Shill Baby Shill - Typical Maine Wind Propaganda Enabling Theft From Ratepayers and Taxpayers

March 2, 2023

by Dana Connors

For nearly 30 years, I have had the privilege of serving as president of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce. I've worked with thousands of Maine businesses and thousands of local industry leaders to improve prosperity for all Maine people. Our common goals have been to strengthen and grow our economy, to build enthusiasm for Maine entrepreneurship and ingenuity, to collaborate and problem-solve in overcoming challenges and to create opportunities for our young people, veterans and all Mainers to have good-paying jobs right here in the state they call home.

As I prepare to pass the torch, I want to highlight an incredible economic opportunity that uniquely combines all the goals we've advanced as business advocates: Maine-made offshore wind.

Offshore wind research and development in Maine started more than 15 years ago as a response to the critical challenges of climate change and overreliance on fossil fuels burdening Maine businesses and communities. Researchers at the University of Maine wanted to find a way to locally produce renewable energy that would preserve Maine's environment and protect Mainers from the volatile price spikes caused by dependence on heating oil and natural gas.

The result of UMaine's foresight and innovation is VolturnUS, patented floating offshore wind technology designed to be built in Maine by Maine workers. This Maine-made technology presents the opportunity of a century for Maine, and it's been guided by more than a decade of collaboration among a diverse group of stakeholders including environmental, labor and business groups; scientists, energy and marine experts, and local and state government officials. In my 30 years at the Maine Chamber, I've rarely seen as many different groups and interests come together in agreement on a policy or issue as much as they have united on Maine-made offshore wind.

The common thread in this broad, enthusiastic support for Maine-made offshore wind is a commitment to the state of Maine's responsible, science-based approach. Maine believes that offshore wind must coexist with all traditional ocean users, especially our iconic lobster and fishing communities. The Maine Research Array advances this purpose and vision. It's a small-scale, research-focused offshore wind initiative that optimizes economic and environmental benefits of offshore wind while protecting the ecosystem and heritage industries of the Gulf of Maine.

Using UMaine's patented VolturnUS floating offshore wind technology, the Maine Research Array will commercialize local innovation and put Maine at the forefront of a $1 trillion global industry. It will also cultivate a thriving new Maine manufacturing industry comparable to the shipbuilding and paper industries that put Maine in a position of prominence in the 19th and 20th centuries. Maine-made offshore wind is our answer for the 21st century.

The Maine Research Array is expected to bring more than $375 million in direct construction spending to Maine and generate more than $1 billion in economic activity for the state. It will create an estimated 3,250 direct, good-paying jobs for Maine people, as well as workforce training and apprenticeship programs to build our future workforce. The project will produce clean, renewable energy for nearly 100,000 Maine homes and businesses, and will remove more than 985 million pounds of harmful carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The large amounts of renewable power generated by the Maine Research Array will allow Maine to achieve its climate goals at the lowest cost - working with solar and onshore wind - and protect Maine people and businesses from the volatile price spikes of fossil fuels. These economic, energy and environmental benefits are monumental, and because of the state of Maine's prudent, science-based approach to offshore wind development, we can achieve all these benefits while minimizing potential impacts to the ecosystem and wildlife and maximizing coexistence with our vital fishing industry......................

Continue reading at:

Commentary: Offshore wind is Maine’s opportunity of a century - Por...

Many voices weigh in on offshore wind plan

    • Feb 28, 2023 Updated Mar 1, 2023

TRENTON — Three days after Governor Janet Mills unveiled an offshore wind roadmap, a “comprehensive plan that offers detailed strategies” for offshore wind power in the Gulf of Maine, a handful of unconvinced citizens gathered at the Sustainable Maine Fishing Foundation Feb. 26 on Bar Harbor Road in Trenton.

The idea was to inform lobstermen and interested people on offshore wind development before a Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) presentation that opens the Fishermen’s Forum March 2 in Rockport, board member Ginny Olsen said. Energy operations consultant George Stover of Freeport, who has worked in the state’s energy industry for decades, discussed the Maine power grid and its energy sources and why, to his mind, offshore wind power is not a good fit or needed here.

