Offshore Wind Tripped Up by the Trump Administration

Guest ROTFLMFAO by David Middleton

From the too fracking funny files…

Trump admin throws wrench into offshore wind plans
Benjamin Storrow, E&E News reporter Climatewire: Monday, August 12, 2019

The Trump administration is ordering a sweeping environmental review of the burgeoning offshore wind industry, a move that threatens to derail the nation’s first major project and raises a host of questions for future developments.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, a division of the Interior Department, is ordering a study of the cumulative impact of a string of projects along the East Coast. The review comes in response to concerns from fishermen about the impact of offshore wind development on East Coast fisheries.


The analysis throws Vineyard Wind’s future into doubt. The developer, a partnership of Avangrid Inc. and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, warned it would be difficult to proceed if BOEM delayed its environmental analysis beyond the summer. But Vineyard Wind officials sought to strike an upbeat tone after BOEM’s supplemental EIS was announced Friday.

They called the decision “a surprise and disappointment” but insisted the project “remains viable and continues to move forward” (E&E News PM, Aug. 9).

Vineyard Wind’s problems are several, according to industry analysts and those familiar with the project (Climatewire, Aug. 7). First and foremost is the availability of the investment tax credit, a federal subsidy available to wind projects. The project had anticipated taking a 24% tax credit on $2.8 billion in capital costs. That enabled the company to sign a contract with three Massachusetts utilities at a price far lower than what analysts had initially expected.

But the tax credit expires at the end of the year. While the project could still qualify for an exemption because of the permitting challenges it has faced, the logistics associated with building America’s first major offshore project makes that more complicated.


E&E News

Vineyard Wind, welcome to our world…

If you can’t handle permitting challenges and you’re dependent on subsidies, you have no business trying to build things in the ocean.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 15, 2019 2:06 pm

Nothing like subsidizing primitive 17th Century technology.

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  ColMosby
August 15, 2019 3:14 pm

I thought it was 14th century—anyone know for sure?

Bryan A
Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
August 15, 2019 5:41 pm

The earliest known wind powered grain mills and water pumps were used by the Persians in A.D. 500-900 and by the Chinese in A.D. 1200. The first windmill manufactured in the United States was designed by Daniel Halladay, who began inventing windmills in 1854 in his Connecticut machine shop

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Bryan A
August 15, 2019 9:47 pm

Bryan A is correct. Using wind to do work is not 21st century technology as many alarmists claim.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Patrick MJD
August 16, 2019 6:03 am

First came steam power, then diesel power and finally electricity to replace windmills used for pumping, which is what all the pretty windmills in the Netherlands were for.

William Kotcher
Reply to  Patrick MJD
August 16, 2019 9:25 am

It is a scientific and technological advance, to build 1000, 525′ tower s in the ocean. It takes a vivid imagination and advanced engineering to make a wind turbine big.

Over 20 years of modern research and development before they had the epiphany and courage to introduce cutting edge technology.

BIG. They thought of it, never before considered. How did the think of it.

Small dont work, big. Think of just the computer power needed to make that giant leap.

Reply to  William Kotcher
August 17, 2019 7:22 am

No matter how big you make it they are still a piss poor idea. A big turd is just as incapable of polishing as a small one.

Reply to  Bryan A
August 16, 2019 7:31 am

Bryan is right. Although the records are poor the scanty evidence seems to suggest that the first wind mills were built in Europe sometime between 500 and 800 AD.

John Minich
Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
August 15, 2019 8:06 pm

Carbon Bigfoot: I don’t know, but I’ve seen restored/maintained wind mills in the Netherlands using wooden structure and wooden gears, many of them using wooden pegs for meshing , often for changing direction as well as ratios.

Reply to  John Minich
August 16, 2019 6:26 am

There are several on Cape Cod, some of them dating back to the 16 and 1700s.

Reply to  2hotel9
August 16, 2019 12:48 pm

The BIG windmill breakthrough came as the result of the empirical discovery that the wind velocity increases as a function of the seventh power of the windmill height.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
August 16, 2019 1:10 am

It’s much older. But it was first applied on a large and coordinated scale by the Dutch in the 17th century when they used tens of windmills in unison to drain a number of inland lakes in what was then and is now the province of North Holland.

David Cage
Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
August 16, 2019 9:53 am

It 1085 or 1086 it is recorded in the doomsday book a windmill owner had his taxes reduced as wind was unreliable and could not be trusted like a water wheel. That much is on record.

