The following is an op-ed from Representative Reagan Paul:
If you had a dollar for every time it was said that offshore wind development in the Gulf of Maine will combat climate change and bolster the local workforce, you’d almost be as wealthy as the pseudo-environmental special interest and labor groups pushing this narrative.
Can offshore wind advocates boast about the billions of dollars of subsidies required to attempt to make them competitive, skyrocketing electric bills, decreased grid reliability, and rampant environmental and community destruction that inevitably follows in the wake of offshore wind development? Of course not. The only cards left to play for offshore wind proponents are the claims that this technology will decrease carbon emissions and bolster the local workforce. Not surprisingly, these were the talking points utilized by labor groups and the Natural Resources Council of Maine at a local offshore wind meeting held in Searsport last month.
The truth of the matter is that there is simply no evidence that offshore wind is even remotely capable of delivering on either promise. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary that adding offshore wind to a state’s energy mix will likely increase global CO2 emissions and will lead to widespread job loss.
Carbon Emissions
While constructing offshore wind turbines may give climate activists a warm feeling inside about saving the world from impending doom, the truth is that they are an unmitigated carbon super-polluter.
Can anyone calculate the carbon emissions for these projects from the extensive mining and processing of the required minerals and materials, constructing the turbines themselves, manufacturing needed components, operation, maintenance, replacement, decommissioning and landfilling old, worn out, damaged or obsolete equipment that create “forever waste?” What about the emissions from global shipping from trucks and ships needed along the way? What about the toxic pollutants from unregulated overseas productions in places like China where more coal power plants were permitted last year than any time in the last seven years to keep up demand for our “Green New Deal”? These emissions are global, and therefore increase global CO2 emissions.
The supposed decreased carbon projections of offshore wind assume that these turbines will be in operation for 20-30 years. That is unrealistic, as we Mainers know that if you put metal in saltwater, inevitable erosion ensues, and maintenance is required. If there were even partially intellectually honest offshore wind proponents, they may even concede that on-going maintenance of turbines will be necessary, but they would certainly be reluctant to tell you about the recent fate of the world’s first offshore wind project. This wind farm, Hywind Scotland, is coming offline for three to four months for “heavy maintenance. The operator, Norwegian power giant Equinor, says that operational data has indicated that its wind turbines need work. The project has only been in operation for 7 years. 7 years is a far cry from 20-30 years and dramatically altars the data assumptions for the price, capacity, and environmental impacts for offshore floating wind. Imagine the proposed 3 GW of offshore wind offline in the Gulf of Maine for an hour let alone 4 months and the devastating impact that would have on Maine.
For those Mainers who are concerned about the supposed temperature increase of our oceans and thus believe we are facing an existential climate threat, offshore wind should be something you oppose. Multiple offshore substations will be needed to convert AC/DC cables using cool water intake. During their operation, they take up 81 million gallons of sea water each per day, that is then dumped back into the ocean at a temperature of around 90 degrees.
Many advocates of this technology are also not aware that offshore wind turbines require fourteen times as many raw materials per megawatt than a combined-cycle natural gas power plant. If you add in substations and additional transmission lines to transport offshore wind power, that increases the required raw materials to 20 or 30 times of what a natural gas plant requires.
We know from the data retrieved from the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Metal Industry Emissions Report, the carbon footprint of constructing a 260-foot turbine is 126.45 tons of CO2, just for the steel alone. As for the concrete needed for such a structure, according to data from the NRMCA Concrete CO2 Factsheet, 115.4 tons of CO2 are emitted in the process, thus adding up to 241.85 tons of CO2 emitted on only steel and concrete. Multiply that figure by 4 per windmill to understand the impact of floating offshore wind if the climate activists and unions get their way. The Gulf of Maine would be cluttered with potentially hundreds of 850-1000-foot-tall floating turbines covering nearly 10 million acres right in the path of the annual southward migration of the North Atlantic right whale. Important to note, those figures do not include the concrete required for the floating platforms that are each the size of a football field needed for the floating turbines proposed by Maine democrats. That’s right. Hundreds of steel Eiffel Towers floating on football field sized concrete bases floating in the Gulf of Maine.
When it comes to the energy mix of ISO- NE, the potential CO2 decrease from operating offshore wind turbines will be trivial at best, namely because the inherent intermittency of offshore wind requires gas fired power emissions to increase when the wind isn’t blowing. Any marginal CO2 decreases will be overshadowed with the fossil fuel backup generation that will be needed to maintain grid stability. Financially speaking, to install grid-balancing and back up batteries for the United States, it could cost upwards of $290 trillion, based on just today’s electricity needs.
If the math holds, the result of small local CO2 emissions + large increases in emissions via supply chain and manufacturing = overall increases in atmospheric CO2.
In the words of Francis Menton of the Manhattan Contrarian, “It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the people planning the Net Zero transition have no idea what they are doing.”
Workforce Development
So, what about the promise of hundreds of jobs for Mainers coming to Waldo County?
