Offshore Wind is an Economic and Environmental Catastrophe

Offshore Wind is an Economic and Environmental Catastrophe

Authored by Edward Ring via American Greatness,

The S&P Global Clean Energy Index, comprised of major solar and wind power companies and other renewables-related businesses, is down some 32% in 2023, most of that in the last three months, i.e., in free-fall. The peak occurred before the start of the Ukraine events. The smart money sold and others sold as well.

The industry overpromised, submitted bids at prices, $/MWh, that were too low, while costs were increasing much greater than estimated, due to interest rates, inflation, energy/component/labor, a lack of specialized ships, plus supply chain constraints, plus greater than expected O&M/MWh, due to major design/engineering/quality control deficiencies, such as with Siemens onshore and offshore turbines.

As a result, the industry lost $billions each year, as reflected by the S&P index   

When it comes to “renewables” wreaking havoc on the environment, wind turbines have some major helpers.

For example, over 500,000 square miles of biofuel plantations have already replaced farms and forests to replace a mere 4 percent of transportation fuel.

The US has about 350 million acres of cropland

About 35 million of about 95 million planted in corn is for producing ethanol, most of which is blended with gasoline to produce gasohol.

If the US were to replace all petro-gasoline with pure ethanol, E100, about 450 million acres would need to in corn.

If the US were to replace all petro-diesel with pure biodiesel, B100, about 670 million acres would need to be in soybeans.

To source raw materials to build “sustainable” batteries, mining operations are scaling up, with no end in sight, in nations with appalling labor conditions and nonexistent environmental regulations. But the worst offender is the wind industry.


America’s wind power industry somehow manages to attract almost no negative coverage in the bought and paid for Media, or litigation from extremist environmentalists, despite causing some of the most obvious and tragic environmental catastrophes so far this century.

Last August I wrote about the ongoing slaughter of whales off America’s northeast coast thanks to construction of offshore wind turbines:

“When you detonate massive explosives,

repeatedly drive steel piles into the ocean floor with a hydraulic hammer, and

blast high decibel sonar mapping signals underwater,

you’re going to harm animals that rely on sound to orient themselves, and find food, and find their companions in the ocean.

To say it is mere coincidence, hundreds of these creatures have washed ashore, dead, all of a sudden, during precisely the same months when the blasting and pounding began, is brazen deception.”

Nonetheless, when the story can’t be buried, deception, lying, obfuscation by NOAA, BOEM, etc., is the strategy.

Not one major environmental organization, government watchdog agency, or media outlet has called for a slowdown in industrial offshore wind projects.

Instead, they repeatedly claim these allegations are misinformation.

And from that “paragon of truth”,, we get this: “No Evidence Offshore Wind Development Killing Whales.”

Let’s set aside the obvious negative impact on whale populations of tens of thousands of marine surveying and construction sorties into offshore areas where shipping traffic has never before been concentrated, or the impact of noise and explosions on not just one site, such as would be the case with a lone oil rig, but on thousands of sites, each one being prepared for an offshore wind turbine.

The destruction wrought by wind turbines extends well beyond what it’s doing to whales.

report just released by a New England fishermen association summarizes research they completed on offshore wind projects.

Their findings are stunning.

Just the geographic extent of these proposed offshore wind projects is unprecedented.

According to the report, “Federal regulators at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) have designated almost 10 million acres for wind farm surveys and development.” That is over 15,000 square miles.

Not included in that allocation are the corridors where high voltage lines will have to cross the ocean floor to transfer electricity from many thousands of turbines to land-based power grids.

The report found, “electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emanating from subsea cables appear to produce birth deformities in juvenile lobster.” That’s just the beginning.

The report also found, wind farms “increase sea surface temperatures and alter upper-ocean hydrodynamics in ways scientists do not yet understand,” and “whip up sea sediment and generate highly turbid wakes that are 30-150 meters wide and several kilometers in length, having a major impact on primary production by phytoplankton which are the base of marine food chains.” And there’s more.

Wind turbines “generate operational noise in a low frequency range (less than 700 Hz) with most energy concentrated between 2 and 200 Hz.

