President Trump is clear about offshore wind. On day one of his second term, he signed an executive order titled “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects.”
The order mandated three outcomes: First, it withdrew all the waters within the Outer Continental Shelf from consideration for wind leasing. Second, it ordered a “comprehensive review” of the purpose and need for offshore wind to determine whether existing leases should be “amended or terminated.” Third, it ordered that relevant federal agencies “shall not issue new or renewed approvals of offshore wind projects pending a completion of a comprehensive review of federal wind leasing and permitting practices.”
The call for such an all-encompassing re-examination of the purpose, need, and utility of offshore wind (OSW) would cause developers to pause their development plans.
No such luck. The message to Trump appears to be: “Go pound sand.”
In New Jersey, the developers of Atlantic Shores Wind proclaimed, “Atlantic Shores intends to continue progressing New Jersey’s first offshore wind project in compliance with our local, state and federal partners under existing leases and relevant permits.”
In Virginia, Dominion Energy “is determined to defend its offshore wind project in face of Trump threats.” Company executives said in an earnings call that “the 2.6 gigawatt Virginia wind project is on schedule to begin operating in 2026 despite a flurry of actions by the Trump administration against the wind industry.”
In New York, Orsted CEO Rasmus Errboe said, “We are fully committed to moving forward and delivering on our commitments. We do not expect that the executive order will have any implications on assets under construction.”
In New England, the Alliance for Climate Transition boasted that “Trump can’t likely touch permitted wind projects in New England.”
Despite all their bravado, wind developers should be mindful of serious obstacles coming their way.
First, the Department of Interior has clear, unquestionable authority to order a pause in construction for underway wind projects. Every wind developer is bound by the terms of its Construction and Operations Plan (COP) — a contract they entered into with the Department of Interior, which governs all the terms, conditions, and timing of constructions within the OSW project. Every COP states that “the Department of Interior reserves the right to amend these conditions or impose additional conditions authorized by law.”
This authority was used by the interior to halt construction on the Vineyard Wind project after it experienced a cataclysmic wind turbine failure that spread acres of debris into the waters off Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket last summer. An order pausing construction in East Coast wind projects, pending completion of the studies mandated by the order, lies perfectly within the contractually binding language of the COPs.
OSW developers have another problem. His name is Jefferson Van Drew, a Republican congressman from New Jersey. Van Drew was likely instrumental in crafting the language in the presidential order. He understands the absurdity of offshore wind and is adamantly opposed to further OSW construction until a comprehensive re-examination of its purpose and need has been completed. He is a tenacious, anti-offshore wind bulldog who has the ear of the president.
If wind developers send ships to sea on May 1, as some have said they would do to resume their construction plans, it is unlikely Van Drew will sit by and let them start “clanging and banging” in the whale habitat without a fight.
There are many reasons the offshore wind industry should be hesitant to resume business as usual. However, none is bigger than this: Does the offshore wind industry really think it is a good idea to thumb its nose at President Trump in opposition to an order that is clearly near and dear to his heart? Do they really like playing Russian roulette with billions at stake? Various Cabinet secretaries, heads of federal agencies, and political opponents have all tried this approach in the past.
It didn’t end well for them.
This article originally appeared at DC Journal
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wind, especially offshore wind, is a subsidy mining operation, and thus dependent on politics. They seem to forget Kamala lost.
Democrats are above the law, it’s their birth right.
Institutional smugness* will eventually carry the day.
They “know” they will be back in the saddle again.
Why should they pretend otherwise?
Not so. Offshore wind is economic playdough.
However the law say
“amend these conditions or impose additional conditions authorized by law.”
that means Interior must set new conditions that are authorized by law. That means at whim is out
And the “amend these conditions” part?
Since most turbines come from China or Europe, won’t the tariffs pretty much kill any wind projects?
Well, it will drive up the price- but apparently cost is no object to the governors of states promoting bird choppers at sea.
Trump will wave tariffs? Just kidding.
.
EPA, NOAA, BOEM, etc., with their glossy, dubious, hastily concocted, environmental approvals/licenses, are traitorous organizations undermining the NORAD defense of the US, by rooting for/approving super-expensive, $/MW, environmentally harmful, highly subsidized, offshore windmill systems, that produce super-expensive, weather-dependent, variable, grid-disturbing, electricity, c/kWh, that further enriches the tax shelters of the moneyed elites, at the expense of all others, and would make the US even less competitive on world markets, which helps trade surpluses of Europe, China, etc.
HIGH COST/kWh OF W/S SYSTEMS FOISTED ONTO A BRAINWASHED PUBLIC
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-kwh-of-w-s-systems-foisted-onto-a-brainwashed-public
.
What is generally not known, the more weather-dependent W/S systems, the less efficient the other, traditional generators, as they inefficiently counteract the increasingly larger ups and downs of W/S output. See URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed
.
