Tag: wind turbines

MPs probe Crown Estate after it rakes in £1.1billion profit from offshore wind farms

The Crown Estate is facing fresh scrutiny as it emerged it is raking in over a billion pounds of profit from offshore wind farms.

The estate, which owns the seabed around England, Wales and Northern Ireland on behalf of the monarch, recorded profits of £1.1billion in each of the past two financial years – an increase of £658m from 2022-23.

And as King Charles was urged to stop Britain’s seabed being used as a ‘cash machine’, The Mail on Sunday can reveal MPs on the public accounts committee (PAC) are set to investigate. 

The committee last week launched a probe into the Crown Estate’s leases on properties to members of the Royal Family after questions over the peppercorn rent paid by Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to live in 30-room Royal Lodge.

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, chairman of the PAC, told the MoS: ‘Given that wind farms are such an important part of the Crown Estate’s income, the issue will inevitably feature when we do our inquiry.’ 

Greenpeace called on the King to intervene, alleging the Crown Estate has ‘exploited’ its monopoly position to charge hefty fees for the leases which, it claims, is forcing up UK energy bills.

The environmental campaign group claims the estate, whose £15billion portfolio also includes property and vast areas of land, removed a cap on the so-called ‘option fees’ developers pay to reserve rights to the seabed, contributing to the surging profits.

Once the wind farms start to generate electricity, the Crown Estate receives 2 per cent of the revenue generated. 

Keep reading

RFK Jr. Probes Health Dangers Of Offshore Wind Turbines

eset by soaring prices, an increasingly hostile regulatory climate, and growing public opposition in coastal communities, offshore wind faces a new challenge from a powerful public official and erstwhile booster of strict climate policies.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to investigate wind projects’ effects on the health and safety of commercial fishermen, Bloomberg News reports. Specifically, Kennedy in late summer quietly instructed CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to prepare such research. The office of the U.S. Surgeon General is also involved in the assessment.

Originally, the research was to be wrapped up within a couple of months, but its completion has been delayed by the government shutdown. “Work on this report has been halted solely due to the Democrat-led shutdown,” a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) told Reuters.

Human Health Effects

To date, research on the human health effects of offshore wind turbines has been spotty, with a 2011 literature review finding “no peer-reviewed articles demonstrate a direct causal link between people living in proximity to modern wind turbines, the noise they emit and resulting physiological health effects,” according to The Hill.

But a study released in January by the University of Portsmouth in the U.K. warned of potentially harmful levels of metals from turbine protection systems. “The materials used to protect wind turbines from corrosion leach into the surrounding water, which could pose risks to ecosystems, seafood safety, and human health,” the study found. “Offshore wind farms release thousands of [tons] of aluminum, zinc, and iridium each year.” 

Professor Gordon Watson of the university’s School of the Environment and Life Sciences supports wind farms because of their role in reducing carbon emissions but adds, “There is limited data on how these metals affect the environment near operational offshore wind farms, so it’s hard to assess the full risks.”

Keep reading

Shock New Report Lays Out The Full Scale Of Environmental Damage Caused by Onshore Wind Turbines

Fresh insights into the ecological devastation caused by onshore wind turbines around the world are contained in a shocking new paper published last month by a group of ecologists in Nature. The paper is paywalled and has attracted little mainstream media interest, but it highlights research that illustrates that the effect of utility-scale wind energy production “can be far reaching and sometimes have large and unexpected consequences for biodiversity”.

An annual figure of around one million bats are killed in the countries with the highest number of turbines, but harmful effects are seen in many other parts of the ecosystem. The number of top predators such as jaguars, jungle cats and golden jackals can be changed by turbines in tropical forest gaps leading to the “possibility for cascading effects” along similar latitudinal levels. 

In short, the science team notes that turbines can kill birds, bats and insects, change animal behaviour, physiology and demography and alter ecosystems. The installation of wind turbines invariably results in habitat degradation, but it is regions rich in biodiversity with minimal existing infrastructure that suffer the most.

The authors state that wind facilities “are recognised as an important driver for losses and degradation of irreplaceable habitats that are important for conservation.” Such areas, of course, can be found in the windy highlands of Scotland. For City-dwelling eco zealots, it is a case of out of sight, out of mind. Net Zero is all about money and power – bats and eagles have neither.

The Nature paper is a wake-up call about the increasing damage that is being inflicted on natural habitats by wind turbines that are steadily increasing in size and destructive potential. It is a summary of the latest findings about the effect of turbines and it is not sanguine about the future.

