Maine Rep. Reagan Paul - ‘Unmitigated Carbon Super-Polluters:’ The Truth About Offshore Wind

By Reagan Paul
February 16, 2024

The following is an op-ed from Representative Reagan Paul:

If you had a dollar for every time it was said that offshore wind development in the Gulf of Maine will combat climate change and bolster the local workforce, you’d almost be as wealthy as the pseudo-environmental special interest and labor groups pushing this narrative.

Can offshore wind advocates boast about the billions of dollars of subsidies required to attempt to make them competitive, skyrocketing electric bills, decreased grid reliability, and rampant environmental and community destruction that inevitably follows in the wake of offshore wind development? Of course not. The only cards left to play for offshore wind proponents are the claims that this technology will decrease carbon emissions and bolster the local workforce. Not surprisingly, these were the talking points utilized by labor groups and the Natural Resources Council of Maine at a local offshore wind meeting held in Searsport last month.

The truth of the matter is that there is simply no evidence that offshore wind is even remotely capable of delivering on either promise. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary that adding offshore wind to a state’s energy mix will likely increase global CO2 emissions and will lead to widespread job loss.

Carbon Emissions

While constructing offshore wind turbines may give climate activists a warm feeling inside about saving the world from impending doom, the truth is that they are an unmitigated carbon super-polluter.

Can anyone calculate the carbon emissions for these projects from the extensive mining and processing of the required minerals and materials, constructing the turbines themselves, manufacturing needed components, operation, maintenance, replacement, decommissioning and landfilling old, worn out, damaged or obsolete equipment that create “forever waste?” What about the emissions from global shipping from trucks and ships needed along the way? What about the toxic pollutants from unregulated overseas productions in places like China where more coal power plants were permitted last year than any time in the last seven years to keep up demand for our “Green New Deal”? These emissions are global, and therefore increase global CO2 emissions.

The supposed decreased carbon projections of offshore wind assume that these turbines will be in operation for 20-30 years. That is unrealistic, as we Mainers know that if you put metal in saltwater, inevitable erosion ensues, and maintenance is required. If there were even partially intellectually honest offshore wind proponents, they may even concede that on-going maintenance of turbines will be necessary, but they would certainly be reluctant to tell you about the recent fate of the world’s first offshore wind project. This wind farm, Hywind Scotland, is coming offline for three to four months for “heavy maintenance. The operator, Norwegian power giant Equinor, says that operational data has indicated that its wind turbines need work. The project has only been in operation for 7 years. 7 years is a far cry from 20-30 years and dramatically altars the data assumptions for the price, capacity, and environmental impacts for offshore floating wind. Imagine the proposed 3 GW of offshore wind offline in the Gulf of Maine for an hour let alone 4 months and the devastating impact that would have on Maine.

For those Mainers who are concerned about the supposed temperature increase of our oceans and thus believe we are facing an existential climate threat, offshore wind should be something you oppose. Multiple offshore substations will be needed to convert AC/DC cables using cool water intake. During their operation, they take up 81 million gallons of sea water each per day, that is then dumped back into the ocean at a temperature of around 90 degrees.

Many advocates of this technology are also not aware that offshore wind turbines require fourteen times as many raw materials per megawatt than a combined-cycle natural gas power plant. If you add in substations and additional transmission lines to transport offshore wind power, that increases the required raw materials to 20 or 30 times of what a natural gas plant requires.

We know from the data retrieved from the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Metal Industry Emissions Report, the carbon footprint of constructing a 260-foot turbine is 126.45 tons of CO2, just for the steel alone. As for the concrete needed for such a structure, according to data from the NRMCA Concrete CO2 Factsheet, 115.4 tons of CO2 are emitted in the process, thus adding up to 241.85 tons of CO2 emitted on only steel and concrete. Multiply that figure by 4 per windmill to understand the impact of floating offshore wind if the climate activists and unions get their way. The Gulf of Maine would be cluttered with potentially hundreds of 850-1000-foot-tall floating turbines covering nearly 10 million acres right in the path of the annual southward migration of the North Atlantic right whale. Important to note, those figures do not include the concrete required for the floating platforms that are each the size of a football field needed for the floating turbines proposed by Maine democrats. That’s right. Hundreds of steel Eiffel Towers floating on football field sized concrete bases floating in the Gulf of Maine.

When it comes to the energy mix of ISO- NE, the potential CO2 decrease from operating offshore wind turbines will be trivial at best, namely because the inherent intermittency of offshore wind requires gas fired power emissions to increase when the wind isn’t blowing. Any marginal CO2 decreases will be overshadowed with the fossil fuel backup generation that will be needed to maintain grid stability. Financially speaking, to install grid-balancing and back up batteries for the United States, it could cost upwards of $290 trillion, based on just today’s electricity needs.

If the math holds, the result of small local CO2 emissions + large increases in emissions via supply chain and manufacturing = overall increases in atmospheric CO2.

In the words of Francis Menton of the Manhattan Contrarian, “It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the people planning the Net Zero transition have no idea what they are doing.”

Workforce Development

So, what about the promise of hundreds of jobs for Mainers coming to Waldo County?

While a small number of jobs may indeed be created, what wind advocates fail to mention is that the jobs being created will be subsidized by Maine ratepayers, including low-income Mainers, who will already be paying for increasingly more expensive energy as a result of offshore wind being added to the state’s energy mix. Many existing jobs will also be lost, as businesses, factories and even hospitals and schools will have to cut labor costs to stay afloat (offshore wind pun) amidst increasing electric rates, while simultaneously being forced by government mandates to install all-electric systems, which cannot adequately function with intermittent power.