This frequency range overlaps with that used by fish for communication, mating, spawning, and spatial movement,” and “high voltage direct current undersea cables produce magnetic fields that negatively affect the drifting trajectory of haddock larvae by interfering with their magnetic orientation abilities.”

Haddock are “a significant portion of U.S. commercial fish landings and are an important component of the marine food chain.”

Nothing to see here, right?

What’s going on off the coast of New England is being allowed to happen because of disgraceful negligence and malfeasance on the part of America’s environmentalist community, and the indecent harvesting of federal and state subsidies, courtesy of Wall Street and the Congress, and countless anonymous bureaucrats in the federal government 

What’s about to happen in California is even worse, and is proceeding without any organized opposition or serious criticism; the fed up, tax-paying people who could offer serious criticism have left the state

Earlier this year, the federal government leased 583 square miles of deep ocean waters off the coast of California for FLOATING offshore wind farms.

When the first phase of these offshore wind developments is completed, these wind farms will deliver 4.5 gigawatts , i.e., 4500 MW of installed capacity of “clean” electricity to the California grid. That may sound like a lot of electricity. It’s not.

To begin with, offshore wind only blows intermittently. The most optimistic projections for the actual yield of these turbines are never more than 50 percent. Most likely it is about 40% over its 20-year lifetime.

This means, much less than 2.25 gigawatts will come from these FLOATING offshore wind farms.

California’s annual-average electricity loaded onto the grid is about 32 gigawatts (of which only 22 gigawatts are produced in-state), which means, if these offshore wind farms are ever completed, they’ll supply a mere 6% of California’s current electricity demand, MW – the same MW amount currently coming from Diablo Canyon, California’s last operating nuclear power plant.

But how many turbines will this take, and what will they look like?

The biggest wind turbines are rated at 10 megawatts, these machines are 1,000 feet tall, which is more than three times higher than the Statue of Liberty from the water line to the tip of the torch.

About 450 of these monsters would have to be built, floated 20 miles offshore, anchored to the seabed with cables more than a mile long

Then, from each turbine, a high voltage cable would dangle 4,000 feet to reach the ocean floor, where it would then lie on the sea bed for 20 miles – some proposals actually call for them to be buried – to transmit electricity to the onshore power grid. 

Four hundred and fifty floating wind turbines, each one of them with vertical dimensions that are longer than a modern, 100,000 ton aircraft supercarrier.

There are huge and unresolved engineering hurdles involved in developing such large floating wind turbines.

California may not get any bids from European wind companies, because the various project costs will be so high, the average electricity cost will be at least 40 c/kWh, before subsidies, about 20 c/kWh, after subsidies; that will be the WHOLESALE price paid by a utility to an owner.
That expensive electricity will be added to the mix of electricity a utility buys.

Bear in mind, if California’s state legislature gets its way, and the state goes fully electric – think all space heaters, water heaters, dryers, along with all trucks, buses and cars going fully electric – electricity demand will more than triple.

And imagine all the high voltage distribution lines, and all the batteries to buffer the massive surges of intermittent wind power, and future solar power. It is mind boggling

But, in one of the most reputable mainstream studies produced to date, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, Mark Jacobson, completed a series of simulations, culminating in a report released in December 2021 that called for 20 percent of California’s electricity to derive from offshore wind.


NOTE : All of his prior studies have been debunked by professional energy systems analysts as totally unworkable. But, in California, etc., there are plenty of brainwashed/befuddled people, without knowledge of energy systems, who just love what he is saying.

Making more conservative assumptions regarding the size of each offshore turbine and production, Jacobson predicted more than 12,000 FLOATING offshore wind turbines would be required to provide 20% of the electricity Californians WILL be using in the future, say 2050

Jacobson’s study projected about 33% of California’s future electricity production to come from a combination of onshore and offshore wind turbines. 

Imagine the logistics.

How many ships will this take?

How many deep-dive submarines and divers?

How many port facilities?

How many new homes for the construction workers?

What about the undersea power cables?

What about the storage batteries needed to buffer nearly 20,000 MW of VARIABLE electricity?

