El Niños, Hunga Tonga Volcanic Eruption, and the Tropics

El Niños, Hunga Tonga Volcanic Eruption, and the Tropics


Refer to this URL to see additional images


The Tropics receive about 48.5% of the world's energy from the sun.

Water vapor molecules are about 76.57 times more abundant than CO2 molecules

Water vapor molecules absorb 32389/(32389+ 423) = 98.7%, and CO2 molecules absorb about 1.3% of the available photons 

The Tropics and Subtropics distribute excess energy to world areas beyond the +37 and -37 parallels.

Heat Source Area of El Niño

An about 9000-meter-deep plateau, located near Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, has major periodic, volcanic activity, that influences the world’s weather. See Image 1A

The plateau covers about 150,000 square miles, which is a mere 0.23% of the Pacific Ocean’s 64,092,958 square miles.

That area is one of the most geologically active regions on Earth 

It is home to the junction of five extremely active major fault systems, the second-largest, ocean-floor lava plateau on Earth,

It has hundreds of ocean floor volcanoes, and a large number of ocean-floor hydrothermal vents.

Plate Climatology Theory, states, fixed/non-moving, geological, deep ocean heat sources drive many weather patterns, and weather-related events, including impetus heat for El Niños. See URLs




El Niños
The Heat Source Area provides heat to water of local areas of the Pacific Ocean. That water rises and follows prevailing currents towards South America
That is the normal situation 
But, about every 2 to 7 years, increased venting and eruptions take place, due to tectonic plate movements.
That extra heat warms the already warm water, and gives impetus to an El Niño (rated weak to very strong), whose paths and consequences are well known. See Image 1A
Sometimes, an under-water, volcanic eruption takes place in a nearby area, such as Hunga Tonga, that, in this case, added to the effects of a strong El Niño. 
Their combined effects temporarily altered normal weather of large areas of the world for at least 12 to 18 months, as documented in weather reports.

El Niños are one of the most determining factors regarding weather, especially the stronger ones. See Image 5.

As part of an El Niño pattern, a stream of warm water wells up from the Heat Source Area, departing from there, towards the Peruvian coast. The upwelling  weakens the trade winds. With weakened trade winds come changes in air pressure and wind speeds, which push warm water toward the west coast of South America.

As a result of the warmer water, there is more water vapor, WV, and the atmospheric pressure in the eastern Pacific drops, because of increased WV See Image 11

At higher latitudes, these changes in the tropics allow the Pacific Jet Stream, a narrow current of air flowing from west to east, to be pushed south and spread further east.

The jet stream steers weather systems, thereby determining the weather patterns seen across a wide geographic range.  

Image 1A shows strong El Niño effects peaking in late-summer/early-fall of 2023, which coincided with a

lower-atmosphere temperature increase of about 0.3 C. See Image 7 and below Hunga Tonga section



Because La Niña and El Niño cycles often span multiple consecutive years, the last La Niña event impacted the Pacific during the winter of 2020-2021 and then again in the winter of 2022/2023, as shown in this analysis (figure below) by Meteorologist Paul Dorian, “La Nina Conditions Continue Across the Equatorial Pacific.”



Hunga Tonga Sub-Surface Eruption


In January 2022, the Hunga Tonga volcano, located close to the Solomon Islands, exploded,

The eruption of the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai volcano did more than just launch a destructive tsunami and shoot a plume of ash, SO2 and pulverized rock 55 km into the sky.

It also injected 146 megatonnes (161 megatons) of WV into the stratosphere (the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere) 

Satellite measurements showed, in July 2023, the temperature of the lower-atmosphere increased from

0.38 C to 0.64 C = 0.26 C above the 1991-2020 mean. 


Additional Impetus to Hunga Tonga: The rapid build-up of a strong El Niño peaked in late 2023. The lower-atmosphere temperature spiked about 0.3 C in late-summer/early-fall of 2023.

The El Niño warming effects had been added to the remaining Hunga Tonga effects in 2023, and will be added to any remaining Hunga Tonga effects in 2024. 

Higher than normal temperatures likely will continue in 2024. See Images 1A and 7

They have nothing to do with gradual changes in CO2 ppm of the atmosphere.