“If they continue down this road, it scares me,” he said.

He is not alone. The idea of floating offshore wind installations in the Gulf of Maine has raised fears and concerns from environmentalists and fishermen alike. When 11 endangered humpback whales washed up dead on the New Jersey and New York coast last month, many people connected what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) calls an “unusual mortality event” to underwater drilling to install wind turbines. But NOAA scientists hold that there is no evidence linking the whale deaths to noise and vibrations from the underwater construction.

And Maine lobstermen have been protesting offshore wind development in the Gulf of Maine since the Mills administration rolled out plans early in 2021 for an offshore wind research array 2 miles south of Monhegan.

Lobsterman and legislator Rep. William “Billy Bob” Faulkingham (R-Winter Harbor) submitted a bill the same year to ban offshore wind energy along the coast. The bill never made it out of the Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology but a compromise was reached, with no other installation to be permitted in state waters. But the federal push for offshore wind energy is focused on Gulf of Maine federal waters.

“Everybody says you’re not going to stop [offshore wind development], it’s happening no matter what,” Faulkingham said at the Trenton meeting. Afterward, he told the Islander, “I just think there just needs to be a lot more education on this, and if people are looking at it objectively they’ll see that this is moving too fast.”

Faulkingham and Republican members of the Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology issued a statement Feb. 24 against the offshore wind roadmap, calling it “a blueprint for destroying Maine’s way of life by polluting the marine environment, endangering whales, harming the fishing industry, and increasing our electric bills.”

Gov. Mills has positioned offshore wind development as a big step toward meeting state climate goals of 80 percent of Maine electricity coming from renewable sources by 2030. A new bill currently in draft form stipulates 100 percent of the state’s energy come from renewable sources by 2040.

And the White House is potentially partnering on offshore wind development in 11 states, including Maine. Last week, the Department of Interior announced the first proposed offshore wind sale of three lease areas in the Gulf of Mexico. Maine’s offshore wind roadmap includes a federal lease sale in the Gulf of Maine by the end of 2024.

“We are all in for wind energy, and floating offshore wind development is part of that,” Robert Golden, the White Houses’ senior advisor for clean energy infrastructure, said at a Feb. 22-23 offshore wind summit, where Mills gave a keynote address.

“The Gulf of Maine has some of the strongest wind speeds in the world,” Mills said, “representing a large source of potential energy for Maine and New England.”

But how strong is too strong? Wind turbines can withstand wind up to 55 mph before automatically shutting off, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. At the Trenton meeting, Stover said the shut-off wind speed was 25 mph. Speed depends on the length of the turbine blades, with longer blades snapping off at lower wind speeds, but the technology is advancing.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has been reaching out to Maine fishermen and fixed gear fishermen on offshore wind, with meetings held last month in Portland and online, where 111 people logged on.

Please read the full article here:


Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Views: 157


You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Dan McKay on July 5, 2023 at 5:23pm

democrats won't stop pouring hurt on ratepayers until we are stuck self-imposing rations on ourselves which they will interpret as a reason to impose relentless rations on us. The republicans seem willing to put an end to this inhumane disease controlling the progressives, liberals and degenerates.

Comment by Willem Post on July 5, 2023 at 4:13pm

Aqua Ventus should be abolished

It is a fancy name for a black hole to pour money in.

I just cannot believe this saga boondoggle has been going on for years

Comment by Willem Post on July 5, 2023 at 10:31am



The Biden administration announced on October 13, 2021, it will subsidize the development of up to seven offshore wind systems (never call them farms) on the US East and West coasts, and in the Gulf of Mexico; a total of about 30,000 MW of offshore wind by 2030.


This is part of the “Inflation Reduction Act”, which CBO estimated at $391 billion, but Goldman Sachs estimated at $1.2 trillion


Biden's offshore wind systems would have an adverse, long-term impact on US electricity wholesale prices, and the prices of all other goods and services, because their expensive electricity would permeate into all economic activities.


