Transportation Dept. takes more wind out of offshore wind

From CFACT

By Craig Rucker

The Department of Transportation recently scuttled $679 million in federal funding for coastal port projects intended to support the heavily subsidized offshore wind industry. The money will instead be used for much-needed traditional infrastructure and shipbuilding. 

It’s a tiny fraction of the tens of billions spent or committed to wind and solar energy projects. But the cuts reinforce President Trump’s determination to end federal funding for this expensive form of electricity from offshore turbines that generate power only 35 to 40 percent of the time. 

Where will people get their electricity during the other 100 hours each week? If oil and natural gas are locked in the ground, where will they get their paints, plastics, pharmaceuticals, synthetic fibers, and cosmetics — the 6,000-plus products that come from petrochemicals—including wind turbine blades? 

Twelve projects were affected, including California’s Humboldt Bay Offshore Wind Project. At $427 million, this was the most significant federal grant rescinded by the Transportation Department. 

Along with the $8 million Redwood Marine Terminal, Humboldt was the most indefensible of any offshore wind power proposal yet conceived. There is no continental shelf off the once-Golden State, so wind advocates were planning to install Washington Monument-size turbines on enormous semi-submersible platforms anchored by cables to the seafloor, 1,000 feet or more below the ocean surface. 

The concept has never been tested in the real world, and the unfathomable risks include the danger that cables could snap, causing entire rigs to capsize in storms, creating debris fields along the Pacific Coast. 

Funding was also withdrawn from “wind port projects” at the Bridgeport Port Authority (Connecticut), Port of Davisville (Rhode Island), Paulsboro (New Jersey), Norfolk (Virginia), Sparrows Point (Maryland), and Arthur Kill Terminal (New York). 

Funding was terminated for  Radio Island (North Carolina), Lake Erie (Michigan), Portsmouth Marine Terminal (Virginia), and Salem Wind Port (Massachusetts) projects. 

These subsidies were cunning, part of a decades-long effort to keep alive the myths that offshore wind energy is nearly self-sufficient and generates increasingly inexpensive electricity. Who’d have thought funding for Atlantic, Pacific, and Great Lakes ports was actually another wind energy subsidy? 

The same applies to some of the terminology, such as the Lake Erie Renewable Energy Resilience Project. Its on-and-off electricity will certainly force customers to be resilient—if they want to cool their homes 24/7 in summer, heat them in winter, or watch the Super Bowl. 

Reactions to the cutbacks were swift and predictable. 

Five East Coast governors jointly criticized the Transportation Department’s actions. Walking back these government commitments jeopardizes families and wastes years of progress, they said. Terminating this funding could “cost tens of thousands of American jobs” in energy industries and cause investors to avoid financing future projects. 

Environmentalists and wind industry representatives said the decision undermines the “clean” energy industry, kills high-paying jobs and could lead to higher energy prices. 

They’re all mistaken. This energy is not “clean.” Offshore wind installations require 14 times more raw materials than combined-cycle gas-generating plants to produce the same amount of electricity, without including materials for backup power and transmission lines. 

That requires mining all over the planet, much of it involving widespread destruction of croplands and wildlife habitats, extensive child and slave labor, and enormous amounts of toxic air and water pollution. 

Any high-paying jobs that might be lost in installing and maintaining offshore turbines would be replaced by jobs building and operating coal, gas, and nuclear power plants that generate reliable, affordable electricity in quantities that the power-hungry nation needs — for AI, data centers, hospitals, factories, and modern living standards. 

Higher energy prices are primarily a result of policies favoring wind and solar energy. Many costs are hidden in subsidies and electricity rate add-ons. Rates are much higher in states and countries that have the most wind and solar generation, primarily because they must duplicate every megawatt of “renewable” power with generators that ensure electricity when there is no wind or sunshine. 

A heavy reliance on wind and solar power leads to repeated, often widespread blackouts. Sky-high electricity prices kill jobs. Replacing wind and solar with gas, coal, and nuclear power means reliable, affordable electricity that supports and sustains industries and employment.   

States can still finance these port upgrades themselves and pursue their offshore wind turbine dreams. However, they must also safeguard endangered whales and other marine species, Navy submarines, and other military operations, fishing vessels, and vital air and surface transportation activities that offshore wind installations may jeopardize. 

American budgets, jobs, health, welfare, and environmental treasures cannot afford more energy fantasies, especially offshore wind. 

The DOT made the right call in ending these wind turbine subsidies and redirecting the money to where it’s really needed.

This article originally appeared at DC Journal