Heating and Evaporating Water: (145 million metric ton x {(22 C seawater heated to 100 C = 78 C delta T) x (4186 J/kg.C = 326508 J/kg) + (40650 J/18 g mole x 1000 g/kg = 2258333 J/kg)} x 1 exajoule/10^18 J = 0.3748 EJ; excludes the energy to heat the gases to well above 100 C

Because the eruption occurred only about 150 meter underwater, the red hot lava immediately superheated the shallow seawater above and converted it to steam. The result was:

1) Increased rain and flooding in Australia in Jan/Feb of 2022, and

2) Increased lower-atmosphere warming during 2023, and may be into 2024, because water vapor, WV, is a strong greenhouse gas.



NOTE:  The last strong El Niño, increased lower-atmosphere temperatures by about 0.14 C  in 2016.  

For comparison, it takes a full decade for the current rate of warming to increase temperatures by that much


Adding WV to Upper Atmosphere: There is about an 18 to 24 month lag from the onset of an El Niño near Papua New Guinea and its effect on sea surface temperature, SST, to its effect on the water vapor column, WVC, from 20 km to 80 km. See red arrows in below image

Air pressure at sea level is about 10 metric ton/m^2, or 101.325 kilopascal, kPa.

Air pressure at 20 km is 5.475 kPa

Weight of air above 20 km is (5.475/101.325 = 0.0540) x 10000 kg = 540 kg, or (540 x 10^3 g)/29 g/mole = 18632 g mole.

Before Hunga Tonga, WVC was 1.8 g/m^2/ 29 g/mole = 0.062 g mole, or 0.062/18632 = 3.33 ppm

After Hunga Tonga, WVC increase was 0.3 g/m^2, or 0.3/1.8 x 3.33 = 0.56 ppm, or a 17% increase


WV and CO2 Vertical Profiles


WV is about 20,000 ppm near the surface. It rapidly decreases to about 2,000 ppm at 6 km, and 250 ppm at 10 km, due to WV condensing/freezing on particles and cloud formation. See image


CO2 is about 410 ppm near the surface. It slowly decreases to about 395 ppm at about 6 km, and 390 ppm at 10 km. See image

Almost all available IR photons are near the surface, where the WV/CO2 molecule ratio is at least 20,000/423 = 47.

WV molecules can absorb about 93% of the available IR photons, because of more windows with wide absorption bands

CO2 molecules can absorb about 7%, because of a few windows with narrow absorption bands, plus the major CO2 absorption band, centered on 14.9 micrometer, is partially shared with WV. See below image with overlaps.

CO2 has minor absorption bands, but they account for less than 0.5%. See URL and Image 11A

Whereas, CO2 molecules are much more abundant than WV molecules at higher elevations, the remaining 14.9 micrometer photons are relatively few, plus temperature is about -50 C (223 K), plus molecules move slower and are further apart, which reduces collision rates and impacts.

The collision rate is 4 billion/s at sea level; 1 billion/s at 10 km; 7 million/s at 70 km. See URL






The green line shows temperature; Kelvin = (C + 273) at sea level, (-50 + 273) at 10 km

https://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld013.htm ;



CO2 and WV Windows 


The absorption spectra of CO2 and WV overlap; the dark areas. WV molecules are far more numerous than CO2 molecules. Thus, it is likely the light brown area of the CO2 spectrum absorbs relatively few photons, that would otherwise escape to space.

CO2 having a spectrum is one thing, actually absorbing 14.9 micrometer photons is quite another. See light brown area of Image




WV Compared With CO2 in the Atmosphere


CO2 in atmosphere was 423 molecules of CO2/million molecules of dry air at end 2023, or 423 ppm, but in densely populated, industrial areas, such as eastern China and eastern US, it was about 10% greater, whereas in rural and ocean areas, it was about 10% less. 



Solar Energy to World and Tropics


Solar Energy to World: World surface area is about 509,600,000 km^2

Solar energy to world is (340.25 W/m^2) x (509,600,000 km^2) x (3600 s/h x 24 h/d) x (1 exajoule/10^18 J) = 14981 EJ/d

World reflected fraction = albedo = 0.30 - 0.35

Absorbed by world atmosphere, oceans and land masses is about 3,850,000 EJ/y, or 10548 EJ/d, per URL 

Absorbed by world surface area is about 3,400,000 EJ/y, or 9315 EJ/d, per URL

Solar Energy to Tropics: Tropics, land and oceans = (Distance from the +23.5 to -23.5 parallels, 5186 km) x (Perimeter along equator, 40075 km) = 207,828,950 km^2, about 40.7% of the world surface; land about 66 million km^2, water about 142 million km^2

Solar flux arriving at the top of the atmosphere is 420 W/m^2 at the equator, and 400 W/m^2 at +23.5 and -23.5 latitudes, for an average of 405 W/m^2 

Solar energy to Tropics is (405 W/m^2) x (207,828,950 km^2) x (3600 s/h x 24 h/d) x (1 EJ/10^18 J) = 7272 EJ/d, about 7272/14981 = 48.5%

Energy Transfer: The earth gains excess solar energy in the tropics and subtropics, and transfers it to areas beyond the +37 and -37 parallels. BTW, Richmond, VA, and Gibraltar, Spain are near the +37 parallel. 

