Will The OBBB Put An End To Heavily Subsidized Wind And Solar Generation Projects?

July 12, 2025/ Francis Menton @ Manhattan Contrarian

What does the future hold as to large additions to heavily subsidized wind and solar electricity generation capacity in the U.S.? For those paying attention, the legislative back-and-forth of the One Big Beautiful Bill, as it made its way through Congress, has been something of a roller coaster ride. At this point, I am betting that the utility-scale wind and solar industries are near the end of their line. This post reports on the latest development, which is an Executive Order signed by President Trump on July 7. But count on the wind and solar subsidy farmers to keep fighting to the last dollar of their government handouts.

Note that it is my view, from extensive study of the subject, that wind and solar generators of electricity are essentially useless, not to mention dangerous and costly, for a modern grid that needs reliable generation 24/7/365. Nobody will invest private capital in them without huge government subsidies. To date those subsidies have been provided mostly in the form of tax credits under the Internal Revenue Code. Those tax credits have existed since 1978 (and since 1992 for an additional tax credit for wind generation), always with expiration dates that, however, have time and again been extended as the deadlines neared.

I have had two previous posts about provisions in the OBBB on this subject: this one from May 24 (immediately after the House had passed its version of the Bill), and this one from July 6 (after the President had just signed the final Bill into law). As I reported in the May 24 post, the version of the OBBB passed by the House had such strict limitations on further qualification for the wind and solar tax credits that it was likely that few if any additional projects would be able to qualify. Projects would have had only 60 days after enactment to begin construction, and would have had to enter service by 2027 — that is, before President Trump would leave office. That would mean that any attempt to revive the subsidies before they expired would have to overcome Trump’s veto. In other words, if the language in that version of the Bill had survived, the wind and solar industries were basically finished.

But as I then reported in the July 6 post, the final language of the OBBB as enacted appeared to give the big wind and big solar industries the chance to fight another day. The time to commence construction and qualify for the tax credits had been extended to a year (thus, to July 4, 2026), and the time to enter service had been extended to four years after that (thus, in 2030, which would be well beyond President Trump’s term). Big wind and solar would thus get a substantial window to commence new projects, plus an opportunity to lobby Congress for further extension of the credits in 2029 and 2030, after Trump had left office. The post quoted energy writer Alex Epstein as pointing out that the IRS rules on what constitutes beginning of construction were so lenient and flexible as to pose no real constraint on how many economically useless projects could qualify for a decade of taxpayer subsidies.

In an update to the July 6 post, I cited David Blackmon at the Daily Caller as attributing the tax credit deadline extensions in the final OBBB to a deal negotiated by Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. This piece from Politico says that other Republican Senators, including Grassley and Ernst of Iowa and Curtis of Utah, were also involved in the deal.

Well, it turns out that people in the White House were on to the scam and have taken steps to try to ensure that the extended deadlines in the final OBBB do not turn into an open ended taxpayer blank check for the wind and solar industries.

Note that the potential for new deadlines in the OBBB to turn into such a massive blank check turns on how easy it is for large numbers of projects to qualify as having “begun construction” within the year ending July 4, 2026. The test for what constitutes “beginning of construction” appears in some IRS regulations adopted under the Internal Revenue Code sections providing for the tax credits; and during the Covid pandemic era, the IRS issued a notice of a “safe harbor” to qualify. Here is the IRS Notice from 2021 containing the relevant language. As Epstein notes, the test for “beginning construction” under the so-called safe harbor is “insanely-easy-to-meet. . . . All you need to do is commit 5% of expected project cost to buying re-sellable assets like solar panels.”

This is the specific loophole addressed by President Trump’s July 7 Executive Order. Here is the text of Section 3(a) of that Order:

Within 45 days following enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall take all action as the Secretary of the Treasury deems necessary and appropriate to strictly enforce the termination of the clean electricity production and investment tax credits under sections 45Y and 48E of the Internal Revenue Code for wind and solar facilities.  This includes issuing new and revised guidance as the Secretary of the Treasury deems appropriate and consistent with applicable law to ensure that policies concerning the “beginning of construction” are not circumvented, including by preventing the artificial acceleration or manipulation of eligibility and by restricting the use of broad safe harbors unless a substantial portion of a subject facility has been built.

So the test for “beginning construction” will likely turn out to be not so easy to meet at all. The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to issue “new and revised guidance” within 45 days from July 4, which would be August 18. We won’t know exactly how strict and onerous the new guidance is until it is issued, but we do know that Trump has directed that the purpose of the new guidance will be to assure that the new deadline as to “beginning of construction” is not “circumvented.”

According to Utility Dive here on July 9, the language of the Executive Order is the result of a deal reached between Trump and the House Freedom Caucus to secure their votes for passage of the OBBB. It seems that both sides can play this game.

I would think it is well within the power of Treasury Secretary Bessent to come up with guidance on the meaning of “beginning of construction” that will strongly discourage almost all efforts to try to qualify for the extended tax credits.

Amicus Brief Filed In Glen Oaks Village Owners v. City Of New York

February 23, 2025/ Francis Menton @ Manhattan Contrarian

 

Back at the beginning of the year, I had a post titled “New York On The March To Climate Utopia.” The post took note that everything about New York State’s vision for a zero-emissions economy and for “climate leadership” was in the process of falling apart. Its contracts for vast off-shore wind farms to replace fossil fuel generation had either been completely canceled (the majority) or rebid at much higher and uneconomic prices (the minority). Its two contracted facilities to produce “green” hydrogen to back up the intermittent wind and solar had run into financial difficulties and were likely to fail. Its one big contracted high-capacity transmission line to bring the imaginary upstate wind and solar electricity to downstate markets had also been canceled, without stated reason but almost certainly because of unworkable economics.

 

I illustrated the piece with this picture of Wile E. Coyote in the role of New York State, having run off the cliff and about to fall to the bottom of the canyon:

 In the few short weeks since that post, you would think that it would be almost impossible for the situation of New York’s utopian climate plans to have gotten any worse. But in fact the situation has gotten worse — much, much worse.

