In no small part because of the extreme difficulty in building large projects in the US. NEPA is, in the US context, one of the single largest impediments to combating climate change at this point.

https://www.construction-physics.com/p/how-nepa-works

https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-did-we-wait-so-lo...

If you want to follow the details of offshore wind projects, you can consult the the map published by 4C offshore [0] which is used as a reference by everyone in the industry.

[0]: https://map.4coffshore.com/offshorewind/

> For now, the US has just two small wind farms off the coasts of Rhode Island and Virginia.

That is astonishingly disappointing. Why is that?

China and Europe have both more than 25 GW offshore windpower installed.

Emergy-demand reduction potential in the US is huge but untapped.

One reason is that on-shore wind in the US is really good. The Great Plains are so windy and big that it's not really clear the added expense of marine turbines gets us much. Texas already has wind capacity factors of 40%, similar to many offshore projects.

Let’s say I have ten units of wind coming onshore. What would that change to if they built a wind farm right offshore?

So, as with the danger of oil spills, will we now have the danger of electric spills.

so now we are going to kill off the sea birds...

> To meet that demand and hit its climate goals, the report says the US has to add 27 gigawatts of offshore wind and 85 GW of land-based wind and solar each year between 2035 and 2050. That timeline might still seem far away, but it’s a big escalation of the Biden administration’s current goal of deploying 30 GW of offshore wind by 2030.

Isn’t this sentence backwards?