About 80% of world WV is generated in the Tropics  

The surplus WV energy and warm atmosphere gases are transferred beyond +37 to -37 parallels, which have an energy deficit

As WV and warm atmosphere gases travel toward Earth's poles, they transport energy and create weather. Variations in the Earth topography of different regions result in different weather outcomes. See video in URL








WV, worldwide: WV is variable between locations, from 10 ppm in the coldest air, such as the Antarctic to 50,000 ppm (5%), such as in the hot, humid areas of the Tropics.

WV in atmosphere, worldwide average, weight basis, is about 1.29 x 1016 kg, or 7.1667 x 10^14 moles

Atmosphere weight, dry, is about 5.148 x 10^18 kg, or 1.7752 x 10^17 moles 

WV percent, weight basis, is about 1.29 x 10^16 / 5.148 x 10^18 = 0.002506, or 0.2506%

WV fraction, mole basis, is about 7.1667 x 10^14 / 1.7752 x 10^17 = 0.004037, or 0.4037%, or 4037 ppm 

WV molecules, worldwide average, are about 4037/423 = 9.54 times more prevalent than CO2 molecules


WV, temperate zones are north and south of the equator, where most of the world's population lives.

WV is about 9022 ppm, at 16 C and 50% humidity. See Note 

WV molecules are about 9022/423 = 21.33 times more prevalent than CO2 molecules.


WV, Tropicsis about 24811 ppm, at 27 C and 70% humidity on land; 35,912 ppm, at 27 C and 100% humidity near ocean surface

WV molecules are about 24811/423 = 58.66 times more prevalent than CO2 molecules on land, and 84.90 times more prevalent near ocean surface

Weighted average molecule ratio = 66/208 x 58.66 + 142/208 x 84.90 = 76.57

Weighted average ppm = 66/208 x 24811 + 142/208 x 35912 = 32,389 ppm


WV much Better Than CO2: Whereas CO2 absorbs energy (gets warmer), transports that energy (convection) and distributes it by collision (conduction) and radiation, WV does all that much more effectively by adding phase change, liquid-to-vapor (constant temperature), transport, collision and radiation, and adding vapor-to-rain/snow/hail (constant temperature).

It’s not merely the molecule-count of WV vs CO2 that makes WV the dominant global warming gas.

WV is much more efficient in absorbing, transporting and distributing energy than CO2, and it is far more abundant than CO2, especially in the Major League Tropics compared to the Minor League temperate zones.


NOTE: At 16 C and 50% humidity, WV in air is 0.0056 lb H2O/ lb dry air, or 2.5424 g H2O/ 454 g dry air. After converting to moles,  0.009022 mole H2O/mole dry air, or 9022 ppm.
A mole of WV is 18 g, a mole dry air is 29 g




Official Contribution to Greenhouse Effect


Below is a summary of official numbers regarding the greenhouse effect. They can be found on many websites.

They were determined in a laboratory by relatively few people

Atmospheric scientists cannot definitively say, based on direct experiments, exactly how much greenhouse effect is caused by each GHG.

They cannot simply remove one gas and see how the absorption of IR photons changes. Instead, they must use subjective models of the atmosphere to predict the likely changes.

So, they run their models with one GHG removed; say, for instance, WV. They might find this results in a 36% reduction in the greenhouse effect.

I have been unable to find the calculations and or measurements that yielded these values



H2O molecules, as WV, 39 to 62%
Clouds, 15 to 36%
WV and clouds, 67 to 85%

CO2 molecules, 14 to 25%. See below Molecules Absorbing Photons Excites Molecules and Creates Heat 
All other GHGs, 5 to 9%


WV (2%, human, 95%, natural) causes 97% of global warming. Reducing fossil fuels would reduce the human 2%. The world surface temperature has increased about 1 C in 100 years, which caused: 1) about 7% more WV in the atmosphere, 2) some global warming, and 3) shorted the WV-to-precipitation cycle, and in larger quantities. The 1 C could be due to irrigation H20, fossil H2O and CO2, natural CO2, the Little Ice Age, etc. See URL 



Allocating Available IR photons


We assume, for simplicity, H2O  and CO2 molecules have equal global warming capacity.