The wind turbines would be at least 800-ft-tall, which would need to be located at least 30 miles from shores, to ensure minimal disturbance from night-time strobe lights.


Any commercial fishing areas would be significantly impacted by below-water infrastructures and cables. The low-frequency noise (less than 20 cycles per second, aka infrasound) of the wind turbines would adversely affect marine life, including whales, and productivity of fishing areas.


Offshore Electricity Production


Annual production would be about 30,000 x 8766 h/y x 0.45, capacity factor = 118,341,000 MWh, or 118.3 TWh of variable, intermittent, wind/weather/season-dependent electricity.


The additional wind production would be about 100 x 118.3/4000 = 2.96% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.

That US grid load would increase, due to tens of millions of future electric vehicles and heat pumps.


Counteracting Power Plants


The more annual wind electricity loaded onto the US grid, the greater the fleet of quick-reacting power plants, such as combined-cycle, gas-turbine plants power plants, CCGTs, and hydro plants to:


1) Counteract wind output variations, MW, 24/7/365

2) Fill-in wind production shortfalls, MWh, during any wind lulls. Such lulls occur at random throughout the year, and may last 5 to 7 days, and may be followed by another multi-day wind lull several days later.


These URLs provide examples of wind/solar lull conditions in Germany and New England


High Costs of Balancing the Grid with Increased Wind and Solar


The grid balancing costs are entirely due to the variations and intermittencies of wind and solar, because the other power plants have to operate far from their efficient modes of operation, 24/7/365. These plants experience:


1) More up/down production at lesser efficiencies; more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh

2) More wear-and-tear, due to up/down production and more starts/stops; more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more c/kWh 

4) Increased hot, synchronous (3,600 rpm), standby plant capacity, MW, to immediately provide power, if wind/solar generation suddenly decreases, or any other power system outage occurs.

5) Increased cold, standby plant capacity, MW, to provide power after a plant’s start-up period.


When wind and solar were only a very small percent of the electricity loaded onto the NE grid, those balancing costs were minimal, i.e., “buried in the data noise of the grid”


Those balancing costs should have been charged to the Owners of wind and solar systems (the grid disturbers), but, in reality, they were politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.


Those balancing costs are in addition to the various government subsidies, which are also politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.


Now you are finally beginning to see just how wonderful wind and solar have been, and will be, for your pocketbook.


Energy systems analysts, with decades of experience, saw this mess coming about 25 years ago, but all-knowing legislators and bureaucrats ignored them, because they were pressured into aiding and abetting the “harvesting” of federal and state subsidies for RE businesses “to create jobs, save the world, etc.”.


Turnkey Capital Cost of 30,000 MW of Offshore Wind


The turnkey capital cost for wind systems would be about 30,000 MW x $4,000,000/MW = $120 BILLION; includes underwater cabling to shore, but excludes:


1) The LCOE of Owners return on his invested capital, usually about 9%/y. Governments require an Owner puts up 50% of his own money (to have skin in the game), and 50% financing with bank loans.


2) The LCOE of financing during high inflation, high interest years, which likely adds about 30% to the project LCOE. That 30% is more than offset by: 1) large upfront federal and state tax credits, 2) plus front-loaded, 5-yr depreciation of the entire project, 3) plus deduction of loan interest from any taxable incomes. See item 3


3) The cost of government subsidies and financial benefits is equivalent to about 50% of the project LCOE, which enables Owners to sell their output at about 50% less c/kWh, than without them, to reinforce the fantasy wind and solar are inexpensive and competitive with fossil.


4) The LCOE of onshore grid extension/reinforcement, which is charged directly to ratepayers, taxpayers and government debts.