“Perhaps the greatest unknown in predicting future effects of wind power on biodiversity lies in the scope of the potential expansion of the technology and the cumulative consequences of this expansion for species and ecosystems”. A 2021 USA report on the potential pathways to Net Zero emissions is noted and this suggests using up to 13% of the land area for wind farms. The new Trump Administration is likely to put a stop to this madness which the scientists observe could have “dramatic consequences for biodiversity”.

The BP Deepwater Horizon accident is generally considered the worse US offshore oil spill. Estimates vary but it is thought to have led to the deaths of around 600,000 sea birds and the incident led to widespread condemnation by environmentalists that continues to this day. Slightly less publicity is given to the 500,000 bats killed onshore in the US by wind turbines every single year. In the UK, 30,000 is the estimated annual kill number, with Canada at 50,000 and 200,000 in Germany.

Keep reading

Wind, Solar Projects Can Stick Taxpayers With The Tab Coming And Going

When it comes to our energy future, it is often true that what many on the left consider an enlightened long-term view is in fact short-sightedness that fails to reflect the full consequences of their actions.  

Such is the case with the liberal media’s fawning over the Republican governor of Wyoming for his embrace of “alternatives,” including a glowing profile last year on CBS’ “60 Minutes” for his advocacy for wind turbines. “Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon pursues green, carbon-negative agenda in one of the nation’s reddest states,” trumpeted the online version of the piece. 

Many Wyoming residents are not on board, including from his own party. The state GOP passed a “no confidence” vote on Gordon in 2023 after his climate-related remarks at Harvard University. And a New York Times story (written in 2021, updated in 2023) on Wyoming’s energy landscape noted that many residents have frequent complaints about turbines taking over hunting land, lights polluting the night sky and energy transmitted out of state. The controversy has dragged on into 2025.  

For Gordon and others, “Wyoming is very windy” seems to be the simplified justification for erecting unsightly wind turbines across the landscape. But what makes a Republican official’s championing of wind or solar concerning is not so much his belief in the (dubious) effectiveness of the energy source as appearing to brush aside the actual cost to taxpayers.  

How many wind and solar farms have sprung up across the U.S.? Estimates show nearly 1,400 utility-scale wind farms and more than 6,700 solar farms. Those farms consist of more than 70,000 individual wind turbines and more than 200 million solar panels, (according to AI calculations based on available information on estimated capacity data and individual panel wattages).  

It’s important to understand the vast array of individual wind and solar components because someday, starting in the not-too-distant future, they will individually wear out. What happens then? 

According to government estimates, many turbines are already nearing end-life status, meaning they will either need “repowered” or decommissioned. “The time to disassemble, demolish, and remove wind turbine components and wind energy project-related infrastructure and conduct restoration activities can be 6–24 months, depending on the size of the turbines and the number of turbines involved in the project,” according to government guidelines.  

For solar installations, the issue is even more pressing. “By 2030, the United States will need to manage around one million tons of solar panel waste,” according to a recycling industry estimate. “This number is expected to grow to 10 million tons by 2050, making the U.S. the second-largest producer of solar panel waste globally. Currently, only about 10% of decommissioned panels are properly recycled, despite containing valuable materials like silver, silicon, and aluminum.” 

Proponents of “alternatives” insist that the costs for decommissioning wind and solar installations are typically assumed by companies through agreements negotiated at the time of construction. That’s small comfort considering that more than 100 solar companies have gone bankrupt in recent years, including residential, community solar projects and utility-scale installations. The year 2024 “saw an uptick in bankruptcy filings in each of these three sub-categories,” according to one industry tracker. 

Keep reading

Report: Trump Punishes Newsom by Canceling $427M Wind Project

President Donald Trump may have chosen to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to a California wind project to punish Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) for signing a separate climate change deal with Denmark.

Last week, as Breitbart News reported, the Trump administration had canceled $679 million that was to have been spent on supposedly “doomed” offshore wind projects — $427 million of which was to have gone to a single wind project in Humboldt County, California.

The New York Times reported Friday:

The Transportation Department on Friday said it was terminating or withdrawing $679 million in federal funding for 12 projects around the country intended to support the development of offshore wind power, the latest of the Trump administration’s escalating attacks against the wind industry.

The funds, approved by the Biden administration, include $427 million awarded last year to upgrade a marine terminal in Humboldt County, Calif. The new terminal would be used to assemble and launch wind turbines capable of floating in the ocean, which the state of California had been planning to deploy to meet its renewable energy goals.

