There are few things more satisfying than watching a multi-billion-dollar boondoggle collapse under the weight of its own bureaucratic absurdity and scientific sloppiness. That’s precisely what happened when a critical air permit for the Atlantic Shores South offshore wind farm was voided—just weeks after President Donald Trump publicly hoped the project was “dead and gone.” He got his wish.
And if this story weren’t already sweet enough, it came courtesy of Bloomberg, a publication not exactly known for its admiration of Trump or skepticism of the climate change-industrial complex.
The project—backed by none other than Shell New Energies and EDF Renewables—suffered a major blow when the U.S. Environmental Appeals Board granted a remand of the EPA’s air pollution permit. The agency had issued this permit less than six months earlier, but now, thanks to legal challenges from local citizens and the Trump administration’s new energy policies, it’s back to square one.
Let’s pause and savor the irony: a project intended to save the planet was derailed by the EPA—because of air pollution concerns. You can’t make this stuff up.
According to Bloomberg, “The decision to remand an Environmental Protection Agency air pollution permit for the Atlantic Shores South venture is the boldest strike yet against a wind farm since Trump took office in January and froze federal permitting of the projects.” Just weeks before, Trump had blasted the project, calling it a “large scale Windmill DISASTER off the coast of Southern New Jersey” and wishing it a swift death. Almost prophetically, it got it.
Shell, recognizing the writing on the wall, had already jumped ship, writing off nearly $1 billion and pulling out as an equity partner. That’s not exactly a vote of confidence in the green energy future, especially from a corporation eager to greenwash its image at every opportunity.
And what caused this glorious collapse? Not just executive action, but local resistance—people who live near the proposed turbine site, armed with common sense and a healthy distrust of bad math. The group Save LBI filed a challenge against the EPA’s permit, citing “flawed analysis, including improper air quality modeling.” The Appeals Board agreed.
Bob Stern, head of Save LBI, put it bluntly: “It highlights the lack of full disclosure and questionable science and mathematics that has characterized other applications and approvals.” That’s code for: the numbers don’t add up, the models are junk, and someone finally noticed.
Make no mistake, this isn’t just about one permit. This is a high-voltage message to the entire offshore wind sector. If these projects can be stopped for sloppy modeling and dodgy math, then the entire house of cards might be in trouble.
Bloomberg framed this as a troubling development for energy investors. Jason Ryan from the American Clean Power Association lamented that the move could “chill investment in the US for all types of infrastructure if a project permit is canceled for political reasons and not because of real impacts.” But here’s the punchline—this was because of real impacts. The project flunked the regulatory sniff test. Investors are right to be spooked. They’re finally realizing these wind fantasies don’t stand up to scrutiny.
This case is also a textbook example of how the climate crusade sacrifices transparency and public input for the illusion of progress. Offshore wind projects are “uniquely vulnerable to political shifts,” Bloomberg admits. Well, good. They should be. When a trillion-dollar sector feeds off public subsidies, environmental exemptions, and manipulated data, political accountability becomes a feature, not a bug.
Atlantic Shores was supposed to deliver 2.8 gigawatts of electricity via 200 turbines—about 8.7 miles off the Jersey coast. But the public never bought the green utopia they were selling. Instead, people asked uncomfortable questions. Like: why are we installing massive metal structures in marine ecosystems to fix a problem that hasn’t been properly measured, modeled, or proven?
And that’s the crux. The offshore wind push, like so much of climate policy, rests on wobbly assumptions. The Atlantic Shores debacle isn’t an isolated misstep. It’s a symptom of a system built on speculative science and political theater. It’s not just the wind that’s blowing—so is the smoke screen.
So let’s raise a turbine-sized toast to President Trump, Save LBI, and every skeptical voice who refused to be gaslit by Green New Dealers in lab coats and pinstripe suits. With any luck, this is just the first domino in a long line of wind follies waiting to topple.
The climate-industrial complex is finally facing a breeze it can’t spin.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
i am smiling.
https://www.savelbi.org/
Long Beach Island …
Did some research before commenting. Project was strongly opposed by Atlantic City locals and their Congressman Smith. His website says Shell withdrew after determining they would lose money despite huge (Biden) taxpayer subsidies. (True, Shell’s CFO did say that while also citing increased competition, delays, and a changing market.). Shell withdrew AFTER 47 signed his wind EO freezing everything pending full review. The EPA CAA permit was invalidated by the EPA administrative appeals board (aka EAB) after Congressman Smith and his constituents appealed. While responsible for it, Zeldin has no direct influence over EAB.
Plus Bob Stern used to be DOE’s head of environmental compliance so he knew how to say what needed said.
There’s someone named Plus Bob Stern?
Cancel the New England Wind/Solar/Battery monstrosities as well, ASAP, to stop the hemorrhage of taxpayer cash being pocketed by European moneyed elites, at the expense of all of us
the more i think about this the happier i am.
think of all the tonnes of materials that can be put to better use.
Such as building oil and gas rigs, and reopen more coal mines
More Green Prayer Wheels not chopping migratory birds and deafening whales.
“Green prayer wheels”…very apt, very nicely phrased.
I can’t remember who used that term first, but it was not me.
Not so clean.
…..and killing deafened whales and porpoises
Not tired of winning.