5) The LCOE of counteracting the variable wind (and solar) outputs, because they could not be fed into the grid without a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the ups and downs of wind (and solar), and provide electricity to meet demand during their insufficiency and absence, including during the peak demand hours of late-afternoon/early-evening, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, year after year. Owners usually are compensated for providing counteracting services from the budget of the independent grid operator, such as ISO-NE


The turnkey capital cost and higher O&M costs in 2022 and later years, and resulting cost of electricity production, c/kWh, have significantly increased, due to: 1) increased inflation rates, 2) increased interest rates, 3) supply chain disruptions, which delay projects and increase costs, 4) increased energy prices, such as of oil, gas, coal, electricity, etc., 5) increased materials prices, such as of tungsten, cobalt, lithium, copper, manganese, etc., 6) increased labor rates.


As a result, the spreadsheets of the US East Coast offshore wind projects (and in the UK), used for negotiating prices, c/kWh, do no longer make sense.

Owners/Developers want to renegotiate, delay and cancel projects. See below UK section.


They want to force ratepayers and taxpayers to pay more for wind electricity, c/kWh, for the next 20 years, to ensure providing a generous return on investment to Owners/Developers 


Huge UK/US Offshore Wind Turbine Build Outs are Pure Fantasies


UK government bureaucrats, etc., justify the build out of 26,000 MW of additional offshore wind turbines by 2030, in less than 7 years, because: 1) the UK is the "Saudi Arabia of Wind", and 2) several hundred thousand new jobs will be created (a number likely picked out of the air), and 3) household electric bills will be lower (which is the opposite of what actually happened). See below


It took more than 23 years for the UK to expensively build 14,000 MW of offshore wind turbines by end 2022, that produce high-cost electricity, that destabilizes the UK grid, and caused greatly increased household electric bills.


How many steady, long-term jobs, with good benefits, were created due to offshore wind turbines in the UK?

No answer to that question is available.


For decades, Denmark and Germany, both wind mavens, had the highest household electric rates, c/kWh, in Europe.

But that “honor” was passed to the UK, which now has the highest household electric rates in Europe, by far.

See image in URL


Wind + solar became 28.4% of the 312 TWh of electricity loaded onto the UK grid in 2020; excludes net imports

The counteracting/balancing costs became £1.3 billion ($1.65 billion) in 2020, likely even more in 2021, 2022, 2023.

The US cost would be about 4000/312 x 1.65 = $21.2 billion, on a pro-rated basis, if 28.4% wind/solar in the US.


CO2 Reduction, due to Wind, less than Claimed: In Ireland, with 17% wind fed to the Irish grid in 2012, the officially claimed CO2 reduction of grid CO2/kWh was 17%


However, analysis of 15-minute grid operating data and fuel consumption data showed, it was only 0.526 x 17% = 8.94%, due to inefficient operation of the other power plants, when counteracting the variable output of wind.


The UK, with 28.4% wind and solar in 2020, has a CO2-reduction factor significantly less than 0.526.

Ireland, the UK, US, etc., have been over claiming CO2 reduction from wind. See explanation in URL


A UK/US Total Offshore Buildout of 56,000 MW in 7 Years, or 8,000 MW/y?


There exists no worldwide physical infrastructure to do that.

All five of Europe’s wind turbine manufacturers have been making huge losses for 30 months, starting at least 15 months before the Ukraine events.


The industry in Europe has told the EU in Brussels: “We simply don’t have enough factories and infrastructure to build and install the volumes Europe (and the US) wants”


Wind Europe CEO, Giles Dickson, in a Press release, dd. 16 March 2023, ‘EU Green Industry Plan falls short for now’


Plus, the UK 26,000 MW build-out would be at much higher turnkey cost per MW, and would produce much more expensive electricity, c/kWh, than the existing 14,000 MW of offshore wind turbines


Biden wants to build 30,000 MW offshore wind turbines by 2030, another pure fantasy, that thus far has been killing dozens of whales, before even a single 850-ft-tall wind turbine has been erected!


If the five European companies do not have the capacity to build the 26,000 MW UK offshore fantasy, how would they ever be able to also build, at the same time, the 30,000 MW Biden offshore fantasy?


How in hell do these demented politicians and bureaucrats get into these jobs?

Why do their words get magnified by the government-subsidized media mouthpieces?