About 22% of all IR photons escape to space through an atmospheric window, per Image 11A, blue part.

Worldwide: H2O molecules absorb 4037/(4037 + 423) = 90.5%, and CO2 molecules 9.5%; some sources state up to 8% of IR photons is absorbed by CO2

Temperate zones: H2O molecules absorb 9022/(9022 + 423) = 95.5% and CO2 molecules 4.5%

Tropics: H2O molecules absorb 32389/(32389+ 423) = 98.7%, and CO2 molecules 1.3% of the available photons. 

It appears, CO2 plays almost no global warming role in the Tropics, where huge quantities of WV is heated, and distributed to the rest of the earth, by normal circulation processes.

If H2O molecules were more potent regarding IR photon absorption, than CO2 molecules, the CO2 role regarding global warming would be even less. 

Atmospheric Window. See Image 11A

The window exists, primarily due to the reduced absorption of IR photons by WV.

The window varies from 15 to 30%, primarily due to changes in WV ppm and cloud cover

The wide IR photon absorption spectrum of H2O, from 20 to 70 micrometers, almost entirely limits the right side of the blue part, and the spectrum, from 4 to 10 micrometers, almost entirely limits the left side of the blue part

World temperature averages about 15 C, which radiates at a peak of 10 micrometer (Wien's law).

CO2 absorbs very well around 14.9 micrometer, so it reduces the right side of the blue part of the window.

As World temperature increases, there will be a bit more IR at 15 micrometer to be absorbed by CO2, but there will be much more IR in the 4 - 8 micrometer range that WV very effectively absorbs.

As World temperature increases, there will also be a higher concentration of WV in the lower atmosphere..

WV molecules play the dominant role absorbing IR photons, because they have much wider absorption bands of wavelengths than CO2, plus H2O molecules are 9.54 more prevalent than CO2 molecules, on worldwide average, as above calculated.



Image 11A



Molecules Absorbing Photons Excites Molecules and Creates Heat 



Photons are very small packets of energy with various frequencies; E = h x f;  h = 6.626 x 10^-34,  Planck's constant.

c/f = y, is wavelength, and c = 3 x 10^8 meter, the speed of light in a vacuum.

If y = 15 micrometers, E = 1.3252 x 10^-20 joule. 1/y = wavenumber.


CO2: CO2 molecules absorb IR photons at four narrow bands of wavelengths, centered on 2.0, 2.7, 4.3 and 14.9 micrometers; the first three are minuscule compared to wide bands of H20 molecules. See dark areas Image 11A

CO2 molecules absorb minimal IR photons at frequencies greater than 14.9 micrometers

The photons CO2 molecules can absorb are less than 8% of the available IR photons reflected by the earth and lower-atmosphere, on a worldwide basis.

The other 92% is absorbed almost entirely by water vapor, except for the blue part, which escapes to space through the atmospheric window, per Image 11A


H2O: WV molecules have more bands, and those bands are much wider than of CO2 molecules, especially the bands with shorter wavelengths. Compare dark areas of Image 11A

WV molecules have up to 6 times absorption spectrum than CO2 molecules

IR photons with wavelengths from 0.8 to 70 micrometers are mostly absorbed by H2O molecules, which absorb much more IR photons at wavelengths smaller than 14.9 micrometers than CO2 molecules.

Photons with short wavelengths are more energetic than with long wavelengths.

WV molecules likely are more energetic than CO2 molecules, because of their absorption of short wavelength/high energy photons. See Image 11A and c/f = y equation. 


As that more than 92% of all IR photons is absorbed by WV molecules, it is instantly converted into heat, in less than a pico second.

The heat of the warmed WV molecules is distributed, by means of mass transfer of energy, and conduction, convection, cloud formation/evaporation, to all molecules in the atmosphere, which mostly are 78% N2, 21% O2, and 1% Ar; all without IR windows.

That 99.9% neither absorbs nor radiates IR photons

That 99.9% gets heated by contact with warmed earth surfaces (conduction) and rising warm air (convection)

After some time, that vast quantity of heat is emitted from everything in the atmosphere and earth surfaces.

In case of CO2, the same processes apply, but that quantity of heat is at most 8% of the total heat, worldwide basis, about 4.5%, in temperate zones, about 1.3%, in the Tropics, as above calculated.