While a small number of jobs may indeed be created, what wind advocates fail to mention is that the jobs being created will be subsidized by Maine ratepayers, including low-income Mainers, who will already be paying for increasingly more expensive energy as a result of offshore wind being added to the state’s energy mix. Many existing jobs will also be lost, as businesses, factories and even hospitals and schools will have to cut labor costs to stay afloat (offshore wind pun) amidst increasing electric rates, while simultaneously being forced by government mandates to install all-electric systems, which cannot adequately function with intermittent power.
In a study of the labor force impact of offshore wind development in North Carolina, it was found that an estimated 45,000-67,000 jobs would be lost due to increased energy prices and downstream effects on their economy. Why do we assume anything would be different in Maine? We’ve seen this already begin to happen with the recent announcement of the closing of Dragon Cement in Thomaston. They stated rising operational and logistical costs as driving forces behind their decision to shut down. How many more businesses, jobs, and industries must be sacrificed on the altar of climatism? How many companies will never even consider Maine because of the burdensome business climate and skyrocketing energy costs?
The small amount of local job growth numbers are overstated as well, as these jobs by and large would be for assembly, not construction, as many of the needed components such as turbines, towers, blades, and connecting cables, are fabricated in foreign nations. To add insult to injury, most ratepayer money will be sent overseas, because that is where the majority of the supply chain exists.
Based on the pro-union language of LD 1895 (the AFL-CIO called the bill a “homerun”), there are real questions whether Maine’s largest construction employers, which are not unionized, will benefit from the port project. Providing labor union allies with statutorily mandated handouts may send those port jobs to out-of-state union workers in Massachusetts. If you want a preview of what’s to come, take a look at the license plates of the vehicles of those working on solar projects and see how few of them are actually from the State of Maine.
As matter of fact, a recent Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) study from the east coast Vineyard Wind Project states that a port upgrade for offshore wind would indeed bring tax revenue and some jobs but also displacement or reduction of fishing opportunities and other ocean sector economies, including tourism. The jobs created by offshore wind should be seen as costs, not benefits.
As the North Carolina study, BOEM, and a drive around the State of Maine tells us, it appears that Democrat lawmakers and lobbyists seem to be willing to sacrifice the long-term blue-collar workforce run by small businesses and hardworking Mainers for what Janet Mills likes to call short-term “green collar” jobs that are subsidized by taxpayers to fund foreign companies. Nothing suggests Maine lacks the job creation and economic growth to justify such a hurried and demonstrably risky government intervention on behalf of a particular industry to the exclusion of others.
If this project continues, and Maine experiences the utter devastation of its pristine landscape, desecration of our oceans, unaffordable energy costs, and mass workforce shutdowns, make sure to thank your local Democrat lawmaker, union representative, or “environmental” special interest group.
A reality-based focus on zero-emissions energy that favors lower costs, higher capacity factors, reliability, and dispatchability would invariably favor more nuclear generation. Focusing on lowering emissions and costs while retaining reliability and dispatchability would favor more natural gas generation.
Now would be a good time for intellectually honest Mainers to understand that bad ideas are great until you run out of other people’s money, offshore wind is little more than climate virtue signaling, and as always-elections have consequences.
In the wise words of Emeritus Professor Wade Allision of Oxford University, “Wind power fails on every count…governments are ignoring overwhelming evidence of the inadequacies of wind power and resorting to bluster rather than reasoned analysis.”
A critical and common-sense thinker in our legislature. Ms. Paul, you are a hero to the many people of Maine who know all too well that wind power is a scam. And offshore wind is the biggest fraud, the biggest crime of all time.
We been needing a voice like yours to save the State of Maine from this corruption. Keep fighting, you are on the right side of history.
At some point, people need to realize that we must live with our planet, not off it. We have to realize what we have done to our planet and ourselves by ignoring the warnings that we have had for decades.
By the way, our oceans are the warmest they have ever been in mankind’s history, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation is slowing down and could stop by 2025. Then it looks like the El Nino is leaving and a La Nina is on its way. Those conditions will make for a devastating weather pattern this summer, let alone come hurricane season.
We cannot turn back the clock as at least 95% of the public doesn’t care. I can tell you that it impacts insurance costs for homes and cars across our country. Heck, at least 7 insurance companies have gone bankrupt in Florida and try buying flood insurance in that state. Investing in protecting our environment not only makes for healthy living but saves money.
Well written and thought out article. Wind turbines require small maintenance staffs once the facility is built out. The idea that they are going to create a lot of jobs is an absolute myth. In my engineering experience wind turbines in an ocean environment have a life expectancy of about 10 years due to the corrosive effects of salt air. This assumes that a protective coating has been provided to help reduce the effects of salt air. When you include an accurate life expectancy for the equipment the cost is suddenly much higher.
Offshore wind turbines, actually any wind turbine, kills birds, including threatened and endangered species. The endangered species specialists at the US Fish & Wildlife Service turned themselves inside out trying to find a way to approve the Cape Wind Project in Nantucket Sound. They loved the idea of green energy, but damn, those pesky birds.