Geir Aaslid
Reply to  David Cage
August 16, 2019 11:24 am


The first known case of windmill subsidy!

August 15, 2019 2:33 pm

My Canadian Province of Ontario has had a catastrophic experience with Wind generation. A 15 year love affair with a Liberal ( progressive ) Government 2003-2018 soured very quickly when the extravagant Wind contracts, and closure of coal fired plants sent electricity prices soaring. The Provincial Government responded with taxpayer funded rebates which sent the Provincial Debt over $300 Billion ($CAN), making us the most indebted sub-national government in the world ( Yes, worse than California). So damaged were we that Ontario voters wiped out the Liberal Party a 14 months ago leaving only seven members in the Legislature. Run America, run from the windmills.

Reply to  sendergreen
August 15, 2019 3:12 pm

Correction, made us the most indebted “per-capita” sub-national government in the world. (Still worse than California)

Bryan A
Reply to  sendergreen
August 15, 2019 5:44 pm

Ya mean we Wakyfornians are actually now only second worse?
If I reach high enough I can just feel the bottom of the slime hanging from the bottom of the barrel

nw sage
Reply to  sendergreen
August 15, 2019 5:44 pm

That is REALLY hard – to be worse than California at anything! lol

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  sendergreen
August 15, 2019 6:46 pm

I feel your pain. Really. In fact I share it.

Reply to  sendergreen
August 15, 2019 4:39 pm

These things are not economical on land. They are marginally maintained on land. They are are worse than losers on water. No one ever considers the cost of maintenance and the infrastructure required for these things on water.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Mark
August 15, 2019 4:58 pm

You are correct about the additional costs being on water.

It is even worse being on SALTWATER.

Oil field steel equipment that is in contact with oil – lasts for the entire life of the well.

Oil field steel equipment that is in contact with saltwater – replace frequently.

Reply to  Pillage Idiot
August 15, 2019 7:54 pm

20 years in the Navy as an Electronic Technician. Even with humidity controlled environment inside the ship any portion of the electronic equipment that will corrode has begun to show corrosion within a month or so.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
August 15, 2019 9:50 pm

Many structures have sacrificial anodes installed to reduce the effect, but yes, it is a losing battle.

GREG in Houston
Reply to  Patrick MJD
August 16, 2019 7:47 am

Anodes might help some on the subsurface infrastructure, but they will do no good on the topside corrosion from humidity + salt.

Reply to  Mark
August 15, 2019 5:35 pm

In a saltwater environment too!

Reply to  Mark
August 16, 2019 7:54 am

No, maintenance cost was considered then buried in a deep hole so the general public wouldn’t catch wind of the cost until it was to late. They are depending on the ignorance of the general population to not ask questions. Of course anyone that’s spent time maintaining equipment in and around salt water knows the truth. Six years as Machinist Mate in the USN taught me more than just a little about what happens to everything that hangs around the ocean.

Reply to  sendergreen
August 15, 2019 10:27 pm

But has the ‘conservative’ government done anything to undo the economic and social agenda of the leftist government, or is it just more of the cowardice and collaboration we have come to expect from almost all ‘conservative’ governments?

Paul Penrose
Reply to  BC
August 16, 2019 10:35 am

The problem is the voters often want the conservatives to fulfill the promises of the liberals, not understanding that they failed mostly because their promises are impossible dreams.

Reply to  Paul Penrose
August 16, 2019 10:42 pm

The people demanding “renewable” power (the gentry, the press, the bureaucracy) should be given their demands. 100% renewable power, no backups. Not gas-fired, not coal, not hydro, not nuclear. When the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, they do without. They can go back to quill pens and parchment.

Reply to  LarryD
August 17, 2019 7:17 am

I have advocated this plan for years, all the people who clamor for an end to “fossil fuels” should be listed and permanently banned from use of anything derived from “fossil fuels”. No electric, no running water, no pharmaceuticals, no foods out of season, travel restricted to foot only. Put them on reservations and let them glory in their return to Paleolithic Paradise.

Reply to  LarryD
August 17, 2019 3:11 pm

If we go this route make sure that the first people changed to 100% renewable are the government offices, outside of the immediate offices of the president..

Roger Surf
Reply to  sendergreen
August 15, 2019 11:53 pm

In my country, the government is touting electric cars, emphasizing that New Zealand has a surplus of hydro and other natural generation.

However they seem to forget that the country’s biggest single generation plant is a coal plant that supplies more than 30% of the total generation.