NOTE: It is dishonest to officially claim, WV does 39 to 62% of the Greenhouse Effect, based on laboratory experiments and subjective models

Near the surface, WV absorbing IR photons totally swamps whatever CO2 does.

See dark areas regarding IR absorption in Image 11A

Urban heat archipelagos, such as on the US East Coast, from Portland, Maine, to Norfolk, Virginia, significantly contribute to local warming. That area used to be covered with forests.



Adaptation, such as increasing the width and height of dikes, and capacities of culvert and storm sewer systems, etc., planting billions of trees each year, rebuilding the rain forests, etc., will be required.

Because, huge quantities of solar energy are collected in the Tropics to warm the planet each day, preservation of the world's equatorial rain forest belt is vital for the future well-being of the earth.
That should have priority over wind, solar, EV, heat pump, etc., measures, implemented mostly in temperate zones.


Important Role of CO2 for Flora Growth
Many plants require greater CO2 than 400 ppm to survive and thrive, so they became extinct, along with the fauna they supported. As a result, many areas of the world became arid and deserts. The current CO2 needs to at least double or triple to reinvigorate the world's flora and fauna.
CO2 has increased from about 280 ppm in 1900 to 423 ppm at end 2023. It increased:
1) Greening of the world by at least 10 to 15%, as measured by satellites since 1979.
2) Crop yields per acre.
3) Partially due to burning fossil fuels




Volcanic Eruptions are Weather Influencers

Hunga Tonga volcanic eruption adding 10 to 15% WV (say 12.5%) to the lower atmosphere, and caused:


1) The WV weight fraction to temporarily increase from 0.2506% to 1.125 x 0.2506 = 0.2813%

2) A rapid WV increase of 1.45 x 10^11 kg, or 8.06 x 10^9 moles

3) A temporary increase of the ppm and mole fraction from 0.4037% to (initial + addition)/total = (7.1667 x 10^14 + 8.06 x 10^9) / 1.7752 x 10^17 = 0.4037%

Item 3 is a minuscule increase on a world-wide basis, but a major increase on a local, Pacific-Ocean basis, because it upset normal weather patterns of those Pacific-Ocean areas, affected by Hunga Tonga, as verified by satellite measurements

In this case, the co-incident process of a strong El Niño, likely added major quantities of WV to the local lower-atmosphere as well, due to the slow evaporation of warmed-up Pacific Ocean water.

The two events, one sudden, one slow, added WV to the lower-atmosphere.

The added WV absorbed IR photons heated the lower-atmosphere by at least 0.3 C in late 2023. See Image 7

The warmer lower-atmosphere had significant, worldwide, weather-changing effects, that lasted at least one year.

The gradual increase of CO2 ppm played no role, because CO2 is a trace gas compared to WV


Heating the Entire Atmosphere by 0.3 C


This study shows, based on UAH satellite measurements started in 1979, lower-atmosphere temperatures have been increasing, step-by-step, and are pre-dominantly due to El Niños, and volcanic eruptions, such as Hunga Tonga, and their after effects.

Calculation: Image 7 shows, an increase of the lower-atmosphere temperature of about 0.3 C in late 2023, due to:

1) A strong El Niño peaking in late 2023, increased WV, over a period of time (months)

2) After-effects of the Hunga Tonga eruption, temporarily increased WV by 10 to 15%, in a very short time

Q = mass x Cp x delta T = (5.148 x 10^18 kg) x (1012 J / kg.C) x (0.3 C) = 1.563 x 10^21 = 1563 EJ

Almost all of that energy, near the Tropics, was IR photons, absorbed by WV molecules, during several months.

Human primary energy production for all uses in 2022 was estimated at 604 EJ, during an entire year.


Night-time Energy Loss Regained the Next Day


The total solar energy absorbed by world atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 EJ/y.
About 3,400,000 EJ reaches the surface of the earth, or 9315 EJ/d

At night the dark side loses a quantity of energy, but it is regained the next day, to maintain balance.

See Image


Human primary energy production was 604/365 = 1.65 EJ/d, in 2022

Human primary energy production is totally insignificant compared to solar energy absorbed by the world

The world would be a cold place without that solar energy. 

That huge energy gain would not be possible without:

1) Significant IR photon absorption by WV in high humidity/high temperature areas, such as the Tropics, and

2) Significant mass transfer of energy within the lower-atmosphere to distribute that energy

Strong El Ninos: The upwelling of the warm water of El Niños causes increased evaporation of ocean water over a period of time, which increases absorption of solar energy to warm the lower-atmosphere.