What about the ongoing maintenance cost, $/MWh; regular offshore is about $80/MWh

What about the raw materials and rare metals needed to build all these leviathans?

What about the $billions and $billions of dollars that will flow into the pockets of the moneyed special interests invested in this disaster of a project?

It likely will be paid for by taxpayers and ratepayers and added to national debt.


In California, four standard nuclear plants, each with two or three 1200 MW units, costing about $6,000/installed kW, would produce enough steady, base-load power, to avoid the need for ALL onshore and offshore wind turbines.

Each plant would need about 1000 acres.

Production would be 4 x 2.5 x 1200 x 8766 x 0.9 = 94.67 TWh/y, for each of at least 70 years

Required floating, 10 MW wind turbines = 94672800/(10 x 8766 x 0.4, lifetime average CF) = 2700

California in-state generation 203.2 TWh; imports 84 TWh; total loaded onto grids 287.2 TWh, in 2022, of which wind was 31 TWh and solar 49 TWh

The nuclear plants would provide THREE TIMES as much electricity (base-loaded, or load-following, as in France) as wind, PLUS last at least THREE TIMES as long as floating wind (70 years vs 20 years)

Shall we reiterate what else we already know about wind turbines?

Their slaughter of raptors, bats, and insects?

Their incessant, low frequency sound that is audible, but impacting people and animals for miles and, despite “debunking” articles that defy basic common sense, drives people and animals nuts?

The visual blight?

The strobe lights, 24/7/365

The staggering quantity of materials required for their manufacture, and the difficult if not impossible task of recycling the materials after they’ve reached the end of their 20-y service life?

Where are the environmentalists hiding?

Where, for that matter, are the economists, the accountants?

Is the mantra “climate crisis” so powerful, that common sense leaves and literally anything goes, including a scheme that delivers not only environmental, but also economic catastrophe?

In 2020, an in-depth financial analysis by the Manhattan Institute documented how “offshore wind’s costs will far exceed its benefits.”

And that was before the supply chain problems, inflation, and interest rate hikes that have forced offshore wind developers from New England to California , to Scotland, to England, to greatly increase the prices of their electricity production, c/kWh, or pull out of unprofitable projects altogether.

Imagine, if this was an oil rig, a desalination plant, or a nuclear power plant.

The opposition would be apoplectic, and that is not hypothetical conjecture. Here is an example.

California had a chance to build another major desalination plant, which would have supplied 55,000 acre feet per year of drought-proof, fresh water to the residents of Orange County, population 3 million.

Along with other projects in the works, this desalination plant could have made the relatively arid coastal county completely independent of imported water. It would be prudent to have a lot of storage to ensure supply, in case the plant has an outage

But environmentalists fought the project at every turn, and in May 2022, in a unanimous vote, the California Coastal Commission denied the construction permit. A big win for continued insanity!

As for oil and gas, California’s state legislators are doing everything they can to destroy production in the state.

Despite having massive reserves of oil and gas, Californians have to import more than 75 percent of their oil and more than 90 percent of their natural gas.

And when it comes to nuclear power, the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, California’s last one, narrowly escapes regulatory shutdown every few years, despite being designed to operate well past the middle of this century.

The scandalous double standard at work here can only be attributed to a combination of powerful Wall Street-based, special interests representing the wind power industry, interacting with federal and state legislatures and environmentalist movements that are bought off, AND alarmingly stupid, AND alarmingly money grubbing, such as the Sierra Club, etc.

As it is, hundreds of $billions of taxpayer subsidies are on track to pay for offshore wind, per Wall Street designs, courtesy of the Inflation Reduction Act, which will actually increase inflation.

If it is not stopped, it will be one of the most egregious cases of economic waste and environmental destruction in human history. Stopping it would require the demise or curtailment of the IPCC, WEF, for starters





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.

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

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.

There is no escaping of this reality, except in green lalaland.

Views: 200


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 October 12, 2023 at 6:03am

I'll Take a nuclear plant that can last 70 years plus over all the wind in the ocean

Comment by Willem Post on October 11, 2023 at 11:03pm



Solar electricity increases with the rising sun, is maximal around midday, and decreases with the setting sun.