World Energy Outlook 2022, issued by European Information Energy Agency, IEA


“From 80% today, a level constant for decades, EIA predicts fossil fuels to decrease to about 75% by 2030, and to about 60% by 2050”


EIA is not just optimistic, but delusional!

Those fossil decrease numbers would require enormous capacity increases of wind and solar, MW, which is not going to happen.


Not in the UK, the self-proclaimed “Saudi-Arabia of Wind”, which is already impoverished, inefficient, uncompetitive and hopelessly mismanaged, with high inflation and high interest rates


Not in the US, which does not even have an offshore wind industry.

Comment by Barbara Durkin on July 5, 2023 at 9:00am
ENRON Energy Services Chris Wissemann is Fishermen’s Energy Chief Executive Officer and General Manager of Freshwater Wind.  Wissermann is Chief Operating Officer of Winergy Power, LLC and the Founder of DeepWater Wind, and past President of Garden State Offshore Energy.  Wissermann spearheaded legislation to create long term power purchase agreements for DeepWater Wind. (dead link)

“I’ve invested over 10 years in this project, but that’s irrelevant,” Vigue said. “It’s not about me. It has everything to do with our state.”
But Vigue’s concerns may be overblown, according to Chris Wissemann, the chief executive of New England Aqua Ventus. Wissemann said project labor agreements, or PLAs, are individually negotiated and can be tailored to accommodate a range of work considerations. The final language of the PLA in question is still several months away, he said.”
Comment by Stephen Littlefield on March 8, 2023 at 7:27pm

I'll keep it quick, who in the state of Maine is benefiting financially from this boondoggle? This idiocy will force many Mainers to leave their homes for better living conditions elsewhere! And the likely destruction of all fishing due to the transmitted noise into the water much likely the cause of the whale deaths in Jersey! With all the hundreds of tons of paraphernalia below the surface that will transmit sound and will interfere with sea life, the Maine sea coast will be a waste land of rich carpetbaggers after the fishing communities have been devastated. My ancestors would be taking up arms by now. 

Comment by Willem Post on March 5, 2023 at 8:42am


Party Commissars, not commissioners.

Distribute as much as possible

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on March 5, 2023 at 12:39am
Comment by Dan McKay on March 4, 2023 at 7:11am


Great succinct commentary. Offshore wind is deplorable. Could I copy and paste your post to the Maine PUC Commissioners, one of whom is an engineer educated at UMO?

Comment by Willem Post on March 4, 2023 at 6:44am


The Norwegians have about 60 years of experience building and servicing oil/gas rigs and laying undersea electric cables, gas lines and oil lines all over the world.


They have invested billions of dollars in specialized deep-water, Norwegian harbors and facilities for assembly of oil/gas rigs and invested in specialized sea-going heavy lifters, and specialized sea-going tugboats to tow the oil/gas rigs from Norwegian building sites to oil/gas production sites. The heavy lifters and other ships perform services all over the world.


Norway companies want to expand their business by building and servicing and providing spare parts for floating wind turbines for deep-water conditions all over the world


NOTE: Norwegians advocating expensive floating wind turbines that depend on the randomness of wind and produce high-cost, variable, intermittent electricity for other people, such as Jane and Joe Worker/Ratepayer, is highly hypocritical, because the Norwegians get 98% of their electricity from their own hydro plants, which produce low-cost, steady electricity (not variable, not intermittent). The Danes advocating wind turbines and boasting about their high percent of wind on their grid is similarly hypocritical, because the Danes have been increasingly using the storage reservoirs of Norway’s hydro plants for decades.

First Experimental Floating Wind Turbine in Norway


Equinor (formerly Statoil, a Norwegian government controlled company) launched the world's first operational deep-water, floating large-capacity wind turbine in 2009. The turbine trade name is “Hywind”.


The wind turbine consists of a 120 m (390 ft) tall tower, above the sea water level, and a 60 m (195 ft) submerged extension below the sea water level, with a heavy weight at the bottom to keep the wind turbine steady and upright, even with very high waves and strong wind conditions. The design was tested and perfected under storm and wind conditions simulated in a laboratory. 