On January 20, President Trump was inaugurated, and he immediately went to work dismantling federal support and subsidies for “green” energy. By this January 20 Executive Order, Trump “temporarily” withdrew all of the Outer Continental Shelf from leasing for wind power projects. That appears to nix most, although perhaps not all, of New York’s offshore wind plans. (Although the pause in leasing is said to be “temporary,” there is no commitment that the leasing will ever resume.).

Also on January 20, Trump signed another Executive Order titled “Unleashing American Energy.” That one, in Section 7, ordered an immediate halt to all disbursements of subsidies to “green” energy projects under the Inflation Reduction Act or Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act:

All agencies shall immediately pause the disbursement of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Public Law 117-169) or the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-58), . . . and shall review their processes, policies, and programs for issuing grants, loans, contracts, or any other financial disbursements of such appropriated funds for consistency with the law and the policy outlined in section 2 of this order.

It is highly likely that New York was relying on receiving many billions of dollars under these Acts to prop up its wind, solar, transmission and green hydrogen schemes. Again, the pause from this EO is only “temporary,” but in all likelihood these funds will never come back during the Trump presidency, and probably ever.

Meanwhile, New York State’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019 (Climate Act) remains on the books. That statute commands the complete restructuring of New York’s energy economy to reach “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, with a most immediate first deadline of 70% of electricity generation from “renewables” by 2030. They never had a credible plan to achieve that, but they pretended they were going to do most of it with the big offshore wind buildout. Now that that is dead, they don’t even have a fake plan.

And also meanwhile, New York City’s statute known as Local Law 97 also remains on the books. That’s the statute that mandates that all residential buildings in excess of 25,000 square feet convert to electric heat by 2030 — the same year that the State’s Climate Act mandates 70% of electricity generation from “renewables,” of which the large majority can only come from non-existent wind and solar. Thus we have the City mandating a huge increase in electricity demand by 2030 at the same time that the State is mandating dismantling our existing reliable electricity generation with no credible plan to replace it.

Back in 2022, a group of co-op owners and boards in Queens brought a case in the New York State courts seeking to get the City’s Local Law 97 declared invalid as “pre-empted” by the State’s Climate Act. The case goes by the name Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc. v. City of New York. Since it started, the case has been tied up in motions and appeals. Initially, the trial court (in New York we call that the Supreme Court) dismissed the case, finding no pre-emption. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed and ordered the trial court to consider whether there was pre-emption. Rather than going back to the trial court, the City decided to try to appeal to the Court of Appeals, our highest court, to get the dismissal re-instated. The case has just concluded briefing in that court.

On Friday, my co-counsel Cam Macdonald and I filed an amicus brief in this case on behalf of a group of parties including some co-op owners and a not-for-profit called New Yorkers for Affordable Reliable Energy. The amicus brief argues that the Climate Act and Local Law 97 are in irreconcilable conflict because the State via the Climate Act has no plan or ability to provide the electricity that would be needed to enable compliance with the City’s Local Law 97. Here is a quote from our Summary of Argument:

The irreconcilability [of the two laws] arises from the simultaneous mandates in Local Law 97 and the Climate Act. First, Local Law 97 mandates that large residential buildings in New York City convert to electric heat by 2030. Meanwhile, the Climate Act requires 70 percent of the state’s electricity come from “renewables,” also by 2030.

The latter mandate requires replacing always-available fossil fuel electrical generation capacity with intermittent wind and solar electricity generation, Wind and solar cannot provide continuous electricity supply. Intermittency threatens buildings that have converted to electric heat with losing heat for extended periods in the dead of winter.

The Climate Act, and a “Scoping Plan” developed under it, contain no credible plan to provide the additional reliable electricity needed to heat all large New York City buildings, as Local Law 97 mandates.

I don’t yet have a link for this amicus brief, but I will plan to update this post when a link becomes available.

The Court of Appeals has a chance here to save New York City and its residents from their own folly. It may or may not take advantage of the opportunity. If it takes a pass, and reinstates the dismissal of the case, Local Law 97 will still fail within a few years at most. It’s just that, in that scenario, a lot of people stand to get hurt.

Providing Trump Facts he Needs on Wind and Solar

By Craig Rucker, President @ CFACT

 

 The Trump Administration is hard at work returning sound energy policy to America.  

• CFACT has been researching and educating policymakers and the public on climate and energy issues for decades.  
• CFACT scholars are providing Administration officials with the hard facts and policy heft they need to turn our energy economy around.

Doug Burgum is America's new Secretary of the Interior.  Take a look at our coalition letter to Secretary Burgum.

President Trump's executive order on wind turbines was a major leap forward, however as always, the devil is in the details.  The EO may leave room for wind profiteers such as Virginia's Dominion Energy to slip more monstrous turbines through the legal cracks and onto our coast. 

"It is with a sense of real urgency we are writing to you today."  We wrote, "we much appreciate President Trump's Emergency Order for temporary withdrawal of all areas on the outer continental shelf from offshore wind leasing. We count twenty-two projects that have been paused. However, eleven projects have already received approvals with four of those under construction. Leasing and permitting will be reviewed for these approved projects but may take time... We recommend the Interior Department work with NMFS to immediately revoke the Letters of Authorization and order an immediate cession of construction until a review is complete."

Similarly, the Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management {BOEM) is in danger of mindlessly stumbling on with some of Biden's most ridiculous wind energy policies like a zombie that doesn't know it's dead.

Big wind corporations are trying to erect floating wind turbines off California's beautiful coast.  CFACT readers and supporters know that we have been relentlessly pointing out the flaws and dangers of this floating folly for years.

We lay out to a detailed list of reasons why California's "programmatic environmental impact statement" on California floating wind "is woefully inadequate. In fact it specifically avoids those issues that justify cancelling the Program." We decisively conclude that, "the full Offshore Wind Program needs to be assessed for the entire West Coast before any project is approved for construction. This required assessment is missing in action. Based on this assessment the cumulative impacts then have to be minimized. Capping the authorized harassment of each threatened species may be the best way to avoid destructive."

In recent years CFACT senior advisor David Wojick has been perhaps America's number one star on offshore wind turbine analysis.  David Wojick digs deep into the scientific facts and arcane policy documents the government has relied on and spotlights their flaws as does no one else.