Electric grids with many solar systems have major midday solar output bulges, that are counteracted/balanced by traditional power plants reducing their outputs. Combined-cycle, gas-turbine plants, CCGTs, perform almost all of the counteracting/balancing of the variable wind and solar outputs.


Those plants have to increase their outputs during the peak hours of late afternoon/early evening, when solar and wind usually are minimal; solar will have gone to sleep until about 9 AM the next morning.


Owners of counteracting/balancing plants, to avoid grid overload, are required by ISO-NE, the NE grid operator, to counteract the midday solar bulge, i.e., reduce their outputs, which decreases their annual production, kWh/y, increases their costs, c/kWh, plus increases wear and tear of their plants.


ISO-NE compensates the Owners of these plants, and charges utilities as part of “grid charges”, plus mark-up.

The utilities charge ratepayers, plus mark-up. Nothing is “for free”


Battery Systems Electricity Delivery Periods at Rated Capacity


Battery systems have rated capacity outputs, MW, and rated energy delivery, MWh. Most recently installed battery systems have about 4 hours of electricity delivery, MWh, at rated capacity, MW, because those battery systems are primarily used to absorb midday solar output bulges.


Battery systems, in use during all of 2015, delivered electricity, on average, for 0.5 hours

Battery systems, in use during all of 2018, delivered electricity, on average, for 2.4 hours

Battery systems, in use during all of 2019, delivered electricity, on average, for 3.2 hours  


The increase in energy-delivery duration is required, because the main function of battery systems is to store excess wind and midday solar output bulges. They discharge about 80% of the stored electricity during the peak hours of late afternoon/early evening; the other 20% are round-trip battery system losses.


Battery Systems Perform Multiple Services at the Same Time


A 2018 survey of 43 battery systems, performed by the Energy Information Administration, EIA, found:


26 systems dealt with: 1) excess wind events, which occur at random, and 2) midday solar output bulges, which occur every day

18 dealt with frequency regulation

13 dealt with system peak demand shaving


The annual battery throughput is greatest, by far, for dealing with excess wind and midday solar output bulges.

Comment by Willem Post on October 11, 2023 at 11:03pm



The US government has the fantasy of wanting to build 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, i.e., just 7 years, but several companies, building projects for Massachusetts, will be allowed to walk away from the signed PPAs, and rebid at much higher prices next year.


The UK government has the fantasy of wanting to build 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030, i.e., in just 7 years,


That means placing in operation 66,000/7 = 9,428 MW of wind turbines/y, during 2024 through 2030

The continent-based European big wind companies currently have an offshore capacity of about 4,000 MW/y


These companies prefer the U.S. market, because Biden’s "Inflation-Reduction-Act” (IRA) has higher subsidies than the UK.

The IRA has “bonus” subsidies for domestic content requirements to create US jobs and US wind infrastructures


However, the EU is urging Biden to ignore the domestic content requirements, so Europe would receive “bonus” subsidies to create European jobs to build factories, ports, cranes, specialized ships, etc., for manufacturing and erecting nacelles, towers and rotor blades, to increase EU wind turbine exports to the US, UK, and other markets in future years.


The EU has a high-level goal to shame the US, rich in energy and other resources, into the wind/solar/battery blackhole, using UN IPCC scare-mongering about global-warming


NOTE: The specialized ships and cranes, almost all owned by European companies, are very expensive and take 3 to 4 years to design and build. They are booked years in advance, with upfront cancellation fees in escrow. Their lack of availability, even at high fees, delays projects, which increases $/installed MW


NOTE: The US will have at least a $1.0 trillion trade deficit and about a $2.0 trillion federal budget deficit in 2023. The US is in no position to engage in giveaways.



About 7,000 MW of offshore wind bids were awarded by the UK 4th Auction, in 2022
No bids were submitted for the UK 5th Auction, in 2023; European companies protesting low UK subsidies.
No bids were submitted for a new floating offshore wind project off the coast of Scotland.