So our government’s propaganda is simply causing more coal powered generation and no more hydro in the pipeline.
Yup we voted in a leftist party last election which has effectively a policy that anything goes so long as it is well intentioned. Never mind that the populace accept that this policy wont increase carbon emissions which it of course will.




Another Paul
Reply to  Roger Surf
August 16, 2019 7:05 am

And now they’re trying to disarm you. I was hoping to visit before the collapse :<

Reply to  Another Paul
August 16, 2019 6:07 pm

So sad. Two of my Canadian great uncles were killed in action in the Great War. One at Hill 60 Ypres, and the other six months after at Mouquet Farm, Somme. Two places the Aussies, and New Zealanders should know well. Our Commonwealth Common Law liberties are disappearing one by one.

Shawn Marshall
Reply to  sendergreen
August 16, 2019 6:28 am


Timo, Not That One
Reply to  sendergreen
August 16, 2019 7:43 am

Yes. And those Ontario Liberals canceled all future planned wind farms, before being sent to oblivion in the last election. What are the odds they will try to build wind farms again, once the electorate forgets what a disaster they were for so long.
Come to think about it, I just answered my own question. 🙁

Reply to  sendergreen
August 16, 2019 12:51 pm

Ontario sounds like Germany on Steroids.

Clay Sanborn
August 15, 2019 2:41 pm

Good news post! This should result in less windmills that the taxpayers will eventually be on the hook for when they all stop working and there are no funds to fix and remove the the eyesores.

August 15, 2019 2:42 pm

Trump needs to do the right thing and make Martha’s Vineyard a wind turbine sanctuary.

Reply to  BallBounces
August 15, 2019 3:17 pm

OK, that’s amusing… yet… thinking on it, almost perfect. GoatGuy ✓

Bob Hoye
Reply to  BallBounces
August 15, 2019 5:34 pm

Oh–now that is funny.

J Mac
August 15, 2019 2:46 pm

Trump brakes Big Wind: Details to follow, video at 11:00!

Dennis Sandberg
August 15, 2019 2:47 pm

Thank You President Trump. The time to end the solar wind boondoggle is long past due. Whatever it takes to run out the clock on this offshore stupidity will be one of the greatest achievements of your first term.

August 15, 2019 2:51 pm

Thank you, that was awesome.

M Montgomery
August 15, 2019 2:53 pm

“If you can’t handle permitting challenges and you’re dependent on subsidies, you have no business trying to build things in the ocean.”

This one sentence says it all. Perfect!

August 15, 2019 2:54 pm

Offshore windmills are artificial reefs just as oil platforms are.
Artificial reefs are built to enhance fisheries.
Someone needs to explain how artificial reefs with a windmill attached are going to negatively effect the fishery.

Reply to  AdeleDad
August 15, 2019 3:58 pm

Ever tried to cast a fishing line with a 100m high propellor blade turning at 100mph behind you?
Fly fishing is definitely out, maybe handlining with cement building blocks as weights for a bait rig would work.

Reply to  Mr.
August 15, 2019 6:33 pm

Uh, not to be naysayer or anything – but… NO ONE fly fishes on the ocean.

Reply to  TomB
August 15, 2019 7:57 pm

Oh Tom, how wrong you are.
Salt-water fly fishing for pelagic species is a BIG money-spinner for charter boats all around the world.
eg a 48 kg yellowfin tuna was the record for this species caught on fly tackle off South Africa.

Reply to  TomB
August 15, 2019 8:47 pm

Fly fishing for tarpon is quite common in Florida and other gulf states.

Reply to  Rocketscientist
August 17, 2019 7:24 am

Largely popularized by baseball star and general sportsman Ted Williams.

Lorne Newell
Reply to  Mr.
August 15, 2019 7:10 pm

Cement is verboten because climate change. Causes too much CO2 in production. (sarc)

Another paul
Reply to  Lorne Newell
August 16, 2019 7:25 am

“Causes too much CO2 in production” But doesn’t it reabsorb CO2 as it ages, to carbonation dust?

Curious George
Reply to  AdeleDad
August 15, 2019 4:14 pm

Could it depend on their density?

Paul of Alexandria
Reply to  AdeleDad
August 15, 2019 5:13 pm

Noise. Scares the fish.

Anna Keppa
Reply to  Paul of Alexandria
August 15, 2019 8:18 pm

This! Has anyone bothered to do an analysis of the underwater vibrations, if any, of these rapidly rotating blades?

Every fisherman knows that accidentally slapping an oar in the water can scare off fish.

Now, that’s a freshwater thing, especially in rivers or lakes.

