Maine’s floating wind program takes another hit

From CFACT

By David Wojick

The US Energy Department recently suspended a large grant at the University of Maine for research on floating wind technology. The full significance of this suspension will not be known until it plays out, but it is useful to see the context. This research plays a central role in Maine’s massive offshore wind development program, which CFACT has been fighting for some time with sizable success.

Maine averages just a mere 1,500 MW of electricity consumption, but they want to have a crazy 3,000 MW of offshore wind. This target assumes complete electrification of cars, trucks, home heat, etc. – the full transition, which is never going to happen.

Even worse, given the great offshore depths, this has to be floating wind which costs around three times as much as fixed bottom wind, which is already way too expensive. Floating wind is also environmentally destructive with a vast undersea web of anchoring cables.

It also requires a big factory to make the huge floaters that carry the turbine towers. Maine’s objectionable choice of a factory site is Sears Island, the largest uninhabited and undeveloped island on the East Coast. Maine legislator Reagan Paul’s district includes Sears Island and she is adamantly against this project. CFACT has worked closely with her in this fight.

Central to the Maine plan is the use of floating wind technology being developed by the University of Maine. You can see some of their research work funded under the now stopped grant here: “Optimized Floating Offshore Wind Turbine Substructure Design Trends for 10–30 MW Turbines in Low-, Medium-, and High-Severity Wave Environments”.

https://ift.tt/VOByMCn

Thus, the DOE funded research that was just stopped is on the critical path for the Maine plan. In fact, the University researchers were in the process of building, launching, and operating a small scale version of their floater design. The floater is sitting at a dock waiting for its turbine tower to be erected.

However, Maine’s entire offshore program has already been stopped, at least for now, which might make the research moot. This stoppage is an event that CFACT likely played a key role in.

The Sears Island floater factory was going to cost a lot of money, so Maine applied to the US Transportation Department for a roughly half billion dollar grant to pay for most of it. DOT had already given a similar huge grant to California.

CFACT research found that this DOT grant program was intended for projects that improved US freight traffic, which a floater factory certainly does not do. Thus the grant would be a misallocation of federal funds.

So we filed a complaint with GAO’s Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Reporting System. They examined it and sent it to the DOT Inspector General. Not long after that, DOT notified Maine that their grant application would not be funded.

It is possible that DOT turned Maine down for other reasons, but the timing makes it likely that we blew the telling whistle. Of course DOT did not say the grant would be inappropriate as they had already made one just like it. But President Trump was about to take office, so maybe they decided it was time to abandon Biden’s illegal grant practice once it was pointed out.

For more on the foolishness of the Maine program see my report here: http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Maines-massive-floating-wind-folly.pdf

Getting back to the DOE research grant stoppage, it would be great if they were joining EPA and Interior in carrying out the President’s policy of stopping offshore wind. EPA and Interior have each recently stopped a major offshore wind project.

However, as with the DOE research stoppage, all of these actions are temporary, at least on paper. Each says there is an investigation going on, as does the President’s offshore wind executive order.

So there is a lot left to be done when it comes to stopping offshore wind. CFACT will be active throughout this process. Stay tuned to see how it all plays out.


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/mhvK58J

May 1, 2025 at 12:03PM

“Canada’s new leader is worse than Trudeau”

That’s saying something. Watch: Morano on The First TV.

via CFACT

https://ift.tt/BgOLkrl

May 1, 2025 at 11:09AM

Friday

1 out of 10 based on 1 rating

via JoNova

https://ift.tt/Iig3DlQ

May 1, 2025 at 09:49AM

Arctic Ice: All’s Well Ending April 2025

NOAA refers to the Month end Arctic ice extent by averaging the last five days extents.  Thus monthly gains and losses of ice can be obtained by subtracting the previous month end ice amount.  The chart above shows the April month end Arctic ice extents since 2007, comparing the two relevant datasets: Sea Ice Index (SII, based on satellite microwave sensors) and Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent (MASIE, based on multiple sources including several satellite sensors and visual analysis).

A sine wave pattern is evident starting after the low 2007 extent, rising to a peak in 2012, declining to 2019, before returning to the mean the last four years.

After a sub-par March maximum, now in April, 2025, Arctic ice has closed the gap with the 19-year average.

During April the average year loses 1.1M km2 of ice extent.  Meanwhile 2025 lost only 0.538 M km2, about half as much.  The end result is MASIE showing a slight deficit and SII a small surplus at end of April.

The regional distribution of ice extents is particularly revealing, as shown in the table below.

Region 2025120 Day 120 Ave. 2025-Ave. 2007120 2025-2007
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere 13428208 13510326 -82118 13108068 320140
 (1) Beaufort_Sea 1071001 1068240 2761 1059189 11811
 (2) Chukchi_Sea 963094 957153 5942 949246 13848
 (3) East_Siberian_Sea 1087137 1085746 1391 1080176 6961
 (4) Laptev_Sea 893105 891206 1899 875661 17444
 (5) Kara_Sea 927530 915007 12523 864664 62866
 (6) Barents_Sea 563013 552738 10275 396544 166470
 (7) Greenland_Sea 703059 661036 42023 644438 58621
 (8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence 1129634 1194283 -64650 1147115 -17481
 (9) Canadian_Archipelago 854878 849548 5330 838032 16846
 (10) Hudson_Bay 1249532 1238910 10622 1222074 27458
 (11) Central_Arctic 3244486 3231137 13349 3241034.13 3452
 (12) Bering_Sea 441499 477412 -35913 475489 -33990
 (13) Baltic_Sea 11180 21561 -10382 14683.79 -3504
 (14) Sea_of_Okhotsk 287204 363423 -76219 295743 -8539

The table shows only three significant deficits to average; Okhotsk is -72k km2, and Bering adds -40k, together greater than the overall -82k km2, which is 0.6% below average.  The other deficit in Baffin Bay is  offset by surpluses in nearly every other Arctic basin with the exception of Baltic Sea. Clearly the core Arctic ocean is solidly frozen, with a few fringe seas going to open water slightly ahead of schedule.

Why is this important?  All the claims of global climate emergency depend on dangerously higher temperatures, lower sea ice, and rising sea levels.  The lack of additional warming prior to 2023 El Nino is documented in a post March 2025 UAH Yo-yo Temps.

The lack of acceleration in sea levels along coastlines has been discussed also.  See Observed vs. Imagined Sea Levels 2023 Update

Also, a longer term perspective is informative:

post-glacial_sea_level

via Science Matters

https://ift.tt/ypGgrBV

May 1, 2025 at 09:47AM