The Pro-Wind bureaucrats and Media, in the poor state of Maine, should pay attention


Six Items of Interest


1) Vattenfall, Sweden, has put on hold 1,400 MW in 2023, and will re-evaluate its entire 4,200 MW zone, because its spreadsheets show a “net revenue shortage” of about 40%, meaning the prices, c/kWh, offered by the UK auctions are about 40% too low.


2) OERSTED, Denmark, sees a $2.6 billion loss on its three US East Cost offshore wind systems, mainly due to high inflation, high interest rates, supply chain constrains and disruptions, and not being awarded “bonus” subsidies of the IRA.


3) EU big wind conglomerates want, on average, 40% more, because turnkey capital costs (foundations, turbines, cabling to shore, installation) increased to at least $5,500/installed kW, with bank loan rates at 6.5% in 2023, from $3,500/kW and 3% in 2021


4) UK and New York State bureaucrats are grossly uninformed regarding market conditions. They display zero business sense. New York State bureaucrats calculated their estimates of offshore wind contract prices, but when the owners saw those numbers, they said, we need up to 66% more, for our spreadsheets to make business sense.


Owners want a return on their investment of at least 10%/y, when bank loans and long-term CDs are 6.5%/y.

The 3.5% is about a minimum for all the years of hassles of designing, building, erecting, and paperwork of a project

Below contract prices, paid by Utilities to owners, are after 50% US subsidies, which are provided, per various laws, by the US Treasury to the owners. See Items 4 and 6


Oersted, Denmark, Sunrise wind, NYS estimate $110.37/MWh, needs $139.99/MWh, a 27% increase

Equinor, Norway, Empire 1 wind, NYS estimate $118.38/MWh, needs $159.64/MWh, a 35% increase

Equinor, Norway, Empire 2 wind, NYS estimate $107.50/MWh, needs $177.84/MWh, a 66% increase

Equinor, Norway, Beacon Wind, NYS estimate $118.00/MWh, needs $190.82/MWh, a 62% increase



- Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind Farm


- IRENA prepares glossy offshore wind reports, that 1) ignore industry cost data of offshore wind systems in the UK, 2) overestimates capacity factors, 3) underestimates decreases in output with aging, 4) underestimates O&M/MWh. IRENA is a government-controlled, offshore wind rah-rah site, that cannot be trusted


6) Bloomberg recently reported, citing figures from Bloomberg-NEF: “The all-in, turnkey capital cost associated with a typical US offshore project, before bonus tax credits of the IRA, has increased by 57% since 2021. The increased costs of materials, energy, components, labor, and supply chain disruptions and constraints (shortage of European-owned specialized ships, etc.,) explain about 40% of that, with 60% due to increased financing costs; borrowing larger amounts/installed kW at higher interest rates


Part 1




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, due to Biden’s handlers “liberally interpreting” the various open-ended measures. 

This deficit spending will be added to the national debt, which would increase inflation. See URL for explanation.


High Prices of Goods and Services: 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.


High Visibility: 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.


Damage to Fisheries, Whales and other Fauna: 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 Wind Electricity Production and Cost


Electricity production about 30,000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, lifetime-average 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.

- All other items, 4 c/kWh 

- Total cost 9.824 + 5.449 + 8 + 4 = 27.273 c/kWh

- Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 13.637 c/kWh

- Owner sells to utility at 13.637 c/kWh; developers in NY state, etc., want much more. See Above.


Not included:

- Cost of onshore grid expansion/augmentation, about 2 c/kWh

- Cost of curtailment/counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about 2 c/kWh

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


Floating Offshore Wind in Maine


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.

- All other items, 4 c/kWh 

- Total cost 9.568 + 11.547 + 8 + 4 = 32.827 c/kWh

- Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 16.413 c/kWh

- Owner sells to utility at 16.413 c/kWh


NOTE: If li-ion battery systems were contemplated, they would add 20 to 40 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:


1) Natural gas-fueled CCGT plants, that have low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh

2) Uranium-fueled nuclear plants, that have low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh

3) Hydro plants, that have low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh


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