But a continual vibration from the pylons supporting big turbines might be another kettle of…fish.

Anyone know?

Reply to  Anna Keppa
August 16, 2019 1:30 am

Wouldn’t the noise disturb…the whales?

Reply to  AdeleDad
August 15, 2019 5:55 pm

migrating offshore birds on brink of extinction…..scientists puzzled

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Latitude
August 16, 2019 9:24 am

No worries – they’ll just BLAME IT ALL ON CLIMATE CHANGE!

Dennis Sandberg
Reply to  AdeleDad
August 15, 2019 6:25 pm

Vibration induced sound waves may be a serious problem for fishery that has been identified by numerous scientists but it appears funding for studies aren’t forth coming. Who would have guessed.

Reply to  AdeleDad
August 15, 2019 6:37 pm

After the windfarms offshore stop working, ie. shortly after they are installed an artificial reef is a good idea. Just make the developers post a bond so they can be dropped into the water w/o the taxpayers picking up the tab.

Reply to  Gordon
August 19, 2019 7:43 pm

To create a new artificial reef on top of the existing one? Doesn’t the creation of an artificial reef require permits?

Reply to  AdeleDad
August 15, 2019 6:51 pm

Please provide links to studies showing NO NEGATIVE EFFECTS from them. That is what the EIS are for. The Trump administration is just making them follow the rules in place. This was not happening under the previous administration and current bureaucrats.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  AdeleDad
August 15, 2019 7:56 pm

Yeah, its common lefty knowledge that fishermen and farmers are stupid and need socioligical scientific guidance to do things right. But hey, I go along with the fishermen about the sea and the farmers about the land, but then I admit I never studied social science.

Matthew R Marler
Reply to  AdeleDad
August 15, 2019 8:37 pm

AdeleDad :Offshore windmills are artificial reefs just as oil platforms are.
Artificial reefs are built to enhance fisheries.
Someone needs to explain how artificial reefs with a windmill attached are going to negatively effect the fishery.

By law, the environmental impact studies have to be done to show that there are no excessive negative effects, before the building starts. Like it or not, the absence of negative effects can not simply be assumed.

It’s tough being green, eh?

August 15, 2019 2:58 pm

If you can’t handle permitting challenges and you’re dependent on subsidies, you have no business trying to build things in the ocean.

My understanding is that the project died shortly after it’s initial proposal when the Kennedy Clan (yes, those Kennedys) came out in opposition. After that, the rest is just decade(s) long theater. Of course, “permitting challenges” were the preferred device so as not to make it too obvious that the fix was it.
After all, we could not little matchsticks on the horizon spoiling the view of our Betters on the island of Nantucket. That would not do, perish the thought.

After all paying the price for saving the world is for the little people, not us.

Bruce Cobb
August 15, 2019 2:58 pm

Oh noes, an environmental review? Hoist by their own petard, they are.

Tom Abbott
August 15, 2019 2:58 pm

The U.S. taxpayers should not be subsidizing Wind Mills.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 16, 2019 9:29 am

Or solar panels, or any other “green” retardation.

HD Hoese
August 15, 2019 3:00 pm

Many decades ago I recall an environmental objection to a middle east coast, maybe NC or Va, plan for an offshore platform, can’t remember details. I do remember that the problem was that the lights were going to interfere with bird migration. Well, they do land on them in the Gulf, probably appreciate the stopover.

August 15, 2019 3:06 pm

I’m split on this one.

The first thing that comes to mind is this is the tact that Obama used to put in his rules: Delay and throw everything in bureaucratic and judicial turmoil. So since it is giving the liberal/green side a taste of their own medicine, I’m for the delay.

The second is Martha’s Vineyard along with the Hamptons is the summer hideaway of the NY/MA/CN rich and famous (at least those that haven’t become tax refugees) and they deserve to walk outside their doors and stare at the awesome sight of and listen to hundreds of thump/thumping windmills killing birds right and left. And when everything is tied into the wind farm and the wind dies, listen to all the in-home generators fire up burning all that propane. So in this case I’m against the delay.

Decisions, decisions.

Alan Robertson
August 15, 2019 3:12 pm

Dirty politics swirls around wind farms, as commonly as the wind itself.
In Osage County, Oklahoma, all mineral rights are owned by the Osage Nation. When a large wind power facility was being built in the county, the wind company mined local limestone for the concrete tower bases and for the gravel roads.
When the wind power company failed to pay for the stone, the Osages sued, of course. The judge ruled that since the company just put the stone back into the ground from whence it came, the Osages were owed nothing.