Thank you Regan Paul for writing such an informative article, I wish this could fall into view for every Mainer to read!
Thank you for the article, Rep Paul. This same sentiment, almost word for word was expressed by an amazing MD (general practitioner) in Rumford twenty or more years ago when blowing the tops off mountains was the thing that would SAVE the planet. Oh brother. We have to “take with a grain of salt” any and all disasterizing language. I call it COVID mentality, “if you don’t do this we are all gonna ddie” I think we can be net carbon zero and really faster than we think. But the result will be achieved and dependent on critical thinking and common sense expressed in this article.
Kudos to a great state rep!!!
I’ve said it before ,and I’ll say it again. The rich elite globalists raping and destroying our planet to enrich themselves, as the pillage our villages and pockets ! Real deal people, WAKE UP!
It is profoundly concerning that an elected official who might influence the State’s energy policy is so completely ignorant regarding how power systems or carbon accounting work. She appears to be unaware of the basic concept of life cycle carbon analysis, which very explicitly takes into consideration all of the emissions that occur in the construction, operation, and decommissioning of a wind turbine, in comparison with the amount of carbon displaced by its operation. She also seems clueless as to how our New England grid manages variability in power plant operation or the potential net reductions in both cost and emissions for that entire grid that will occur as these wind resources enter the mix. Our regional grid operator has acknowledged that “intermittent” solar and wind have increased the regional grid reliability and reduced reliance on expensive natural gas.
Thanks to the author for an excellent article. It is good that one in a political position dares to look behind the black curtain and see what a dangerous scam that climate change and green power are. I held a Lobster fishing license in Maine for over 40 yrs. I gave it up 20 years back because I despised what an evil outfit NOAA had become. They get to make the rules and Maine fishermen get to OBEY! Some democracy huh? Who elected anybody in NOAA to their position? The Founders would be appalled at this bureaucratic takeover of our country.
Huge wind farms are proposed off the NY and NJ coast. Numerous whales, porpoises and other marine animals have washed up dead on the shores of those two states, especially in the last 2 yrs. Sonar equipment is being used to map the ocean bottom to find good footing for these wind machines. Those animals use sonar to navigate around. It is speculated that the man made sonar waves are doing something to kill the animals. Water transmits sound much better than air does. Of course the true believers of the climate change hoax and green power will save the planet, don’t care about any marine animals that are killed by any form of green power operations. The only dead whales that matter are those they can say are killed by Maine lobstermen. After all their goal is to kill the fishing industry so they can own the ocean to have freedom to work this green power scam with out any objections from anybody.
It needs to be said that the climate change scam being promoted by John Kerry, Algor, Saint Greta and many others is NOT about saving the planet but rather it is all about lowering the earth’s population by getting rid of us peons that the Davos crowd do not like. They deserve all the perks of life because they are special people while the rest of us serfs don’t matter a hoot. How much fossil fuel does this crowd use in their private jets while traveling to Davos and other places? You can smell arrogance and hypocrisy from a thousand miles away!
With 31 years experience in the Power Generation Field in all areas, Wind , Solar , Nuclear , Coal , Natural Gas and Oil . No where in the entire World has there EVER been a Wind or Solar Project that can sustain itself with out subsides… It is a failed ideology . The Off Shore Wind Turbines in Denmark are nearly all unusable due to Design flaws … They were “The cutting Edge ” technology at the time of their installation … No one in the Maine House or Senate has 1 hour of “Real World ” on the job experience in the power generation Industry … or I would know them … No brag just Fact. Augusta needs to get some Knowledgeable and Experienced people involved in their energy policies .
Not mentioned in the article are the abuses of adults and children in regards to mining the minerals needed for green energy projects.
It certainly is looking like the Democrat controlled state govt is trying to make certain there are only the wealthy and poor in this state. Like a real communist dream.
They seem happy to make poverty the largest industry here.
The only thing off-shore wind power will do, is to destroy our lobster, ‘n fishing industries,….
Can you make them without using fossil fuels?
Come on down to Saco to see how well wind power worked. City was given all these assurances about how great the technology was and went ahead and installed a turbine at the taxpayer funded transportation center. It never produced the energy we were told it would and the company went bankrupt soon after. The city was left with a hunk of steel that we couldn’t get parts for and ultimately had to pay a company to remove it…we couldn’t even give it away! Now the concrete pad and all the expensive electrical infrastructure just sits out front, where at Christmas time it’s used to hold the City tree.
While we are talking about failed “green energy”, the same transportation center was also built with an expensive geothermal heating system. It too had constant issues and came with high costs for parts and repairs. It eventually failed all together and after about 8 years the City abandoned that whole system and had to spend another 50k on heat pumps…meanwhile Saco taxpayers are still paying the bond on this “first green design train station in the US”. In total all these green technologies cost taxpayers well north of a million and today the facility is more of a drug riddled homeless center than a transportation center.
The climate change/green energy scam/lie rolls on. The dupes continue to buy into it. God help us!