David's most recent post at CFACT.org lays out a simple, extremely daring approach to protect America from the dangers both wind and solar pose for our environment and electric grids.  David proposes that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) make full use of its unique authority and prevent future hookups of intermittent / unreliable energy sources such as wind and solar.

Places such as Europe and Australia have wasted vast sums on wind and solar and have nothing positive to show for it.  They have transformed places of natural beauty into sterile wind and solar deserts while radically raising the costs of energy for business and homeowners.  They have destabilized their electric grids while doing nothing meaningful to alter the temperature of the Earth.

America has been provided with voluminous examples of what not to do on energy.

CFACT will continue to provide the Trump Administration with the facts it needs to avoid the energy mistakes so many others have made.

For nature and people too.

The True Cost of Wind Energy

Wind energy is one of our MOST EXPENSIVE options!  

By John Droz, Jr., Dec 09, 2024 @ Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues

Periodically I get asked: what is the TRUE cost of industrial wind energy?

It seems like that should be a relatively straightforward answer, but it is anything but.

To appreciate what is going on, we need to understand the Big Picture regarding wind energy. (FYI, the same applies to solar.) The system is setup to grease the skids for wind energy developers — not ratepayers. When it comes to wind energy, we are dealing with 21st century snake oil salespeople. They have a sophisticated multi-part strategy to profit at the public’s expense…

Their FIRST major strategy is to sell politicians on the bogus concept that our electrical Grid should be inclusive — i.e., include ALL electrical energy sources (whether they are good or bad. An all of the above policy makes no technical or economic or environmental sense. (For a discussion of this, see here.) My alternative motto is that our electrical grid should include all of the sensible.

Their SECOND major strategy is to sell politicians on the false belief that we need enormous amounts of industrial wind energy to “save the planet from pending climate catastrophe.” Ignoring the accuracy of the Climate Change fear-mongering aspect, the reality is that there has never been a genuine scientific study that has concluded that wind energy saves a consequential amount of CO2! In fact, there have been multiple scientific studies that have concluded that wind energy can make Climate Change WORSE! (See here for some examples.)

Their THIRD major strategy is to sell politicians and the public on the illusion that industrial wind energy is inexpensive — so we should do it anyway (irrespective of points #1 and #2 above). So what is the true cost of industrial wind energy?

Why this is not a simple question to answer is because wind promoters are VERY well aware that industrial wind energy is MUCH more expensive than our other conventional sources of electricity (fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro). So to get politicians and the public onboard, they have gone to EXTREME lengths to obfuscate wind energy’s REAL cost.

Here are ten sample examples of wind energy costs that are NOT acknowledged by wind promoters, so are NOT factored into any of their “cost of wind energy” claims: 

1- Production Tax Credit (PTC) -

How much is this? This objective report says: “While the original justification for the PTC was to boost a nascent industry, the PTC continues to subsidize a mature industry to the expected tune of nearly $24 billion from 2016-2020 according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. And that estimate will almost certainly be too low…”

2- Other Federal Handouts -

A good example is the $100 million for wind energy in the 2022 “Infrastructure” bill. As it spells out in a separate legislative document, this taxpayer money is for such nonsense as “To support the integration of wind energy technologies with the electric grid and other energy technologies and systems” and “To support the domestic wind industry, workforce, and supply chain.” Billions of federal dollars are hidden in wind related costs (e.g., see here).

3- Transmission Cost -

A Nuclear power facility (for example), will have: a) one transmission line, and b) the distance will be relatively short, as it will almost always be located fairly near a population center. On the other hand, a very rough equivalent of wind energy will have: a) many transmission lines, and b) will be located a considerable distance from population centers. The transmission cost difference is substantial — but none of it is attributed to the root cause: industrial wind energy.

 4- Auxiliary Power Cost -

The Electric Grid needs to have Supply and Demand balanced in a fraction of a second. Since wind energy is 100% unpredictable — and frequently goes to zero — 100% auxiliary power is necessary. For a variety of technical and economic reasons, the most appropriate auxiliary source is almost always gas. However, as with the preceding items, the cost and operation of whatever auxiliary source is used, is almost never attributed to the reason for it: wind energy.

5 - Dutch Auction Cost -

This is a bit complicated, but once you understand it you will almost certainly say: this makes no sense whatsoever! That’s because it doesn’t.

A quickie summary is: let’s say that a Grid estimates that it needs 900 MWH next Tuesday. Five sources each bid to supply 200 MWH of it: Wind @ 1¢/KWH; Coal @ 2¢/KWH; Hydro @ 3¢/KWH; Nuclear @ 4¢/KWH; and Gas @ 6¢/KWH. The Grid takes the price of the highest accepted source (Gas), and then PAYS ALL THE SUPPLIERS THAT PRICE! Here is a good pictorial example of what happens.

What that means is that (in this case) wind gets 6¢/KWH (along with everyone else). But the wind people advertise that they are low cost (1¢/KWH) even though they got paid 6¢/KWH — and even though they knew that 1¢/KWH would never be the price they were paid (based on how the auction works). Dishonest.

6 - No Penalty for Noncompliance - 

Let’s say that Nuclear is unable to supply all their 200 MWH of electricity next Tuesday, as they had committed to (in #5). In this case the Grid manager heavily fines Nuclear, because the Grid manager now has to buy electricity on the spot market, which is quite expensive — so the fine is fair to ratepayers.

Let’s say that Wind is unable to supply all their 200 MWH of electricity next Tuesday, as they had committed to (also in #5). In this case the Grid manager does NOT fine wind, even though the Grid manager now has to buy electricity on the spot market, which is quite expensive. This is an ENORMOUS concession to wind developers, which is NOT fair to ratepayers. Further (like everything above), this extra Grid expense is NOT attributed to Wind — even though they caused it!

7 - Payments for Non-Usage - 

As if these Grid breaks aren’t enough, when the wind developers see the handouts that they are readily given, this green lights them to ask for more! Contrary to our traditional electricity sources, wind energy is not predictable — which is the excuse used for paying for underperformance of a bid. But, stunningly, in most cases wind energy also gets paid for over-performance as well! In other words, if they produce 100MWH that is not needed, in many cases they get paid to dump that! Of course, those payments are not attributable to wind energy’s cost.