The starting energy of an El Niño is at most a few EJ. The rest of the 1563 EJ that warmed the lower-atmosphere by 0.3 C, because of increased WV, is provided by the sun over a period of months

Major Volcanic Eruptions: The very rapid addition of 146 million metric ton of hot WV to the atmosphere increased absorption of solar energy to warm the lower-atmosphere. The starting energy of a volcanic eruption, such as Hunga Tonga, is at most a few EJ.

NOTE: Image 7 shows, the increase of lower-atmosphere temperature was 0.6 C , in 45 years, or 0.133 C/decade, as measured by satellites. 

That value includes the periodic warming by El Niños and volcanic eruptions, including Hunga Tonga.

They were on-going events during these 45 years, and millions of years prior to that.





Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine



World Offshore Wind Capacity Placed on Operation in 2021

During 2021, worldwide offshore wind capacity placed in operation was 17,398 MW, of which China 13,790 MW, and the rest of the world 3,608 MW, of which UK 1,855 MW; Vietnam 643 MW; Denmark 604 MW; Netherlands 402 MW; Taiwan 109 MW

Of the 17,398 MW, just 57.1 MW was floating, about 1/3%

At end of 2021, 50,623 MW was in operation, of which just 123.4 MW was floating, about 1/4%



Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and "academia/think tanks", in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!


Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.


Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for:


1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and

2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.


Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)


Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in European specialized ships, then unloaded at a new, $450-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging area, then barged to European specialized erection ships for erection of the floating turbines. The financing will be mostly by European pension funds.


About 300 Maine people would have pre-assembly/staging/erection/barging jobs, during the erection phase

The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships

About 100 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs, using European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase.



The Maine woke bureaucrats are falling over each other to prove their “greenness”, offering $millions of this and that for free, but all their primping and preening efforts has resulted in no floating offshore bids from European companies


The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government 


The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to all the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024

The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.

The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment


Electricity Cost: Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at $7,500/kW.


Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y

Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.

Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh

Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.

Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh

All other items, 4 c/kWh 

Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 35.827 c/kWh

Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 17.913 c/kWh

Owner sells to utility at 17.913 c/kWh


NOTE: If li-ion battery systems were contemplated, they would add 30 to 50 c/kWh to the cost of any electricity passing through them, during their about 15-y useful service lives!. See Part 1 of URL


NOTE: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:


Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh

Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh

Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh

Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Grid Expansion on Shore: A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. 
The cables would need some type of flexible support system

There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England HV grid, which will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.


Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People: Rich Norwegian people can afford to dabble in such expensive demonstration follies (See Appendix 2), but the over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy. Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.




Floating Offshore Wind in Norway

Equinor, a Norwegian company, put in operation, 11 Hywind, floating offshore wind turbines, each 8 MW, for a total of 88 MW, in the North Sea. The wind turbines are supplied by Siemens, a German company

Production will be about 88 x 8766 x 0.5, claimed lifetime capacity factor = 385,704 MWh/y, which is about 35% of the electricity used by 2 nearby Norwegian oil rigs, which cost at least $1.0 billion each.

On an annual basis, the existing diesel and gas-turbine generators on the rigs, designed to provide 100% of the rigs electricity requirements, 24/7/365, will provide only 65%, i.e., the wind turbines have 100% back up.

The generators will counteract the up/down output of the wind turbines, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365

The generators will provide almost all the electricity during low-wind periods, and 100% during high-wind periods, when rotors are feathered and locked.

The capital cost of the entire project was about 8 billion Norwegian Kroner, or about $730 million, as of August 2023, when all 11 units were placed in operation, or $730 million/88 MW = $8,300/kW. See URL

That cost was much higher than the estimated 5 billion NOK in 2019, i.e., 60% higher

The project is located about 70 miles from Norway, which means minimal transport costs of the entire supply to the erection sites

The project would produce electricity at about 42 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 21 c/kWh, with 50% subsidies 

In Norway, all work associated with oil rigs is very expensive.

Three shifts of workers are on the rigs for 6 weeks, work 60 h/week, and get 6 weeks off with pay, and are paid well over $150,000/y, plus benefits.

If Norwegian units were used in Maine, the production costs would be even higher in Maine, because of the additional cost of transport of almost the entire supply, including specialized ships and cranes, across the Atlantic Ocean, plus

A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. 

The cables would need some type of flexible support system
The cables would be combined into several cables to run horizontally to shore, for at least 25 to 30 miles, to several onshore substations, to the New England high voltage grid.