The list of targeted projects also includes $48 million for an offshore wind port on Staten Island, $39 million to upgrade a port near Norfolk, Va. and $20 million for a marine terminal in Paulsboro, N.J. Most of the projects were intended to be staging areas for the construction of giant wind turbines that would eventually be placed at sea.

“Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg bent over backwards to use transportation dollars for their Green New Scam agenda while ignoring the dire needs of our shipbuilding industry,” Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said at the time. “Thanks to President Trump, we are prioritizing real infrastructure improvements over fantasy wind projects that cost much and offer little.”

One project, however, off the coast of Connecticut and Rhode Island, was reportedly 80% complete and due to begin operations next year.

It is being developed by Danish wind farm developer Orsted.

Keep reading

Connecticut AG Tong Told District Court That Trump’s Stop Work Order For Revolution Wind Is “Unlawful” And “Irrational”

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong on Thursday night formally notified the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts of the “unlawful wind executive order” halting the Revolution Wind project and the “severe harm to Connecticut ratepayers, grid reliability and jobs” allegedly caused by stopping the project.

On September 4th, the court will hear a motion for summary judgment where Tong and 18 other attorneys general have sought to block Trump’s effort to stop one of the biggest “scams of the century.”

“We’ve got billions of dollars in investment and a project on the finish line to deliver affordable, American-made, renewable energy right off the coast of Connecticut. There are more than 1,000 jobs on the line. We’re notifying the court now that Trump’s irrational stop to Revolution Wind will jack up energy bills, hurt workers, and weaken our grid,” said Tong.

“At a time when we’re working to lower utility costs in our state and strengthen our economy, this decision by the federal government will increase electricity costs and risk countless jobs. Connecticut has made critical investments in renewable energy in an effort to diversify our energy supply and lower prices for families and businesses. Even more frustrating, this project was 80% compete and set to be finished next year. We will do everything we can to save this project because it represents exactly the kind of investment that reduces energy costs, strengthens regional production, and builds a more secure energy future,” complained Governor Ned Lamont.

President Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum on his first day in office that, among other things, indefinitely halted all federal approvals necessary for the development of offshore and onshore wind energy projects pending federal review. Pursuant to this directive, federal agencies stopped all permitting and approval activities, and issued a Stop Work Order to the fully permitted Empire Wind project that was already under construction in New York. That project has since resumed.

Keep reading

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Yanks Almost $700 Million in Funding for Twelve Offshore Wind Projects

President Trump has made it clear on multiple occasions that he is not a fan of wind as a power source. It’s not reliable and it is an affront to the natural beauty of the country.

Trump recently cancelled a major wind project in Idaho that was approved by Biden. Now, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has pulled almost $700 million in funding for twelve planned offshore wind projects.

Green energy activists on the left are sure to lose their minds over this.

The New York Post reports:

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy withdraws $679M in funding for ‘doomed’ offshore wind projects – including three in NY, NJ and CT

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced Friday that $679 million in federal funding has been withdrawn for 12 “doomed” offshore wind projects – including three in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

The scrapped funding includes $10.5 million for Connecticut’s Bridgeport Port Authority Operations and Maintenance Wind Port project, $20.5 million for New Jersey’s Wind Port at Paulsboro and $48 million for Staten Island’s Arthur Kill Terminal.

The Trump administration plans to spend the withdrawn funds on “real infrastructure” and “restoring American maritime dominance.”

“Wasteful, wind projects are using resources that could otherwise go towards revitalizing America’s maritime industry,” Duffy said in a statement…

“Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg bent over backwards to use transportation dollars for their Green New Scam agenda while ignoring the dire needs of our shipbuilding industry,” Duffy said. “Thanks to President Trump, we are prioritizing real infrastructure improvements over fantasy wind projects.”

Keep reading

US National Security Probe Targets Wind Industry

The Commerce Department just opened a Section 232 “national security” probe into imported wind turbines and parts—quietly on Aug. 13, publicly today. That matters because 232 isn’t a press release; it’s a legal on-ramp to more tariffs on top of the new 50% duty already applied to the steel and aluminum content in turbines and components.

Here’s the operational read: the U.S. wind build is heavily import-dependent for blades, drivetrains, and electrical systems. In 2023, the U.S. brought in about $1.7B of wind equipment, with roughly 41% from Mexico, Canada, and China. If you tax the metal inside the machine—and potentially layer more 232 duties later—you squeeze project profit margins, renegotiate Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs—long-term contracts to sell the power), or delay FIDs. None of those outcomes lowers your Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE—think of it as the average lifetime price per unit of electricity once you add up all the costs).