W/S systems add great cost to the overall delivery of electricity to users; the more W/S systems, the higher the cost/kWh, as proven by the UK and Germany, with the highest electricity rates in Europe, and near-zero, real-growth GDPs
At about 30% W/S, the entire system hits an increasingly thicker concrete wall, operationally and cost wise.
UK and Germany have hit the wall, more and more hours each day.
The cost of electricity delivered to users increased with each additional W/S/B system
.
Base-load nuclear, gas and coal plants are the only rational way forward, plus the additional CO2 is very beneficial for additional flora and fauna growth and increased crop yields to feed hungry people.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/we-are-in-a-co2-famine
.
Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt:
1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit of 10 percent – Federal tax credit of 30 percent – State tax credit and other incentives of up to 10%);
2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation write off of the entire project;
3) Loan interest deduction
.
Utilities pay 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixedoffshore wind systems
Utilities pay 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind
Utilities pay 12 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from larger solar systems
.
Excluded costs, at a future 30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience:
– Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect distributed W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if not curtailed, about 1 c/kWh
– Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh
– Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh
– Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
Some of these values exponentially increase as more W/S systems are added to the grid
.
The economic/financial insanity and environmental damage of it all is off the charts.
No wonder Europe’s near-zero, real-growth economy is in de-growth mode.
That economy has been tied into knots by inane people.
YOUR tax dollars are building these projects so YOU will have much higher electric bills.
Remove YOUR tax dollars using your vote, and none of these projects would be built, and YOUR electric bills would be lower.
“2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation write off of the entire project;” Well, at least this one makes some sense. The machines hardly last any longer.
Sorry?
Nothing about wind makes sense!
It’s not a difficult decision. The OSW industry is going to die and investors will lose their money. As a director do you pull the plug now, ending your own income, or do you keep drawing full salary while putting off the awful day as long as you can. And quietly selling your shares.
The Don Quixote Project will continue as scheduled……..no one can stop it…..tilt away!
Ending Subsidies stops it in it’s tracks by removing any notion of profitability
They stated they have “existing leases and relevant permits” and Trumps EO acknowledges it may not be able to quash existing leases. The action of the company and it’s directors to protect it’s money it has invested is easily understandable and to do different would be against company law.
I don’t find anything here remarkable.
Yes and Interior has to make changes authorized by law . Not a policy change from the WH.
Secretary of Interior is a Cabinet position under the authority of the President.
To repeat, and the “amend these conditions part’?
“There are many reasons the offshore wind industry should be hesitant to resume business as usual. However, none is bigger than this”
Typo. Should be “none are bigger than this”
English is a human language. If it’s understandable, it’s correct. Away with prescriptivists!
Precision in language is absolutely essential in communications.
If it was understood, and it self-evidently was, then it was precise enough. This is not some technical standard.
“I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”
Leaving things to context and interpretation decreases the signal to noise ratio.
Tell me, is sex assigned at birth or is it really created at the moment of conception?
I know if it were my article, I’d appreciate people pointing out mistakes.
Hm. ‘none’ stands for ‘no one’ or ‘not one’. One is singular. But ‘none’ appears to be plural here. Odd.
It’s referring to reasons, plural.
Q) Could OSW projects build and operate profitably without Government Subsidies?
Solution, end subsidies for Wind and Solar AND end Take or Pay requirements.
Solar Dies on the Vine and Wind blows away
Hmm, Biden cancelled Keystone II long after it was fully permitted, but Trump can’t cancel a permitted wind Project? I’m not so sure.
Different process .Biden cancelled what Trump authorized. These leases were authorized via a process authorized by a far different process, that they have legal property right
As with anything the Government does there are always loopholes. Any way we can get rid of subsidizing solar and wind is good for America
IIRC Pres. Obama initially froze the Keystone pipeline, which had all the necessary permits & blessings from the usual suspects (Dept of Interior, EPA etc), and Trump 1.0 in 2017 unfroze it only for Pres Biden to re-freeze in 2021.
Trump 2.0’s 2025 order allowed it to procesd but it was too late: the company had lost enough money and had moved-on.
The question remains: do any of these presidents have legal authority to interrupt what has already been approved (like stopping a pipeline that is 90% finished)?
In the North Sea, developers are creating trouble for each other. Extract from the Financial Times:
“It is hard to imagine a site less sheltered from powerful North Sea winds than the Dudgeon Offshore wind farm. The 67 turbines of the facility sit 32km off the coast of Norfolk on England’s east coast, well beyond any land-based obstructions. The project, completed in 2017, has a generating capacity of 402 megawatts — enough for 430,000 homes.