In a study of the labor force impact of offshore wind development in North Carolina, it was found that an estimated 45,000-67,000 jobs would be lost due to increased energy prices and downstream effects on their economy. Why do we assume anything would be different in Maine? We’ve seen this already begin to happen with the recent announcement of the closing of Dragon Cement in Thomaston. They stated rising operational and logistical costs as driving forces behind their decision to shut down. How many more businesses, jobs, and industries must be sacrificed on the altar of climatism? How many companies will never even consider Maine because of the burdensome business climate and skyrocketing energy costs?

The small amount of local job growth numbers are overstated as well, as these jobs by and large would be for assembly, not construction, as many of the needed components such as turbines, towers, blades, and connecting cables, are fabricated in foreign nations. To add insult to injury, most ratepayer money will be sent overseas, because that is where the majority of the supply chain exists.

Based on the pro-union language of LD 1895 (the AFL-CIO called the bill a “homerun”), there are real questions whether Maine’s largest construction employers, which are not unionized, will benefit from the port project. Providing labor union allies with statutorily mandated handouts may send those port jobs to out-of-state union workers in Massachusetts. If you want a preview of what’s to come, take a look at the license plates of the vehicles of those working on solar projects and see how few of them are actually from the State of Maine.

As matter of fact, a recent Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) study from the east coast Vineyard Wind Project states that a port upgrade for offshore wind would indeed bring tax revenue and some jobs but also displacement or reduction of fishing opportunities and other ocean sector economies, including tourism. The jobs created by offshore wind should be seen as costs, not benefits.

As the North Carolina study, BOEM, and a drive around the State of Maine tells us, it appears that Democrat lawmakers and lobbyists seem to be willing to sacrifice the blue-collar workforce run by small businesses and hardworking Mainers for what Janet Mills likes to call “green collar” jobs that are subsidized by taxpayers to fund foreign companies. Nothing suggests Maine lacks the job creation and economic growth to justify such a hurried and demonstrably risky government intervention on behalf of a particular industry to the exclusion of others.

If this project continues, and Maine experiences the utter devastation of its pristine landscape, desecration of our oceans, unaffordable energy costs, and mass workforce shutdowns, make sure to thank your local Democrat lawmaker, union representative, or “environmental” special interest group.

The full op-ed can be read at the following weblink:

https://www.themainewire.com/2024/02/unmitigated-carbon-super-pollu...

Rep. Reagan L. Paul is a Republican of Winterport who represents House District 37. A graduate of Liberty University, she sits on the Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee.

Tucker Carlson, Episode 75: The National Security State and Its Drive for Censorship in the United States with Mike Benz (Video)

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/02/tucker-carlson-episode-75-...

The Covid Resistance Deserves the Nobel Peace Prize

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-covid-resistance-deserves-the-n...

How Progressive Policies Are Designed For Civilizational Suicide

Let us begin with escalating climate mandates, now reaching gas stoves and tires, seeking the total elimination of fossil fuels. Because our mainstream media, more out of reflexive conformity than malevolence, constantly amplify climate alarmism, most Americans believe climate programs are designed in good faith to protect us from planetary disasters. 

Climate subsidies are aimed, they are led to believe, at increasing prosperity through good “green” jobs in emerging “green” industries, all part of the supposedly improved “Bidenomics” economy, however counterintuitive many think them to be.

When Biden, immediately upon assuming office, stopped issuing new drilling leases, canceled the Keystone Pipeline, and issued EPA regulations effectively shutting down multiple power plants in the near future, was he, however idealistically, trying to wean our country off of fossil fuels in favor of clean, “renewable” energy? If so, what could be wrong with that?

If the administration had calculated that lost energy from stifling fossil fuel sources could actually be replaced, these initiatives, even if overly optimistic, could be viewed as well-intended.

However, within the climate camp, it has been well known that fossil fuels, which power 82% of world energy needs, cannot conceivably be replaced by renewable energy to any substantial degree. So, as these policies take effect over the coming years, our hospitals and medical centers, relying on petroleum-based plastic furniture, fixtures, and equipment, energy-dependent stainless-steel implements, and high-power physical plants, will be hit hard. Health care costs will soar, while treatment will decrease to emerging society levels. Our food costs, already rising dramatically, will skyrocket as petroleum fertilizer, now tripling yields, becomes economically impractical. Housing costs, dependent on fuel-powered equipment and concrete and steel needing massive energy inputs to manufacture, will put homeownership out of reach for all but the rich and reduce housing to cramped, third-world levels. And, of course, transportation will become an expensive luxury for both people and products.

But isn’t this all meant well? For trusting, uncritical moderates and traditional liberals, yes. For the progressives pulling the strings, no.

Maurice Strong, the Canadian socialist responsible for steering the United Nations into the bureaucratic sinecures of the climate alarmist IPCC, has stated from the outset that his intention is the diminishment of the wealth of the Western industrialized nations, making them more like less-advantaged societies.

Although they tout their certainty, climate warriors conceal that for decades, their computerized GCMs (General Circulation Models) have overpredicted global warming by 300%. Well, they respond when confronted by the knowledgeable, the increased heat was swallowed by the oceans, or perhaps tamped down by those pesky aerosols. They know better, but gullible, well-intentioned believers do not.

Documents from a key IPCC research center in East Anglia, the GRU, reveal the fear of climate activists that the public will learn of the Medieval Warm Period and that its temperatures were warmer than today without any claimed assistance from carbon dioxide. Progressive climatologists, in essence, know they are pushing a canard.

Full article at the following weblink:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/how-progressive-policies-are-de...

Texas To Build Military "Base Camp" On Mexico Border To House 1,800 Soldiers

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/texas-build-military-base-camp-...