The 2.3 MW turbine is mounted on top of the tower. It was fully assembled in a deep-water harbor near Stavanger, Norway.


It was towed to a site 10 km (6.2 mi) offshore into the Amoy Fjord in 220 m (720 ft) deep water, near Stavanger, Norway, on 9 June 2009, for a two-year test run, which turned out to be successful.


First Commercial Floating Wind Turbine Plant in Scotland


Hywind Scotland project is the world's first commercial wind turbine plant using floating wind turbines.


It is located 29 km (EIGHTEEN MILES) off PeterheadScotland to minimize visual impacts from shore.

It has five Hywind floating turbines with a total capacity of 30 MW.

It is operated by Hywind (Scotland) Limited, a joint venture of Equinor, Norway (75%) and Masdar, Kuwait (25%).


In 2015, Equinor received permission to install 5 Hywind turbines in Scotland.  


Manufacturing started in 2016 in Spain (wind turbine, rotor), Norway (tower, underwater base, assembly), and Scotland (various parts)

The turnkey capital cost was $263 million for five 6 MW turbines, or $8,767/kW.

They were designed to float on the surface, with about 180 m (600 ft) above the sea water level and 80 m (265 ft) submerged below the seawater level.

Total steel weight is about 2300 metric ton, total ballasted weight is about 20,000 metric ton.

Heavy weights in the bottom of the submerged parts serve to keep them steady and upright.

The turbines were assembled at Stord in Norway in the summer of 2017, using the specialized Saipem 7000 floating crane, and then towed to the north of Scotland by sea-going tugboats.

Make sure to see the videos showing the crane assembling the entire wind turbine.

Nothing like that exists in Maine, or in the rest of New England.

That means offshore wind turbine assembly and servicing would largely be performed by foreign companies, which already have built the infrastructures and other facilities during the past 25 years.

The huge, sea-going, specialized, crane (14,000-metric ton lifting capacity) is required for partial assembly on land and final assembly in an area close to shore with a very deep harbor, before towing, fully assembled, to the site.


The finished turbines were towed to Peterhead, Scotland. 

Three cup anchors hold each turbine in place.

About 2400 meter of chain is required, weighing 400 metric ton, for each turbine.

The Hywind Scotland project was commissioned in October 2017.


Hywind Wind Turbines for Demonstration Purposes in Maine


Hannah Pingree and other Maine's wind bureaucrats in state government are engaging in mindless prattle, eager to do the bidding of various multi-millionaires and foreign companies that may be providing some wining/dining boondoggle trips to “view the Hywind turbines” in Norway and Scotland.


The turnkey cost of those two Hywind turbines would be about $10,000 per kW, versus NE ridgeline wind at $2,000/kW, and regular offshore, south of Martha’s Vineyard, at $4,000/kW.


That would be at about $120 million for a two 6 MW Hywind wind turbines, plus whatever facilities would need to be built in Maine to support the project.


The turnkey capital cost of the wind turbine plant in Maine would be much higher, because Maine does not have the experience of the Norwegians and the specialized equipment and specialized ships, and other facilities. It would be very costly to build those facilities and ships in Maine, or elsewhere.

600-ft Tall Hywind Turbines Highly Visible From Mohegan Island, Plus Infrasound

The 600-ft tall Hywind wind turbines would be highly visible from Mohegan Island, if they were located TWO MILES east of the island.

At that distance, the problem would not be just cyclical, audible noises keeping people awake, but also low frequency infrasound, which can travel many miles, and passes through walls of houses, and can be felt but not heard, and has been shown to have adverse health impacts on people and animals.

The FAA-required aviation beacons would be clearly visible during nighttime. BTW, they would need to be located about 15 - 20 miles away from Mohegan Island to be unobtrusive to the Islanders.

Here is a research report of daytime and nighttime visibility of wind turbines that are about 3 to 4 MW and about 500 ft tall. See URL with photos.