8 - Direct Host Community Costs - 

There are numerous environmental costs to wind host communities — e.g., health costs to nearby residents (e.g., from infrasound), reduction of the values of nearby homes, etc., etc. There are multiple other costs that are spelled out here. No surprise, but none of these substantial costs are attributed to wind energy.

9 - Indirect Host Community Costs - 

There are several of these costs, like farmers reducing or stopping their crop production (after they sign a lease to host turbines). This means that they: lay off help, do not buy seed, fertilizer and equipment, do not provide food to the community, etc… Adverse military consequences (e.g., interfering with radar, etc.)… Trees are taken down (which are CO2 absorbers). Etc. None of these are factored into wind energy’s cost.

10 - The High Cost of the Wind Supply Chain - 

Some major turbine components are extraordinarily problematic from several perspectives. Rare Earth materials are a fine example. (Note: some 2 to 4 thousand pounds of Rare Earths are in every turbine!) The environmental and health cost of Rare Earths is staggering — but much of that is happening in China. Even though wind promoters say that climate impacts anywhere in the world are important to address, none of them are publicly objecting to this wind energy cost.

The Bottom Line

This is a somewhat complicated, technical subject, so the above is a layperson’s summary. The takeaway is that — despite what the lobbyists are pitching to the non-critically thinking public — the real cost of wind energy is 2-3 times the cost of nuclear and other conventional sources of electricity. Solar is higher than that!

---

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?

Leave a comment

Share

Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about once a week).   

Recommend Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues to your readers

Looming ‘clean’ energy disasters off our coasts

One broken wind turbine blade shut down Massachusetts beaches. What would hurricanes do?

Paul Driessen

Photos of oil-covered seals and birds from California’s 1969 Santa Barbara blowout helped launch the environmental and stop-oil movements. Some 90,000 barrels polluted ocean waters and yet, when I was scuba diving beneath it two decades later, the same production platform support structure once again hosted a magnificent ecosystem with millions of anemones, mussels, starfish, crabs and fish.

The 2010 Deepwater Horizon drillship disaster killed eleven workers and blasted 3-4 million barrels of oil and enormous amounts of natural gas into the Gulf of Mexico. Yet within a surprisingly short time after the runaway well was capped, wave action, oil-dispersant chemicals, dust-covered oil droplets slowly sinking to the seafloor, and other natural forces had cleansed the waters of oil.

Those other forces were hydrocarbon-degrading microbes that are always present in ocean waters worldwide – but rapidly reproduce when they sense oil in their environs. After depleting the hydrocarbon food sources, the microbes die off to normal numbers, and new organisms degrade the byproducts the initial foragers created, until those nutrients are also gone. Then their populations also plummet, in a newly clean ocean.

The disasters spurred industry to implement better blowout prevention technologies and procedures.

Irrelevant, anti-oil activists say, they also emphasize why we must banish oil and gas – and replace fossil fuels with clean, green wind, solar and battery power. Otherwise, wildlife, beaches and tourism will be threatened repeatedly by oil spills.

It’s becoming increasingly obvious that these supposed alternatives won’t work – especially as AI, EVs, data centers, government-mandated electric heating and cooking, and charging grid-backup batteries, double or triple electricity generation demands. Intermittent electricity cannot power modern nations. Wind and solar cannot produce thousands of essential products that require petrochemical feed stocks. These energy sources are not clean, green, renewable or sustainable. They endanger wildlife.

A recent mishap off the Nantucket, Massachusetts coast underscores yet another reason why hundreds or thousands of monstrous wind turbines cannot be permitted in America’s coastal waters.

Shards, chunks and finally the rest of a turbine blade fell into the ocean. One blade ... from a 62-turbine project that’s only three-fourths completed ... broken by its own weight, not by a storm.

And yet beaches had to be closed amid peak tourist season, while crews picked up pieces of fiberglass-resin-plastic-foam blades, and boats dodged big pieces floating in the water. Worse, Vineyard Wind didn’t tell Nantucket officials about the problems until two days after the blade began disintegrating.

Each blade is 350 feet long and 140,000 pounds. That’s more than a fully occupied Boeing 737 jetliner. Vineyard Wind involves 186 blades: 65,000 feet (12 miles) in total combined length, weighing in at a combined 26,000,000 pounds!

The Biden-Harris offshore wind plan calls for 30,000 megawatts of generating capacity by 2030. That’s 2,500 gigantic 12-MW offshore turbines. That won’t even meet New York State’s current peak summer electricity needs, before all these extra demands kick in. Offshore wind’s contribution toward meeting future demands for all Atlantic Coast states could easily require 5,000 such turbines: 15,000 blades, weighing a combined 2 billion pounds and spanning a combined 5,250,000 feet (995 miles)!

Even more disturbing, the entire Atlantic coastline is hurricane country. Every year, almost without fail. The only questions are how many hurricanes, how powerful, and where each one will hit.

NOAA records for landfalling hurricanes – those that actually hit US beaches and cities – reveal that 105 Category 1-5 hurricanes struck the Atlantic seaboard, from Florida to Maine, from 1851 through 2023. Add in those that remained at sea, where the turbines will be, and that number could double.

Of that total, 23 were Category 3-5 (111-157 or higher mph winds). Most struck Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. But 39 made landfall between North Carolina and Delaware – and 19 hit Northeastern States, including nine Category 2-3 monsters (96-129 mph winds).

Mind you – these turbines will be weakened by constant corrosive salt spray and frequently by sub-hurricane storms. When the inevitable big hurricane roars up the coast, devastation will follow.

Kamala Harris is bullish about offshore wind. For the last 3-1/2 years she’s helped run an administration that’s determined to convert the USA to wind, solar and battery power, expedite permits for onshore and offshore “clean energy” projects, and even waive requirements that offshore wind developers post bonds and pay for removing damaged, broken and obsolete offshore wind towers.

She supports banning plastic straws but has never asked how many plastic straws it would take to equal 15,000 offshore wind turbine blades. (Using nautical terms, an unfathomable number.) Moreover, plastic straws don’t contain dangerously sharp fiberglass shards, and can’t sink fishing boats that collide with enormous but hard-to-see slabs of turbine blades.