Offshore Wind in US and UK

Most folks, seeing only part of the picture, write about wind energy issues that only partially cover the offshore wind situation, which caused major declines of the stock prices of Siemens, Oersted, etc., starting at the end of 2020; the smart money got out
All this well before the Ukraine events, which started in February 2022. See costs/kWh in below article


World’s Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues 


US/UK Governments Offshore Wind Goals

1) 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, by the cabal of climate extremists in the US government 
2) 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030, and 40,000 MW by 2040, by the disconnected-from-markets UK government


Those US/UK goals were physically unachievable, even if there were abundant, low-cost financing, and low inflation, and low-cost energy, materials, labor, and a robust, smooth-running supply chain, to place in service about 9500 MW of offshore during each of the next 7 years, from start 2024 to end 2030, which has never been done before in such a short time. See URL


NOTE: During an interview, a commentator was reported to say” “renewables are not always reliable” 
The commentator should have said: Wind and solar are never, ever reliable 

US Offshore Wind Electricity Production and Cost


Electricity production about 30,000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, lifetime capacity factor = 105,192,000 MWh, or 105.2 TWh. The production would be about 100 x 105.2/4000 = 2.63% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.


Electricity Cost, c/kWh: Assume a $550 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation, at $5,500/kW.


Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y

Amortize bank loan for $385 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 y, 9.824 c/kWh.

Owner return on $165 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 y, 5.449 c/kWh

Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.

Supply chain, special ships, ocean transport, 3 c/kWh

All other items, 4 c/kWh 

Total cost 9.824 + 5.449 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 30.273 c/kWh

Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 15.137 c/kWh

Owner sells to utility at 15.137 c/kWh; developers in NY state, etc., want much more. See Above.


Not included: At a future 30% wind/solar penetration on the grid:   

Cost of onshore grid expansion/reinforcement, about 2 c/kWh

Cost of a fleet of plants for counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about 2.0 c/kWh

In the UK, in 2020, it was 1.9 c/kWh at 28% wind/solar loaded onto the grid

Cost of curtailments, about 2.0 c/kWh

Cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites



Levelized Cost of Energy Deceptions, by US-EIA, et al.

Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to even exist on the grid.

With increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny around noon-time.

Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 16 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies

The various cost/kWh adders start with annual W/S electricity at about 8% on the grid.

The adders become exponentially greater, with increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid


The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE "analyses", are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems

Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.

Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.

The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.

W/S would not exist without at least 50% subsidies

W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See list.


1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project lifetime owning and operations cost,

2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers

3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365 

4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during low-W/S periods, and 100% during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked,

5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced

6) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. See image.







Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing


Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2

Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y

Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)

Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million


Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)

Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss


(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh

Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh

At 10% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh

At 40% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh


Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 20% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. Excluded costs would add at least 10 - 15 c/kWh
NOTE: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80%  full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging


NOTE: Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.




Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid.
Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment

If you divide the total of the payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.

According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.

A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if they are used to absorb midday solar and discharge it the during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening. They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculations.

Remember, you have to draw about 50 MWh from the HV grid to deliver about 40 MWh to the HV grid, because of A-to-Z system losses. That gets worse with aging.

A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, low-cost battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.


SolarEdge Technologies shares plunged about two weeks ago, after it warned about decreasing European demand. 


Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit



SolarEdge Melts Down After Weak Guidance 



The Great Green Crash – Solar Down 40%




World's Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues 









Regulatory Rebuff Blow to Offshore Wind Projects; Had Asked for Additional $25.35 billion



Offshore Wind is an Economic and Environmental Catastrophe



Four NY offshore projects ask for almost 50% price rise



EV Owners Facing Soaring Insurance Costs in the US and UK



U.S. Offshore Wind Plans Are Utterly Collapsing



Values Of Used EVs Plummet, As Dealers Stuck With Unsold Cars



Electric vehicles catch fire after being exposed to saltwater from Hurricane Idalia



The Electric Car Debacle Shows the Top-Down Economics of Net Zero Don’t Add Up



Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind System in the North Sea 



Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit



IRENA, a Renewables Proponent, Ignores the Actual Cost Data for Offshore Wind Systems in the UK


UK Offshore Wind Projects Threaten to Pull Out of Uneconomical Contracts, unless Subsidies are Increased














Nuclear Plants by Russia

According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW

Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022


Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.

The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.


In Egypt, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW, 

The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.

As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.
That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU


In Turkey, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom


In India, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.

Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed

In Bangladesh: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 2400 MW at the Rooppur Power Station

Capital cost $12.65 billion is 90% funded by a loan from the Russian government. The two units generating 2400 MW are planned to be operational in 2024 and 2025. Rosatom will operate the units for the first year before handing over to Bangladeshi operators. Russia will supply the nuclear fuel and take back and reprocess spent nuclear fuel.



Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures


Nuclear: Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions

They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years

Nuclear do not require counteracting plants. They can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France


Wind: Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and are far from CO2-free, on a mine-to-hazardous landfill basis.
They have lifetime capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy places

They last about 20 to 25 years in a salt water environment 
They require: 1) a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 2) major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers, 3)  a lot of land and sea area, 4) curtailment payments, i.e., pay owners for what they could have produced


Major Competitors: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.
They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.

American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.


Tripling Nuclear A Total Fantasy: During COP28, Kerry called for the world to triple nuclear, from 370,200 MW to 1,110,600 MW, by 2050.



Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants

Plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.


New nuclear: Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would add 11% of world electricity generation in 2050. See table

Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation. That would become about 5% of 2050 generation, if some older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation, 

Total nuclear would be 11+ 5 = 16%; minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm in 2050. 

Infrastructures and Manpower: The building of the new nuclear plants would require a major increase in infrastructures and educating and training of personnel, in addition to the cost of the power plants.


Existing Nuclear, MW, 2022


Proposed tripling


Tripled Nuxlear, MW, 2050


New Nuclear, MW






New Reactors, rounded






New nuclear production, MWh, 2050


Conversion factor



New nuclear production, TWh, 2050



World total production, TWh, 2050





Electricity prices vary by type of customer

Retail electricity prices are usually highest for residential and commercial consumers because it costs more to distribute electricity to them. Industrial consumers use more electricity and can receive it at higher voltages, so supplying electricity to these customers is more efficient and less expensive. The retail price of electricity to industrial customers is generally close to the wholesale price of electricity.

In 2022, the U.S. annual average retail price of electricity was about 12.49¢ per kilowatthour (kWh).1

The annual average retail electricity prices by major types of utility customers in 2022 were:

Residential, 15.12 ¢/kWh; Commercial, 12.55 ¢/kWh; Industrial, 8.45 ¢/kWh; Transportation, 11.66 ¢/kWh


Electricity prices vary by locality

Electricity prices vary by locality based on the availability of power plants and fuels, local fuel costs, and pricing regulations. In 2022, the annual average retail electricity price for all types of electric utility customers ranged from 39.85¢ per kWh in Hawaii to 8.24¢ per kWh in Wyoming.2. 

Prices in Hawaii are high relative to other states mainly because most of its electricity is generated with petroleum fuels that must be imported into the state.

1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.3, February 2023, preliminary data.
2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B, February 2023, preliminary data.

Last updated: June 29, 2023, with data from the Electric Power Monthly, February 2023; data for 2022 are preliminary.




In the US, the cost of electricity to ratepayers ranges from about 8 c/kWh (Wyoming) to 40 c/kWh (Hawaii), for an average of about 12.5 c/kWh.

US ratepayers buy about 4000 billion kWh/y from utilities, costing about $500 BILLION/Y

With a lot of wind/solar/batteries/EVs by 2050, and ratepayers buying 8000 billion kWh/y, because of electrification, the average rate to ratepayers would be about 25 c/kWh,

US ratepayers would pay: two times the kWh x two times the price/kWh = $2,000 BILLION/Y
Electric bills would increase by a factor of 4, if all that scare-mongering renewable nonsense were implemented

NOTE: All numbers are without inflation, i.e., constant 2023 dollars




Life without oil means many products that are made with oil, such as the hundreds listed below, would need to be provided by wind and solar and hydro, which can be done theoretically, but only at enormous cost.

Folks, including Biden's handlers, wanting to get rid of fossil fuels, such as crude oil, better start doing some rethinking.

The above also applies to natural gas, which is much preferred by many industries, such as glass making, and the chemical and drug industries.

If you do not have abundant, low-cost energy, you cannot have modern industrial economies.

Without Crude Oil, there can be no Electricity.


Every experienced engineer knows, almost all the parts of wind, solar and battery systems, for electricity generation and storage, from mining materials to manufacturing parts, to installation and commissioning, in addition to the infrastructures that produce materials, parts, specialized ships, etc., are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from raw crude oil.



Views: 565


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


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 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From 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?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From 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.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

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