Wood Mackenzie pegs the tariff bite at +7% for turbine costs (+5% total project costs) under the earlier tariff proposals; in a universal 25% tariff scenario, turbine costs could rise ~10% and LCOE up ~7%. And that was before Commerce slapped a 50% surcharge on the steel/aluminum content—so the floor just moved higher. Expect original equipment manufacturers to reroute supply chains, localize sub-assemblies, and raise prices anyway. Vestas has already said the quiet part out loud: these costs flow straight through to electricity prices.

Don’t confuse this with an offshore-only story. Onshore wind is where the bulk of U.S. volume lives, and it’s far more sensitive to every $/kW swing, gearbox delivery delay, and tower steel price jump. Section 232 is also being deployed against other “critical” imports (planes, chips, pharma), so wind isn’t a one-off carve-out—it’s part of a broader, durable trade posture that project finance now has to underwrite.

Keep reading

Yet Another Misleading Report on “Low-Cost” Wind and Solar

In a just-released report, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) claims that renewable energy is the most cost-competitive source of new electricity generation worldwide. The report further claims that “91% of new renewable power projects commissioned last year were more cost-effective than any new fossil fuel alternative” based on levelized costs, which can be thought of as the energy equivalent of a fixed mortgage.

If those claims sound too good to be true, it’s because they are. IRENA’s boasts ignore a fundamental reality: the intermittent electricity generated from wind and solar is fundamentally different than electricity generated by traditional generating resources that are not subject to the whims of the weather.

In the U.S., the Energy Information Administration (EIA) makes the same mistake. The EIA claims that wind and solar will account for the lion’s share of new generating capacity for the next decade and will provide electricity at a lower levelized cost than any traditional resource, including new natural gas generators.

But the episodic nature of wind and solar power has critical impacts on both supply adequacy and cost, which, while recognized by some, are nonetheless not incorporated into bottom-line data. Traditional coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric generating plants can be scheduled to run when needed. Some of them, especially nuclear and most coal plants, are designed to operate continuously and are referred to as “baseload” facilities. Others, especially natural gas plants, can quickly be turned on or off (“dispatched”) to match changes in demand. Collectively, traditional generation can be both scheduled and dynamically managed, enabling the operators of electric grids to reliably meet demand at the lowest cost.

The inherent intermittency of wind and solar reduces the physical and economic value of their capacity relative to traditional generating resources, as sufficient reserves or storage must be maintained to meet demand when they are unavailable. Merely reporting total wind and solar capacity misleads because it does not account for the adequacy of the electrical energy generated to meet demand and the actual costs to do so.

Here’s an analogy. Imagine that a city and its citizens are offered two types of buses for commuting. One is with new buses and free fares. However, these run only one-third of the time, are often unpredictable, and are less likely to show up on bad-weather days. If you wait for one of these new free buses but it fails to show up, you must suffer the inconvenience of having to take a relatively expensive Uber ride, which can cost even more on busy or bad-weather days. Meanwhile, the other option is to pay a modest fare (say, one-tenth of an Uber ride) on a conventional bus—but one that’s reliable, regardless of weather. Over a year of commuting, the total costs for the “free” bus service are likely to be much higher and the value much lower than commuting on the conventional bus service.

Keep reading

Wind & Solar Energy Bankrupting Sunshine State

The State of Florida, long a model of economic growth and conservative fiscal policy, now faces a paradox: while bathed in sunshine and surrounded by natural beauty, it is flirting with energy insolvency. Despite its bounty of natural gas and a history of reliable and affordable electric power, the Sunshine State is increasingly embracing wind and solar energy—two intermittent sources heavily reliant on subsidies, regulatory distortion and taxpayer support.

According to energy analyst Dave Walsh, a speaker at last weekend’s Reclaim Campaign event in Venice, Florida, this green energy shift is not only misguided—it is a direct threat to Florida’s economic sustainability.

Dave Walsh, former president of Mitsubishi-Hitachi Power Americas and a frequent commentator on energy policy, has issued repeated warnings about the consequences of an overreliance on renewable energy. His central thesis is simple: wind and solar power are not financially or technically viable replacements for baseload energy.

Unlike clean coal, natural gas or nuclear—which produce consistent power regardless of time or weather—wind and solar depend on conditions beyond human control. In Florida, that volatility translates into higher costs, increasing grid instability, and growing dependence on backup generation that negates many of the claimed environmental benefits.

Keep reading