“Study objectives included identifying the maximum distances the facilities could be seen in both daytime and nighttime views and assessing the effect of distance on visual contrasts associated with the facilities. Results showed that small to moderately sized facilities were visible to the unaided eye at distances greater than 42 km [26 miles (mi)], with turbine blade movement visible up to 39 km (24 mi). At night, aerial hazard navigation lighting was visible at distances greater than 39 km (24 mi). The observed wind facilities were judged to be a major focus of visual attention at distances up to 16 km (10 mi), were noticeable to casual observers at distances of almost 29 km (18 mi), and were visible with extended or concentrated viewing at distances beyond 40 km (25 mi).”


One has to feel sorry for all the residents of Mohegan Island, but the bureaucrats in Augusta, Maine, do not care about that, because there are not enough votes to stop them. Those bureaucrats are hell-bent to use federal and state grants, subsidies, taxpayer and ratepayer money of already-struggling Joe and Jane Worker to save the world, and to enrich a host of multi-millionaires seeking tax shelters. See Appendix.

Some Questions


Who are these Aqua Ventus multi-millionaire owners pushing for this expensive project?

How much would be the subsidies?

What would be the energy cost/kWh?

How long would the project last before it would have to be repaired?

How would it be repaired?

Would any special ships, facilities be required?

Does Maine have the required, at least 100-meter, deep-water port?

Is anyone looking at the entire picture on an A to Z basis, or are Maine bureaucrats just dreaming/prattling about castles in Spain?

Does anyone think the Norwegians would not want to make money to maintain/service and provide spare parts for their Hywind wind turbines?


Extremely Adverse Impact on CMP Electric Rates


LePage’s energy director, Steven McGrath, has focused exclusively on the cost of electricity from the demonstration project.


The rate is at least FOUR TIMES above wholesale market value, reflecting the custom design and experimental nature of the platforms.


It would start at 23 cents per kilowatt-hour in the first year, escalating at 2.5% per year to 35 cents after 20 years.


The PUC estimates it would add up to $208 million over the term, or about $10.5 million a year from Central Maine Power ratepayers. Maine Aqua Ventus had calculated the extra cost would add 73 cents a month to the average household electric bill, in the first year of operation, more thereafter..


That is a total rip-off, because Massachusetts pays only an average of 8 - 9 c/kWh over the life of the project.

Main bureaucrats need to learn from Governor Baker.


NOTE: The above prices should be compared with NE wholesale prices, which have been about 5 c/kWh since 2008, courtesy of abundant, domestic, low-cost, low-CO2 electricity from gas at about 5 c/kWh, and low-cost, near CO2-free electricity from nuclear at about 4.5 - 5.0 c/kWh.


This project is insanity on STEROIDS.


One has to feel sorry for the already-struggling Joe and Jane Workers in Maine who will ultimately pay for all this.


Dear Mr. Greg Kesich, Editor Portland Press Herald


(Mr. Greg suggested I write an op-ed regarding the referenced PPH article, so here it is.)


This op-ed is in reference to an article on floating wind turbines off the coast of Maine in the Portland Press Herald, dated 20 May 2019.


The article states, Statoil had proposed a $120 million demonstration project for two 6 MW Hywind turbines ($10,000/kW) off Boothbay Harbor, but that Governor Page had rejected it. As you recall, his main reason was the higher electricity prices Joe and Jane Worker/Ratepayer would have to pay for 20 years.


The article states, Statoil instead took its project to Scotland, where it has invested more than $200 million for five 6 MW Hywind turbines. After some checking, the actual turnkey cost turned out to be $263 million.


Scotland got the turbines at $8,767/kW in 2017, but Maine would have gotten the same turbines at $10,000/kW.


The article states, “.....and given that country (Scotland) a head start on establishing itself as developer, manufacturer and exporter of offshore technology. Such potential was recognized by the wind energy task force, which was created in 2008 by Gov. John Baldacci and released its findings in December 2009.”


That statement is highly naive and unrealistic. Norway has invested billions of dollars in infrastructures to develop specialized facilities and seagoing ships for shallow-water and deep-water wind turbines during the past 10 - 15 years. Norway has absolutely no intention of establishing Scotland and Maine as competitors. See note.