“because of air pollution concerns “
I’m 2,308.27 miles distance from the Jersey Shore. Maybe someone from NJ can explain how towers in the ocean could make the place more stinky. Thanks.
I’m wondering the same. What were the specifics of the “flawed analysis, including improper air quality modelling”?
Does this apply to all turbines ,on and offshore, or just these?
Same here
Let’s see… Intermittent power production requiring 100% fossil fuel backup, Elaborate underwater and land interface transmission infrastructure requiring huge material energy costs, huge concrete and steel piers again with huge energy costs, fossil fueled transport and support fleet, ongoing maintenance energy costs, and finally, total system replacement every 5 to 20 years
This system would easily consume far more energy to produce, install, operate, and recycle than it could ever produce in its lifetime.
Has anyone looked at the ambient concentration of fiberglass spicules coming off the blades? We know from the Nantucket debacle that the blades can shatter and or shed spicules. My understanding is that they act like asbestos in the lungs.
The argument goes like this
Wind turbines have a lot of oil stored in them … yes ironic
https://www.windturbinemagazine.com/how-much-oil-do-wind-turbines-use/
So if you look at a 5MW unit they have these sorts of numbers from the wind turbine magazine
Oil Consumption in Wind Turbines
Wind turbines require a significant amount of oil for proper operation, with an average turbine consuming up to 2000 gallons of oil. This oil consumption is divided between the gear oil, essential for the gearbox, and the transformer oil, essential for the transformer linked to the turbine.
The gearbox of a wind turbine relies on approximately 800 gallons of gear oil, while the transformer may utilize around 1200 gallons of oil. Proper lubrication plays a crucial role in ensuring the efficiency and longevity of wind turbines. Adequate oil levels are necessary to maintain the smooth operation of components like the gearbox and minimize wear.
So each turbine contains an amount of oil that usually requires a license if it were held in a tank and they are in clusters and have a reasonably high probability to catch fire.
Most land based oil storage tanks since 1980 are required to carry suppression systems on them and events have dropped rapidly over the years
https://oilpro.ca/how-common-are-fires-in-outdoor-oil-storage-tanks/
So the argument is the wind turbines should have to also have fire suppression systems or face stiffer licensing.
Yes. One windmill at a time. Keep up the good work.
Another one bites the dust.
As if on land wind wasn’t crazy enough, they had to invent off shore, knowing full we’ll that the triboligy problems cannot be solved, never mind the structural integrity issues
The only reason they make money is the R&D subsidies, mandated “green electricity” provision when it’s available, and payments not to provide it when there’s too much
It’s a tempting racket to get into if you have enough capital funds
Unfortunately for these crooks, there are now too many vying to get into the game and licences are getting more difficult to obtain
Local opposition is also rising as these monstrosities spread
The arrival of Trump is the last nail in the coffin, and they know it. The smarter ones will be cutting their losses, while the rest will sit and pray that the inevitable doesn’t happen
All the operational ones will disappear in the next decade is my (climate) prediction. Without subsidies and the preferential treatment, they’ll go bust when enough of the turbines have packed up
I think the lifetime is around 8 years, though many will implode well before that time
“payments not to provide”
The Sea Green Windfarm in the North Sea,off Scotland, currently leads the league table for constraint payments in the UK having been paid £103m for generating and £262m for switching off. It’s operator SSE also operate the smaller Viking wind farm in the Shetlands which has had 57% of its output curtailed at a cost of £10m
I hope our maniacal Energy Minister Ed Miliband d taking note. Or the Chancellor who is short of money. Or even the British investor community?
There’s zero chance of either Miliband or Rachel from Complaints taking any notice. Miliband’s head is permanently inserted were the sun don’t shine, he hears and sees nothing that doesn’t comply with his view of reality; while understanding real numbers is beyond our Rach’s capabilities. Investors are only likely to back off if they perceive a real risk to the stream of government money that they can rely on to profit from such schemes.
Not sure if this was covered elsewhere, but Summit Carbon Solutions was proposing a 2500 mile CO2 pipeline to collect CO2 from ethanol plants and sequester it in North Dakota. South Dakota passed a bill disallowing eminent domain for surveying the pipeline which effectively killed the project. The goal was to capture CO2 from corn fermentation into EtOH. About half the product of fermentation is CO2 so this is a rich source which can be captured easily (but at a cost of equipment and power).
Ethanol producers want to lower their CO2 emissions in order to capture credits from California and the IRA 45Z fuel production tax credit. They are in danger of losing out on both credits due to high GHG emissions. Summit wanted to capture the IRA 45Q credits of $85/ton for sequestering CO2 in geologic formations. But both ends of the project, CO2 capture, and collection/sequestration are expensive and barely make any money even with government subsidies.
Summit Halts Permit Application For CO2 Pipeline In South Dakota
Aww shucks a corndoggle on top of ficklepickle.
CO2 captured at the Great Plains synfuels plant in North Dakota is used (and has been for about 35 years) to enhance oil production by “flooding” oil reservoirs with CO2 (in Weyburn Saskatchewan just across the border) but the pipeline system would make CO2 also available to depleting ND fields as well.
Greens are against the pipeline because it increases oil production, but are using the usual landowner and aboriginal rights lawfaring to bring the project to a halt. Biden made the CO2 capture economics work for ethanol plants, on a tax credit basis, but obviously it had to have economics for enhanced oil recovery decades earlier.