three years, nine new invasive species could be found in an offshore wind farm including far-from-home Pacific oysters. Not all invasive species have the ability to cause major disruption but some can form new predators, tuck into local prey and spread additional diseases which massively impact native sea creatures.” (15)

This presents yet another environmental issue. These developments are occurring in one of the most critical fishing supplies for the Atlantic Ocean, near the migration patterns of several species and regional fishery stocks. If these invasive species were to carry diseases not native to the environment, there would be a lesser supply of clean seafood to markets from these ports.

While there is an argument for man-made underwater developments, such as artificial reefs, a main issue of these artificial reefs is the increase in population of predators affecting the natural food chain of these environments, resulting in effects to migratory patterns.

“Some species seek out wind turbine foundations for resting areas or enhanced feeding opportunities. For migratory species, there is concern that introduction of foundations in the otherwise featureless offshore environment could alter species’ migration patterns by attracting them to linger at wind farm sites. This attraction effect is expected to be similar across foundation types.” (16)

This report further discussed the sheer scope of these wind farm projects, and due to the time it takes to build these massive farms, it can have serious effects on the spawning and migratory periods of these species. The massive foreign structures change the natural movement of resources present in the region. Looking above the waterline, bird strikes on the blades leave carcasses surrounding the structures, which will only further exacerbate predator species in these habitats (17).

Why this matters before construction

There are several turbines already in place and an army of vessels staging the next several waves of development. The once decommissioned nuclear power plant in Somerset Massachusetts stands as one of the staging grounds for developing these massive wind farms. The Executive Order of 20-01 in Rhode Island aims for 100% renewable energy by 2030 (18), the 2022 Climate Act of Massachusetts sets net zero plans by 2050 (19), and the Scoping Plan for New York State calls for zero-emission electricity by 2040 (20). All is commendable, but charging into these plans will only result in a tradeoff of potential environmental nightmares. A zero-emission system isn’t possible with the utilization of wind turbines, as proven by numerous studies highlighting the erosion of turbine blades and their effects on ecosystems.

A number of wind farms are all seeking final approvals, with development dates set for 2026. This gives developers, politicians, and the public the opportunity to learn about the hazards of these turbines before they are built. If the developments were to be completed, there is potential for financial losses from maintenance and the risk of removing these structures. These developments could be required to be torn down similar to that of dams in California to restore migration patterns and regional biodiversity (21). The push for cutting Greenhouse gases is completely merited, but to launch the world toward an alternative energy solution without weighing its costs is what developers must avoid, and instead search for alternative solutions that yield strong returns with minimal environmental effects.

References:

More about the Author: Iain Jaeger

NYU Schack's Blueprint

Discussion about this post