Ms. Harris, Tim Walz and other wind zealots ignore worries about hurricanes wiping out forests of offshore wind turbines as anti-wind fearmongering. History says otherwise.

The 1935 Labor Day Hurricane clobbered Florida with 200+ mph devastation, Georgia with Category 1 winds. The Great New England Hurricane of 1938 smashed into New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts with 115-120 mph force. 1944’s Great Atlantic Hurricane – punished the coast from North Carolina to New Jersey and Massachusetts with Category 2 winds.

Edna hit the Northeast with Category 2 winds in 1954, Donna did it again in 1960, and Gloria clobbered the region with 96-115 mph blasts in 1985, even reaching New Hampshire and Maine! Isabel hit North Carolina and Virginia in 2003. The “minor” Category 1 hurricane of 2012, better known as Superstorm Sandy, was also devastating.

This summary includes just some that hit North and Mid-Atlantic States, and a few that slammed Florida, Georgia and South Carolina – all prime territory for forests of offshore turbines, fixed to the seafloor or insanely sitting atop enormous floating platforms off Maine and other states. They’d all flounder.

Replacing hundreds or thousands pf torn, damaged and smashed turbines and blades would take years, perhaps decades. Meanwhile, there would be no electricity in a Harris-Biden-Walz-Democrat government-mandated all-electric Eastern Seaboard. The absence of heating, air conditioning and power for homes, hospitals and everything else would displace millions and kill thousands.

Hopefully, politicians and bureaucrats could expedite new gas turbine and modular nuclear power plants. That would mean only a few years of deprivation and blackouts, instead of many years, perhaps decades.

Otherwise, floating slabs of broken turbine blades would endanger boats for months or years, until they are retrieved, hauled ashore and landfilled. Cleaning up billions of sharp shards of fiberglass – each an inch to a couple feet in length, and nearly invisible – would likely take decades, during which time they would impale and imperil beach walkers, swimmers, fish, whales, dolphins and other marine life.

I’m not a microbiologist, but I’m not aware of any microbes that devour fiberglass, resin or plastic foam.

With no bonds or requirements that Big Wind cover cleanup and turbine removal costs, electricity-bereft taxpayers and ratepayers would be left holding the bag.

Before we rush any further into this “renewable energy transformation,” can we first have some realistic, commonsense analysis? Can we at least think before casting our ballots this fall?

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues. 

Private Property Rights

A common issue when wind or solar projects are being proposed

John Droz jr. May 30, 2024 @ Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues

At public hearings about industrial wind and solar projects, the issue of private property rights frequently comes up. Almost always it is a claim that a potential leaseholder has the right to lease his property to a wind or solar developer.

Like many aspects of these contentious matters, this is a decoy: intentionally inserted by the wind or solar advocates to confuse things. (Remember that creating confusion is a major strategy used by those who want to control us: see here.)

Put another way, private property rights claims are a purposeful distraction from the real subject at hand: the net consequences to the community from the proposed wind or solar project.

We live in a democratic country with a long history of protecting private property rights, so very few of us are against them. But what are “Private Property Rights”?

In short, they are the property owner’s right to do what they are legally allowed to do with their property — as long as their actions have no material adverse impact on their neighbors, or the rest of the community.

A parallel concept is that you have a right to extend your fist — yet that right ends at the beginning of another person’s nose. In other words, your “right” ends when it infringes on another person’s rights.

This is also the principle behind zoning, which is in effect in many parts of the country. Without zoning, an adult club could operate next to a school, or a gas station could be built in a residential neighborhood. Zoning protects the rights of property owners while also protecting the general welfare of the community.

Further, if the focus is on “rights” what about the fundamental rights that nearby homeowners have regarding wind or solar projects? Who is protecting those? Should a leaseholder who wants to make a quick buck really have the right to undermine their neighbors’ peaceful use and enjoyment of their homes?

So how does this all apply to a person who wants to get paid for industrial wind turbines (or industrial solar panels) being on their property?

The leaseholder’s private property rights are important and should be carefully considered. However, as stated above, their rights have limits. For example, in most cases they do not have an entitled right to be a knowing causal agent:

1. - of adverse health effects to their neighbors,
2. - of devaluing proximate homes,
3. - of crop yield reductions to nearby farms,
4. - of causing pollution and other interference with aquifers,
5. - of harm to wildlife and livestock of the community,
6. - of degrading the ecosystem in the area,
7. - of impacting hunting in approximate lands,
8. - of reducing tourism to the area,
9. - of interfering with regional weather and navigation radar, or
10. - of raising electricity rates in the region.

Turbine or solar leaseholders are likely unaware of the magnitude and severity of these issues, because they certainly wouldn’t have been told about them by the wind or solar developer, or by our local legislators, or by state agencies.

However, there are studies that document every one of these ten problems. Further, they were done by independent experts — people who have no dog in the fight.

Now it’s likely that landowners (and their developer partner) will arbitrarily deny that these consequences can happen. If they are so sure, then the solution is easy: for them to provide a written, legal, financially-backed guarantee against all of these matters.

Ideally, this would be incorporated into a well-written wind ordinance (like this) that protects the rights of those who are not in this for personal financial gain.

For example, a wind or solar ordinance should include a Property Value Guarantee to protect the most valuable asset of citizens near these projects: their homes.

It is a statutory obligation that local legislators protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens in their community, so they usually have the authority to pass such a guarantee. If it turns out that the wind developer’s claims are accurate (that there is no devaluation), the cost to them will be trivial. So it’s fair to all.

Without proper wind and solar ordinances what we have is a situation where the profits are privatized (e.g., to select landowners and the developer), but the costs are borne by the community.

That is not fair or reasonable from any perspective.

PS — Often when wind or solar promoters lose the private property rights fight, they then try to play their trump card: the proposed development is really all about saving the planet! Not surprisingly that assertion is bogus as well (e.g., see here or here).

---

Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?

Leave a comment

Share

Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about once a week).