The Scotland/UK actual contributions to the project were:


1) Scotland making some parts that were shipped to Norway for assembly

2) Scotland providing the site 18 miles from shore to minimize visual impacts from shore.

3) The UK providing a subsidy of 18.5 c/kWh, plus Statoil selling electricity at about 6.5 c/kWh on the wholesale market, for a total wholesale cost of 25 c/kWh for 20 years. This compares with New England wholesale prices averaging about 5 c/kWh since 2008.

4) The Scotland people paying higher prices/kWh for low-value, variable/intermittent electricity for 20 years that requires the services of other generators for peaking, filling in and balancing year-round. Statoil had to provide a 1.0 MWh li-ion battery system, at a capital cost of about $700,000, to help smooth the flow of the variable electricity from Hywind to minimize disturbances of the Scotland grid.

NOTE: If Maine government would have insisted Statoil would build significant infrastructure in Portland, ME, or elsewhere in Maine, Statoil, if willing to do so, would merely have increased the cost of the electricity, c/kWh, to cover its additional costs.

NOTE: Massachusetts has signed contracts for 800 MW of offshore wind turbines south of Martha’s Vineyard. If the state government would have insisted the consortium of European companies would build significant infrastructure in New Bedford, MA, or elsewhere in Massachusetts, the consortium, if willing to do so, would merely have increased the cost of the electricity, c/kWh, to cover its additional costs. However, Governor Baker insisted on lowest electricity cost, as that would benefit all of Massachusetts, not just New Bedford, etc. Counting votes is important. See URL.


School Students Playing with Floating Wind Turbines


The main objective with floating wind turbines is to isolate the wind turbine from any wave action, including 30 - 40 ft waves. That can only be done with a long, submerged extension of the wind turbine mast, with a heavy weight inside the bottom of the extension (ballast) to keep the wind turbine steady and upright.


Dr. Habib Dagher, Executive Director of the Advanced Structures & Composites Center, should have watched the youtube video, and then given proper instructions to teachers all over Maine, so those teachers could have educated these students regarding the physical requirements, to ensure these students would not waste their valuable time and money building inappropriate models. See URLs and watch both videos.

CO2 Reduction due to Wind Turbines Much Less Than Claimed


The Irish Grid

Studies of operating conditions of the Irish grid performed a few years ago showed, at 17% wind on the grid, about 55% of the CO2 was reduced due to wind, instead of the claimed 100%. At higher wind percentages, the percent CO2 reduction would be even less.


NOTE: The mantra often promulgated by pro-wind folks is one MWh of wind displaces one MWh of other generation, and as wind uses no fuel there is no CO2, but other generation does use fuel, so that CO2 is avoided. That turned out to be of advantage to pro-wind folks, but is, in fact, highly simplistic.


In Ireland, there were years of denial and ignoring of various studies by independent energy systems analysts. Dr. Fred Udo was one of the early analysts of the Irish grid to point out the discrepancy. He was ignored at that time. Another study showed the gas turbines operated near 40% efficiency at 17% wind, whereas, at zero wind, they operated at near 50% efficiency. At that time, the Irish grid had only a minor connection to the UK grid. 


The undeniable tip-off was Irish gas imports, which had been predicted to decrease as wind would increase, but had, in fact, not decreased as much as predicted. After much back and forth, the government finally launched an inquiry, which revealed the inefficient operation of the gas turbines at part load (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), and their more frequent start/stop operations (high Btu/kWh, high CO2/kWh), all due to the variable, intermittent output of the wind turbines.


Since that time, the Irish grid acquired large capacity connections to the UK and French grids to spread the “discrepancy” over a much larger grid area, which makes it nearly invisible. A Brussels PR problem solved. See URL.


Comment by Dan McKay on March 4, 2023 at 5:30am

At the time, Norway offered the most expensive electricity in Maine's history. Dana and the democrats have doubled down to take the lead and they will double down on this double down, if not stopped.


Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power


Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT


(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.”

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

© 2024   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service