Yet Dudgeon’s biggest shareholder, Norway’s state-owned energy company Equinor, is still worried that a rival’s planned development could take the wind from its turbine blades.Equinor this year complained in a submission to inspectors that the Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind project proposed by Corio Generation, TotalEnergies and Gulf Energy Development posed a threat to its future revenue. The 1.5 gigawatt new project, more than 13km away, could cost Dudgeon as well as a sister site and projected extensions between £66mn and £206mn in revenue over their lifetimes, Equinor wrote.
The submission is one of many recent complaints from incumbent wind farm operators about potential “wake losses” from new neighbours. Such losses arise when turbines cut wind speeds for developments downwind of them. Concerns are growing as seabeds in the most attractive areas grow more crowded and turbines grow larger”
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2022/08/18/long-range-wake-losses-offshore-much-greater-than-expected-study-shows/
That link did not work, but a search of the site sent me to this:
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2025/03/13/new-research-project-to-study-offshore-wind-energy-yield-in-uk/
From this piece comes this quote regarding EU plans for offshore wind:
“…expansion of offshore wind farms means they must be built closer together, making it crucial to understand how this affects predictions of annual energy production, according to the university. Wakes have been observed extending 65 kilometres and are said to increasingly impact the performance of neighbouring farms, reducing the efficiency of the turbines in producing energy and causing conflicts between wind farm operators.” [my bold]
65 km is further than I have read about in the past but the turbines are getting larger.
IMO, from energy, economic and geopolitical standpoints wind turbines are worse than a waste of time & money. Stop the subsidies!
This problem will get even more interesting when it is the Danes, Germans and Dutch complaining about the Brits nicking the wind for their wind farms given the prevailing winds.
From the article:”First, the Department of Interior has clear, unquestionable authority to order a pause in construction for underway wind projects. Every wind developer is bound by the terms of its Construction and Operations Plan (COP) — a contract they entered into with the Department of Interior, which governs all the terms, conditions, and timing of constructions within the OSW project. Every COP states that “the Department of Interior reserves the right to amend these conditions or impose additional conditions authorized by law.”
Interior Secretary Burgum should order a pause on all off-shore windmill construction until it is determined if such activity is detrimental to whales and other life in the oceans..
I cannot find the “amend these conditions” clause anywhere in the US Wind COP for Marwind project off of Maryland, which was signed on 12/03/2024 (rushed into effect much?). In fact, there is a clause in the lease that states the opposite, that the lessor and lessee have to mutually agree to any changes. This would seem to prevent any pause for this project.
Trump has some pretty good lawyers, maybe they can find something. 🙂
A few major hurricanes moving over the turbines off the eastern coast of the US would do a lot of damage. The forecasts this year by WeatherBell indicate this is a distinct possibility. The big question then is who would clean up the mess. They certainly won’t have the money to rebuild if the aren’t producing power, and with no cash flow (other than subsidies), into bankruptcy they would go.
The wind energy by a storm increases by the cube of the velocity. A 1 sq meter surface area over 60 seconds at standard density receives 10,860 joules at 6.7 mps (15mph). At minimum hurricane strength (75 mph), that increases to 1,358,100. At 125 mph it’s 6,309,850 and 135 mph it’s 7,939,900. So one category 3 passing over an offshore wind farm is not only delivering huge wind energy to a turbine, the water is also crashing into the base of it and rain is being forced into the generator housing. Since these are all made in China, it’s my guess the quality of a lot of the blades may not be as advertised.
Rotors will be feathered and locked at any gusts over 50 mph
Hurricanes have circular wind patterns. The angle of attack changes with time. It is likely that even when feathered and locked, wind damage will occur.
Feathering and locking do nothing for wave energy.
Even feathered and locked, those huge turbines are subject to induce resonance vibrations and those lead to failures. We have seen bridges collapse due to this at much lower wind velocities.
Your point covers only one aspect of full Failure Modes and Effects (FMEA) analysis, which likely has not been performed. Given the cost and time for a FMEA, it is highly likely that independent verification and validation of the analysis was not performed.
It gets even more interesting
Ban the Expensive, Dysfunctional Offshore Wind Turbine Fiasco
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ban-the-dysfunctional-offshore-wind-turbine-fiasco
by Willem Post
Ayah.
Not a FMEA, but a rather comprehensive list of failures and issues.
Designs are supposed to be survivable in 75m/sec winds according to manufacturers. That’s about 168mph. Just a bit above takeoff speed for a passenger jet.
So, the only question is, will interdiction be by the US Coast Guard or the US Navy?
I believe it was China that boasted of a wind tower generator that could withstand the equivalent of a cat 5 hurricane. Everyone was so Christmas excited.
Guess what happened when they tested it.
It became Christmas pudding?
There is no need for reviews, revisits or any other action like these. Simply withdraw subsidies, preferences and mandates. Wind and solar will be out of business next week.
Of course they think they can go on like if their nose bleeds and can bamboozle the local state dumbfeks to continue the subsidies. The president should therefore issue an additional EO prohibiting those subsidies.