Pledge your support for Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues

Wind Turbine Related Radiation

Wind Energy is NOT Free, Clean, or Green  

John Droz jr. May 08, 2024 @ Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues 

This is the last in a recent series I’ve posted about radiation and some of our energy sources. It started with a commentary arguing that there are good reasons to categorize Nuclear power as a “renewable” source of electrical energy. Next was Nuclear Power Radiation — Part 1 (which outlined radiation from normal nuclear power operations, waste, and misc). Then there was Nuclear Power Radiation — Part 2 which briefly covered the rest of the well-known nuclear radiation possibilities…

Here I will give a quickie overview of a radiation source that most people have never heard about. Lobbyists and other politically correct parties paint industrial wind energy as “free, clean, and green.” Although none of that is true, this deceptiveness is dismissed as marketing puffery. With no consequences for lying, is it any wonder that we are drowning in dishonesty?

A major eye-opener is that wind turbine manufacture results in horrific environmental degradation (also see here and here). A lot of this happens in China so it is conveniently out of sight. But wait, the same organizations who are promoting wind energy also strongly push the one-world (“we’re all in this together”) ideology — so they should be very concerned about what happens in China too, right?

Let’s look at one particular matter: Rare Earth Elements (REEs). In addition to significant air and water pollution, the processing of REEs (30+ steps) results in a large amount of radioactive waste. Yes, you read that correctly.

How much radioactive waste per turbine? My understanding is the following:

Fact 1: Each wind turbine is reported to have several thousands of pounds of REEs (i.e., typically 2000± pounds per MW — and today’s turbines are 4+MW).

Fact 2: A US Army analyst reports (reference page 16) that for every ton of REE, there can be about a ton of radioactive waste!

Once we have absorbed the significance of these numbers, an interesting question arises: how does the quantity of radioactive waste produced by a 1 GW nuclear facility compare to the quantity of radioactive waste produced by the manufacture of wind turbines that would result in an equivalent amount of annual electricity? Let’s look at it by weight.

The key wind energy assumptions are:

a) An optimistic capacity factor of 33% is assumed.

b) There are 2000± pounds of REEs per face value wind turbine MW.

c) Every ton of REE results in about a ton of radioactive waste.

d) Since some of the reported waste includes water, we’ll generously assume that about 50%± of the weight is due to H2O.

So, the radioactive waste for a 3 GW wind facility:

3000 MW x 2000 REE/MW x 1 Waste/REE x .5 =

3,000,000± pounds of radioactive waste

How does this compare to a nuclear facility? There are two methods for processing nuclear fuel (typically uranium). In the US, the fuel is used once (i.e., is a single pass). In the rest of the world, the fuel is used a second time, which substantially reduces the amount of resulting waste.

The key nuclear assumptions are:

a) A 1 GW Nuclear facility has 27± tonnes/year (about 60,000 pounds/year) of used uranium.

b) If reprocessed, only 3% of this is radioactive waste (60,000 x 3% = 1,800). [See this for a good explanation of radioactive waste, and for items a & b.]

c) Twenty years of nuclear power generation is used as that is a very generous expected life of a wind turbine.

d) The reactor is a Light Water Reactor (LWR) [i.e., a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), or a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR)].

The single-pass radioactive waste figures for a 1 GW nuclear facility:

—>  60,000± pounds per year. Therefore the twenty-year total of nuclear radioactive waste would be 60,000± x 20 = 1,200,000± pounds of radioactive waste

The double-pass radioactive waste figures for a 1 GW nuclear facility:

—> 1,800± pounds per year. Therefore the twenty-year total of nuclear radioactive waste would be 1,800± x 20 = 36,000± pounds of radioactive waste

Compare these to the figure above: 3,000,000± pounds of radioactive waste for an equivalent amount of electricity produced by wind energy, over twenty years.

The amazing conclusion is that over the lifetime of a wind project (20 years), wind energy produces more radioactive waste per MWH than a nuclear facility!

So we’ve lifted another wind energy rock, and have found a very disturbing industry secret. The few others who have looked into this have labeled it as the 800-pound Gorilla In The Room. Another good piece is from IER: Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste.

One more peek under another rock… It's bad enough to largely rely on Communist China for unneeded materials, but it's even worse when this investigation concluded that the Chinese rare earth industry is "dominated by criminal gangs." In other words, much of every dollar spent on rare earths for wind turbines goes into things like fentanyl production — which is then sent to the US to kill its citizens...

So… the next time that a wind marketer feeds you the “wind is green” sales pitch, say Not so fast!

---

Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2023 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?

Share

Leave a comment

Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about once a week).

CFACT blasts offshore wind multiple-site assessment as ridiculous

By David Wojick March 6th, 2024  @ CFACT 45 Comments

CFACT has long called for an environmental assessment of the combined impact of the clusters of huge offshore wind facilities being pushed by the Feds. Each facility is being separately assessed even when they share a boundary.

In many cases, it is clear that the adverse impacts will overlap and compound the harm to marine life. An obvious example is the incredibly loud and potentially harmful noise of pile driving. This noise carries over fifty miles, so if two sites are pile driving within a few miles of each other, the noise has to be much worse when the impacts combine.

The Federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is supposed to do environmental assessment of offshore wind (even though their mandate is to get it built). They finally produced a combined assessment for six facilities off of New York and New Jersey. It is grandly called a Programmatic Environmental Impact Assessment (PEIS) of the New York Bight.

CFACT’s official comments on this assessment are pretty clear: it is junk. Here are some telling excerpts:

“Most of the 800 or so pages are nothing more than an academic discussion of the general environment, the sorts of impacts that might or might not occur, and what might or might not be done about them. There is basically nothing about this specific combination of projects.”

“In short, the academic acoustic case considered in the PEIS tells us absolutely nothing about the potentially huge noise impact of the six projects supposedly being assessed. There is literally no environmental impact assessment here. This vacuum seems to hold for pretty much the entire PEIS, with no real assessment of the six projects. There is certainly nothing of substance on noise.”

“As environmental impact statements go, this one is ridiculous.”

A number of important adverse impacts are not even considered, especially the lifetime operational impacts that go on for decades.

First, there is the combined operational noise of these six big facilities, some of which are actually contiguous. In addition to the endless turbine noise, there is the noise from the fleet of boats servicing these turbines.

Then there is the massive plume of reduced energy air created by the energy-sucking turbines. There is a large scientific literature on the potentially damaging effects of this plume on ocean life, especially reduced productivity in the food chain.

There is also the threat of a deleterious plume of suspended sediments created by air and water turbulence at each turbine tower. This smothering plume also reduces productivity.

I discuss these so-called wake effects in this article.

So the PEIS only looks at construction and basically tells us nothing about the adverse impacts of that. Ridiculous is right.

Note that NOAA shares the blame for this travesty of assessment. They are the experts on the adverse impact of noise on the marine life that they are supposed to protect. For example, the combined adverse effects of all these wind facilities the Feds are rushing into being could exterminate the North Atlantic Right Whale and other endangered critters.

Make no mistake, there is here a clear violation of the National Environmental Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and no doubt other laws. Something must be done.

Read CFACT’s official submission here

New Data Points In New York's Unfolding Energy Implosion

March 05, 2024/ Francis Menton @ Manhattan Contrarian

The energy implosion set in motion by New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019 (Climate Act) continues to unfold slowly. This week we have gotten a few more new data points. If you can read between the lines of wild spinning by the Governor and her team of bureaucrats, you will find that the scope of offshore wind projects moving forward with accepted bids has decreased by about two-thirds, while the price has just jumped by over 30%.

First, some background. The Climate Act sets several unachievable and impossible targets, the first of which is 70% of electricity from “renewables” by 2030. How to get there? The bureaucrats in charge of meeting the targets have no idea what they are doing, but they have established as a first goal to have some 9,000 MW of offshore wind turbines (nameplate capacity) up and running by some point in the 2030s. Does that sound like a lot? 

Current average demand in New York State is about 17,000 MW per this NYISO 2023 Report (at page 26), meaning that New York consumes about 150,000 [G]Wh of electricity in a year. (17 x 8760 (hours in a year) = 148,920). 9,000 MW of offshore wind turbines operating at a 30% annual capacity factor will generate 23,652 [G]Wh in a year (9 x 8760 x 0.3 = 23,652). That’s less than a sixth of current consumption. And did I mention that they are also planning to increase demand by 50% or more by forcing the electrification of all automobiles and home heating and cooking? So the 9,000 MW of offshore wind turbines will provide maybe 10% of our electricity needs in the 2030s, at random and often useless times — and that’s assuming that the turbines actually get built.

Forging ahead with its nonsensical and unworkable plan, in 2018-20 New York conducted a series of solicitations for bids from offshore wind developers to put up turbines in various sites off the coast of Long Island. Those solicitations resulted in accepted bids for close to half of the 9,000 MW goal. The big projects were named Sunrise Wind, Beacon Wind, and Empire Wind 1 and 2. Here is a map of where the turbine farms are to be located:

As I reported in this post from October 5, 2023, the prices that the State agreed to pay the developers after the auction were $110.37 per MWh for Sunrise Wind, and $118.38 per MWh for Empire Wind 1.

But then in July 2023 essentially all the developers with accepted offshore wind development contracts backed out of the deals, and demanded price increases averaging about 50%. The Chair of the New York Public Service Commission, Rory Christian, reacted with outrage. My post of October 15, 2023 covered a report of Mr. Christian’s reaction that had appeared in the New York Times. Excerpt:

Mr. Christian added that the state’s ratepayers, who would have borne the cost, could not serve as an “unlimited piggy bank” for companies to tap. “We have a deal,” he said to the developers, calling on them to stand by the terms they agreed to.

Sure. Here was my reaction to Mr. Christian:

Well, Rory, I’ve got news for you: the developers aren’t going to honor the deal. You’re going to have to hold a new auction. And the prices that will be bid will be as high or higher than those just demanded by these developers.

And, as I predicted, they proceeded to hold a new auction. By January, there was word that new bids had been received, but there was no information as to bidders or prices or awards.

Which brings us to the latest news. Last Thursday, February 29, the big announcement appeared on the website of Governor Kathy Hochul, headline “Governor Hochul Announces Two Offshore Wind Project Awards, to Deliver Clean Power in 2026.” From the introduction:

Governor Kathy Hochul today announced the State has conditionally awarded two offshore wind projects from its fourth offshore wind solicitation – a planned 810-megawatt project, Empire Wind 1, (developed by Equinor) and Sunrise Wind, a planned 924-megawatt project (developed by Orsted and Eversource). The competitively selected projects will create more than 800 near-term family-sustaining construction jobs and invest $2 billion in near-term enhanced economic development statewide, including developer-committed investments to support disadvantaged communities. The projects, totaling over 1,700 megawatts of clean energy, will be the largest power generation projects in New York State in over 35 years once they enter operation in 2026, and will continue progress towards achievement of the State’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) goal to develop 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind energy by 2035.

Yes, it’s all happy talk about how great this is. Here’s some more:

“I promised to make New York a place for the renewable energy industry to do business, and we are delivering on that promise,” Governor Hochul said. “Offshore wind is foundational to our fight against climate change, and these awards demonstrate our national leadership to advance a zero-emissions electric grid at the best value to New Yorkers.”

And how about getting President Biden in on the credit:

“Today’s announcement is the latest step forward as President Biden continues to deliver historic progress on growing the American offshore wind industry, creating good-paying union jobs, and advancing our ambitious climate and clean energy goals,” said White House Deputy National Climate Advisor Mary Frances Repko.

Dare we ask how much is actually getting built and at what cost? If you can get past the introductory happy talk, you will finally come to this:

The weighted average all-in development cost of the awarded offshore wind projects over the life of the contracts is $150.15 per megawatt-hour which is on-par with the latest market prices.

And yet you will not find anywhere in this press release any mention of the prices of the previously accepted bids. But you read Manhattan Contrarian, so you know that the previously accepted prices were $110.37/MWh for Sunrise Wind and $118.38/MWh for Empire Wind 1. In other words, despite Mr. Christian’s outrage, the prices have gone up by in excess of 30%. And this is for only 1700 MW of capacity. Previously they had accepted bids for 4300 MW of capacity, and plans for 9000 MW. 1700 MW of offshore wind capacity operating at a 30% +/- capacity factor might provide 2% or so of New York’s electricity needs in the 2030s, and at mostly uselessly intermittent times. What’s happening with the rest of their big plans? No word here.