The Osage people are generous with their limestone and allow any residents to gather all the stone they want for home building and personal use. However, any stone mined for commercial purpose, must be paid for. In light of the fact that the power company gave money here and there for town “beautification” projects, etc. and promised local schools increased ad valorem tax benefits (then worked the system to remain tax free,) the judge’s decision is highly suspect.

Dennis Sandberg
Reply to  Alan Robertson
August 15, 2019 6:40 pm

Impossible, there has to be much more to the story. Not even an Obama appointed judge would dare rule that using rock for roads and tower bases isn’t a commercial taking of assets.

August 15, 2019 3:13 pm

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, a division of the Interior Department, is ordering a study of the cumulative impact of a string of projects along the East Coast. The review comes in response to concerns from fishermen about the impact of offshore wind development on East Coast fisheries.

The alarmists are willing to ignore any and all environmental impacts of windmills an solar panels. On the other hand, just try to build a pipeline …

It’s nice to see the greenies hoist with their own petard.

Reply to  commieBob
August 17, 2019 3:16 pm

The ocean fishery along the east coast of the US is very valuable, both to the eaters and the fishers. It already has been heavily disrupted by other more direct environmental effects such as surface run off and pollution from oil leakage, and excess fertilizers.

Another pollutant- disruption of the air and water circulation by a planned thousands of windmills would devastate a lot of productive people. Not to mention gourmet cooks and gourmet eaters.

August 15, 2019 3:13 pm

The 84-turbine ocean junk project would be “capable of producing 800 megawatts of electricity, enough to supply 3% of New England’s annual energy needs.”
Key words: “capable” and “3%”.

Reply to  snikdad
August 16, 2019 4:43 am

for how long?
one good cyclone….
and isnt that coast with the most??

Patrick B
Reply to  snikdad
August 16, 2019 6:14 am

and “annual” (i.e. not necessarily provided when needed).

August 15, 2019 3:16 pm

So, without stealing 2 billion dollars from tax payers these charlatans can’t build their monorail? Homer will be so disappointed.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  2hotel9
August 15, 2019 7:33 pm

I am confused by your number “2 billion”. The tax credit is 24% of 2.8 billion.

I did run some numbers.

If the 3% potential is $2.8 bn then the capacity minimum to go “renewable” is roughly $95 bn. Then the capacity factor has to be considered. Suppose it is 40%. Then 95/0.4= 237 bn. For backup, one needs (at a lower installed cost per MW) at least 60% let’s add 40% which comes to $333 bn. It might be closer to 500 but bear with me.

What else can you get for $333 billion in terms of generating capacity? You could buy about 42 GW worth of nuclear power, 133 GW of coal power and a bit more for natural gas. Apparently the need is only 26 GW if 3% is 800 MW.

The tax credit of 24% of “enough wind” is sufficient to replace 86% of the generation fleet needed to power the whole state (assuming no credits for the backup systems).

Seems expensive.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
August 16, 2019 6:38 am

Add it all up, this scam has been stealing tax dollars for quite some time, 2 billion is a very conservative estimate. Leftist grifters are very adept at hiding their crimes and shading the numbers we tax payers can access.

Dennis Sandberg
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
August 18, 2019 7:59 pm

Crispin in Waterloo, Astounding! Seems expensive? Yes, I’d say so. Too bad our crooked politicians are cowardly public service commissioners don’t provide some leadership for willfully uninformed voters ..away from this Trash. Hooray for Trump.

August 15, 2019 3:23 pm

Just remove the tax credits and see what is justified without subsidies.

August 15, 2019 3:34 pm

Trump needs to do the right thing and ask for a full, public review of the Endangerment Clause. And then rip it to shreds, preferably while the U.N. is in session.

Joel O’Bryan
August 15, 2019 4:47 pm

The GreenSlime is in desperation mode now. Hence the propaganda campaign at volume 11. Their entire game plan for fat ROIs depends on tax credits, tax credits they can’t get if projects get delayed and the ITC-PTC schemes expire.

It’s all connected and coordinated. More than people know.

Pat Frank
August 15, 2019 5:15 pm

Stanford’s Mark Jacobson is going to be very unhappy. He was planning to convert the entire NY state to a wonderful renewable future.

And Gov. Andrew Cuomo was in the groove, to ensure an oh-so-better-future for NY State residents.

And now? All those people and all that money frustrated saved by that horrid Trump.