And what does the cost here mean for consumer utility bills? You can divide the $150/MWh by 1000 and quickly figure out that they are planning to pay $0.15 per kWh as a wholesale price for intermittent electricity at the source. Nothing is included in that for transmission upgrades, backup, or storage to make for a reliable 24/7/365 grid. By the time you add in those extra costs, as the percent of electricity from the wind turbines gets to around 50% it would be amazing if you could get electricity to the consumer for less than $0.50/kWh. And if the percentage of electricity from the wind turbines goes well above 50%, then all bets are off. $1.00/kWh? $2.00? Easily.

Meanwhile, the Energy Information Administration reports here in 2023 (page 6) that the “levelized cost” of electricity from a new combined cycle natural gas plant is under $50/MWh — for dispatchable power with no transmission upgrades, backup or storage needed. That translates into electricity to the consumer of well under $0.20/kWh.

Governor Hochul’s press release actually includes a line as to the costs to the consumer of the newly accepted offshore wind farm bids:

The average bill impact for customers over the life of these projects under these awards will be approximately two percent, or about $2.09 per month.

Talk about deceptive. They give no methodology or assumptions as to how they came up with the cost figure. But it is obvious that it includes just the cost of blending into the grid the new power from these particular turbines, and otherwise using existing transmission lines and existing fossil fuel plants for the backup role. There is no effort whatsoever here or anywhere else in New York’s propaganda to figure out how much it will cost the consumer for electricity when the grid has been converted to all renewables plus massive amounts of some kind of backup or storage that hasn’t even been invented yet.

Memo to Attorney General James: If you have any real interest in prosecuting people who lie about plans to supposedly achieve “net zero” carbon emissions, here is the worst offender of all right under your nose. 

Editor's Note: Please be sure to read the comments, as I read this excellent article my first thought was about the structural integrity and life span of these structures and the maintenance costs.  All of which are economically troubling.  I would also like to draw your attention to this excellent CFACT article by David Wojick, CFACT blasts offshore wind multiple-site assessment as ridiculous. RK

Biden’s Green Energy Push is Gone with the Wind

Billions in corporate welfare turns to dust.

by Andrew Moran | Nov 28, 2023 | Articles, Good Reads, Opinion, Politics @ Liberty Nation News

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

President Joe Biden will be in Colorado today, November 28, to champion green energy policies inside his Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act. He will spend time in Denver and Pueblo to tout a couple of wind-related factories that are set to take advantage of the administration’s corporate welfare scheme. The president, facing abysmal polling data one year away from the election, will target Republicans and point out how they voted against his investments and job creation efforts. Clean energy, like wind, has been the focal point of Bidenomics. But have the billions in federal and state funds poured into the private sector yielded tangible results?

Green Energy Setbacks

By 2030, the Biden administration aims to generate 30 gigawatts of offshore wind power. This would be enough to power ten million US households. Is this doable? The road to green energy has hit a couple of roadblocks in recent months, leaving some industry analysts to warn that the goal is unlikely to be reached in seven years.

Earlier this month, Orsted, an international energy developer, put the kibosh on two major offshore wind projects off New Jersey’s coast. The Denmark-based company confirmed that the board of directors voted to cancel the high-profile Ocean Wind 1 and Ocean Wind 2 amid high inflation, supply chain snafus, and increasing interest rates. In July, the White House celebrated these green energy projects, which were projected to offer more than 2.2 gigawatts of power, for being examples of “Bidenomics in action.”

The Danish firm’s cancellations came around the same time other developers in the New England region announced that they were ending power contracts for three projects. These were supposed to generate 3.2 gigawatts of wind power for Connecticut and Massachusetts.

(Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)

These developments accounted for close to one-fifth of the White House’s 2030 objective. But these were not all, as several other organizations, including BP and Shell, canceled or sought to renegotiate power agreements for wind farms that were set to be operational sometime between 2025 and 2028. In July, Rhode Island Energy chose not to move forward with several offshore wind turbines due to soaring costs that would have put tremendous pressure on customers’ wallets.

Michael Brown, the US country manager for Ocean Winds, an offshore wind joint venture between France’s ENGIE and Portugal’s EDP Renovaveis, told a Reuters Events conference this past summer: “Thirty gigawatts is now unfortunately not something that the developers are really aspiring to. We want to meet as high a gigawatt target as possible, but it’s not going to be possible to meet those 30 GW.” Timothy Fox, a ClearView vice president, concurs. However, he believes the US will eventually reach the 30-gigawatt target and surpass the mark.

Like the “net zero by 2050” dream, this is yet another climate-related vision that will not be realized.

Nevertheless, the Biden administration is not conceding defeat. In September, White House spokesperson Michael Kikukawa confirmed that Biden will be “using every legally available tool to advance American offshore wind opportunities and achieve the goal of 30 GW by 2030.” One of these tactics is increasing handouts to domestic and foreign firms. Over the last year, the federal government has bolstered wind investments by $7.7 billion, mainly in the form of tax credits for green energy. The sector says this is not enough, and reports suggest that a plethora of US offshore wind project developers are lobbying Washington for more subsidies. Companies are struggling to bring these endeavors online, even with generous assistance from all three levels of government, because of the current inflationary and high-rate environment.

This does not mean the green energy movement is over. In fact, a chorus of Democrats, including Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI), says that the recent blows to the green energy crusade are mere “bumps in the road” and that the president’s legislative trifecta is exceeding all expectations “and we just need to do more of it.” Republican lawmakers disagree, warning that the incumbent regime is wasting taxpayer dollars on something private companies cannot make work without additional funding.

Blowing in the Wind

President Biden will use his two pitstops in The Centennial State to push Bidenomics, promoting the accomplishments and masking the many failures. As Liberty Nation reported, administration officials have found a new scapegoat for why the president’s economic agenda is unpopular with the American people: allies in the mainstream media. So, Colorado voters will be presented with the same Biden entertainment: a two-second half-jog, a story about the folks in Scranton, mispronounced names of local representatives, and repeating the doctrine of growing the economy from the middle out and the bottom up. Unfortunately, those in attendance will not be informed that critical planks of the president’s schemes have stumbled, much like a particular US president.

 

Read More From Andrew Moran