August 15, 2019 7:03 pm

I don’t play Bridge but is this what is known as getting Trumped?

Rod Everson
Reply to  Yooper
August 16, 2019 7:01 am

Yooper, actually it’s known as a Trump finesse.

August 15, 2019 7:23 pm

It’s a good develop, logically, but watch what happens when lack of power from the idiotic closure of ff power plants hits New England in the dead of winter. It will be Trump’s fault for not allowing the structure of these wind turbines. It will not matter that other, powerful people objected to them. It will never be noted that the power generated from these turbines would not have prevented the outages. It will be Trump’s fault, period.

Considering it was a relatively ‘local’ project in blue state areas, I think it may have been worth the taxpayers’ money to build these monstrosities, let them suffer power outages and enormously expensive electric bills, and have no one to blame but themselves and their leftist policies.

Lorne Newell
August 15, 2019 7:38 pm

Your lucky. We got Trudeau.

Bryan A
Reply to  Lorne Newell
August 15, 2019 10:26 pm

And you can keep him…
You have my condolences

Reply to  Lorne Newell
August 16, 2019 1:38 am

Trudeau, the Crime Minister of Canada.

Steven lonien
August 15, 2019 7:47 pm

Capitalism at risk from best alternitive with natural and no pollution & superior wind energy thats already downplayed 47% with false betz limits let alone the magneticaly controlled frictionless bearings being held back are capable of infinite values.
That ends the oil era anyway . .Einestines learning curve fact

Reply to  Steven lonien
August 15, 2019 10:16 pm

Can I have some of what you’re toking?

Rod Evans
Reply to  Steven lonien
August 15, 2019 11:53 pm

Ah yes, frictionless bearings in a salt water environment. They are certainly capable of infinite values alright…..

August 16, 2019 12:40 am

Research from the UK shows that offshore windfarms act as refuges for marine life and fish nurseries… seals off East Anglia seek them out as feeding areas. They have no impact on commercial fishing.

There are tens of GW of wind turbines off the UK, Netherlands, Danish and German coasts and they have no impact on fishing whatever.

Have any of the posters above any idea at all about offshore wind?

In the Real World
Reply to  griff
August 16, 2019 4:36 am

Yes Griff , a lot of posters know about offshore wind .
It is ridiculously expensive & very inefficient .
The latest one to come online in the UK , Hornsea 1 , is being paid £158.75 per MWh, nearly 4 times the market price , & will continue to get that massive subsidy for 15 years , which is about its total life factor .

As well as the expense , Hornsea is responsible for the large blackout across a lot of the country last week .
Several people have screen captures of the grid details at the time which show the sequence of events . The authorities are trying to cover this up at the moment , but we will have to wait & see if the truth comes out that it was wind power which caused the problem .
Newspaper article about Hornsea from a few years ago when the media where allowed to still tell the truth about unreliable energy .

Reply to  In the Real World
August 16, 2019 9:36 am

Not that the owners of Hornsea are anyway bothered by their role in the blackout:
From the Telegraph yesterday:
-“The wind farm which contributed to a massive blackout was awarded nearly £100,000 in compensation after being ordered to reduce its output the day immediately after the power cut, the Telegraph can reveal.
Nearly one million homes and businesses were left without electricity last Friday when Hornsea Wind Farm and Little Barford gas-fired station went off grid within minutes of each other.
After getting back online, National Grid ordered Hornsea to reduce the electricity it supplied the network on Saturday night and Sunday morning entitling its owners, Orsted, to compensation.”-

Further extension to Hornsea will double its nameplate capacity – Joy (but not for us miserable consumers)

Reply to  griff
August 16, 2019 4:36 am

They have a huge impact on the stability of the UK National Grid.

August 16, 2019 5:15 am

Hahahahaha, I love it. Use the eco-loons’ obstruction tactics against them.

Steve Z
August 16, 2019 9:42 am

If, according to snikdad (above), the project would have 84 turbines, it may be difficult for fishing boats to navigate between all of them on their way out to sea or back to port. It would also spoil the view for all the rich and famous who hang out at Martha’s Vineyard every summer, even though most of them are liberals on other issues.

August 16, 2019 11:45 am

Normalizing the comparative value between technologies is a welcome change, which will help guide development while minimizing anthropogenic divergence.

August 16, 2019 2:14 pm

The first wind turbine fire offshore needs to be treated exactly the same as the Deepwater Horizon accident, including the shutdown of all other offshore turbines out of the abundance of (Obama) caution.

%d bloggers like this: