Posted in accidents, Offshore Wind, tagged China's largest wind farm, offshore China, Qidong Wind Farm, vessel collision, Yellow Sea on May 2, 2025| Leave a Comment »
Posted in CCS, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, Offshore Wind, Regulation, tagged bp, carbon disposal, Empire Wind, Equinor, Gulf Land, Gulf of America, Montgomery Ward, Offshore Wind, Reliance Electric, Shell on May 1, 2025| Leave a Comment »
BP dropped the regrettable Beyond Petroleum campaign and has now cut their renewable energy investments to focus on oil and gas production. They are doing quite well in the Gulf of America where they are the no. 2 oil and gas producer.
The leading Gulf of America oil and gas producer, Shell, has also slowed its renewable investments and is no longer participating in any US offshore wind projects.
Only Equinor (formerly Statoil), which is 2/3 Norwegian government owned, remains committed to renewable projects, much to the chagrin of some private investors. Equinor’s Empire Wind misadventure may be matched in the Pacific where their floating wind project offshore California is a long way from reality.
Farther in the past, there were noteworthy failures (below) like Mobil’s acquisition of Montgomery Ward, Exxon’s investment in Reliance Electric, and Gulf’s real estate ventures.
Finally, don’t expect the carbon sequestration boom that some are forecasting. As wind investors have discovered, industries dependent on mandates and subsidies are risky.
Not much unites climate activists and skeptics, but they are largely aligned in their opposition to carbon sequestration (euphemism for disposal), as are fiscal conservatives. The word chutzpah comes to mind when companies seek public funds to dispose of emissions associated with the combustion of their products.
And how are those 199 wrongfully acquired carbon sequestration leases in the Gulf working out (graphic below)? Barring some legislative sleight of hand, those leases are worthless.
Posted in climate, energy policy, Wind Energy, tagged Die Dunkelflaute, grid management, Iberian power outage, intermittent energy, Portugal, solar energy, Spain on April 30, 2025| Leave a Comment »
Die Dunkelflaute or dark lulls have drawn attention to the need for dispatchable power (typically from gas turbines or coal-fired power plants) when the weather isn’t cooperating.
The massive power outage in Spain and Portugal on Monday may be the result of the opposite challenge – a surge in solar power supply greatly exceeding demand (dark line in chart below).
Note that no extreme weather events were reported in Spain on April 28, 2025. The Portuguese grid operator mentioned “extreme temperature variations” in Spain’s interior, possibly causing grid oscillations, but no storms or heatwaves were noted. Weather was typical for April, with mild temperatures (8-19°C) and some rain.
Meanwhile, the political focus in the US (chart below), and perhaps more so in Europe, had been on “clean” rather than reliable power.
Bottom line: Over-reliance on highly variable wind and solar power challenges grid management, putting supply reliability at risk.
Posted in accidents, energy policy, Wind Energy, tagged Biglow Canyon, incident reporting, Oregon Live, SAS, Scotland Against Spin, updated tables, wind turbine incidents on April 23, 2025| Leave a Comment »
Scotland Against Spin (SAS) continues to provide an important public service by compiling wind turbine incident data from press reports and official releases. Their updated table includes 327 pages of incidents.
Oregon Live found out about the state of industry and government data on wind turbine incidents while investigating a turbine blade failure in Biglow Canyon, Oregon:
“Accident and safety data is hard to come by for the wind industry.”
“There is no national database of incidents. Owners don’t publicize them. Vendors are reluctant to discuss it. And reporting rules vary by state, or even by county.”
Thankfully, SAS diligently gathers publicly available reports and updates their tables in a timely manner. Their data indicate that the number of wind turbine incidents has risen sharply in recent years (see chart below). So, of course, has the number of turbines.
The World Wind Energy Assoc. reports an increase of ~60% in wind turbine capacity between 2019 and 2023. This capacity increase would only partially account for the recent tripling in annual incidents reported by SAS, and SAS believes their list is merely the “tip of the iceberg.”
A high priority for wind industry regulators in the US and internationally should be establishing a consistent wind energy incident reporting regime and making the data available to the public in a timely and organized manner.
Posted in climate, energy policy, Offshore Wind, tagged Atlantic wind, February 2022 sale, highest grossing energy lease sale, irrational exuberance, turbine blade failure, Vineyard Wind, Virginia Offshore Wind, wind bubble on April 21, 2025| Leave a Comment »
Bidding at the February 2022 Atlantic (NY/NJ) wind sale seemed incomprehensible given the economic and political uncertainties associated with offshore wind development.The 6 leases garnered bids ranging from $285 million to an astounding $1.1 billion, with total high bids of $4.37 billion! The Administration’s victory message correctly boasted that this was the “nation’s highest grossing competitive energy lease sale in history.”
The intense bidding was driven by the lure of subsidies, guaranteed power sales, unprecedented Federal and State promotion, peak climate activism, inattention to mounting public opposition, and irrational expectations regarding the role of offshore wind in powering the regional economy.
That wind bubble has since burst, as demonstrated by the lackluster (at best) August 2024 Atlantic sale, the disinterest in Gulf of America wind leases, and recognition of the costly realities of floating turbine projects in the Pacific. Any air that remained in the balloon was released following the Presidential election.
The table below summarizes the sale results and the current status for the 6 leases issued following the 2/2022 sale. One lease has been essentially terminated by the partners and the State. The other leases are in holding patterns in the planning phases.
| high bidder | lease # | acres | bid ($millions) | status |
| Bluepoint Wind (EDP, ENGIE, Global Infrastructure Partners) | 0537 | 71,522 | 765 | Site Assessment Plan (SAP) review |
| Attentive Energy (Total and Corio Generation) | 0538 | 84,332 | 795 | Construction and Operations Plan (COP) review |
| Community Offshore Wind (RWE, National Grid) | 0539 | 125,964 | 1100 | no plans submitted |
| Atlantic Shores ( | 0541 | 79,351 | 780 | dead? |
| Invenergy | 0542 | 83,976 | 645 | no plans submitted |
| Vineyard Mid-Atlantic (Avangrid, Copenhagen Industy Partners) | 0544 | 43,056 | 285 | COP review |
The first US commercial offshore project, Vineyard Wind, has proven to be a major step backward for the wind industry. After being granted questionable financial and quality assurance waivers to reduce costs and “allow Vineyard Wind to adhere to its construction schedule,” the July 2024 turbine blade failure and subsequent lightning strike have raised new questions about the technology, industry, and regulatory regime. The report on the blade failure, which should arguably be a precursor to the resumption of Atlantic wind development, has yet to be released.
The one shining light, relatively speaking, for Atlantic wind development, has been Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind. That large project is on track to be completed at the end of 2026. Although the cost has risen about nine per cent, to $10.7 billion, that increase is understandable given the higher than anticipated costs for upgrading the onshore network.
Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, Regulation, tagged BOEM order, Empire Wind, Equinor, halt construction on April 18, 2025| Leave a Comment »
The letter is attached. Excerpt:
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is issuing this Director’s Order to Empire Offshore Wind LLC to halt all ongoing activities related to the Empire Wind Project on the outer continental shelf to allow time for it to address feedback it has received, including from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), about the environmental analyses
for that project. BOEM received this and other feedback regarding Empire Wind as an outgrowth of the review that the Department is engaged in related to offshore wind projects. See the President’s Memorandum of January 20, 2025. 90 Fed. Reg. 8363 (January 29, 2025).
Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, tagged BOEM, Congressman Chris Smith, Congressman Van Drew, Empire Wind, Equinor, Secretary Burgum on April 16, 2025| Leave a Comment »
Equinor’s Empire Wind project had been challenged by New Jersey congressmen and questioned by Norwegian investors. I suspect that Equinor saw the writing on the wall.
Posted in oil spill response, Uncategorized, Wind Energy, tagged bird killed by turbine, oiled bird on April 16, 2025| Leave a Comment »
Posted in accidents, Wind Energy, tagged Carbon County, fall from turbine, fatality, wind technician, Wyoming on April 16, 2025| Leave a Comment »
Sad news reported by the Cowboy State Daily:
“Liam Cobb died Wednesday while working on a wind turbine near Medicine Bow in Carbon County. Anna Cobb said her nephew fell while working his job as a wind turbine technician.”
Posted in climate, energy policy, natural gas, Offshore Energy - General, Offshore Wind, Regulation, tagged BOEM, BSEE, consultation, development impacts, dispatchable power, fishing industry, GAO, Offshore Wind, staffing, tribes on April 16, 2025| Leave a Comment »
The Government Accountability Office report on Offshore Wind Energy (full report attached) does a good job of summarizing the potential impacts from offshore wind development. They are categorized in the report as follows:
Unfortunately, GAO’s recommendations, which focus on consultation and staffing (perennial favorites), are rather meaningless. Does GAO really think more consultation will resolve the fundamental concerns of the tribes and fishing industry? Does GAO really think increasing BOEM/BSEE staff is a solution? Wind was the signature offshore energy program of the previous Administration, and it was well resourced.
When the legislation authorizing offshore wind energy development was drafted, we envisioned energy alternatives that could complement thermal energy sources like gas, coal, and nuclear plants. Natural gas plants are particularly important to intermittent energy sources, because their power can be readily dispatched on demand.
Never did we expect attempts to ban the dispatchable energy sources on which renewable energy goals were dependent. Policies that limit gas production, transportation, and consumption don’t boost offshore wind development, they doom it.
In a rush to achieve the Administration’s energy goals, the wind leasing program brushed aside important economic, safety, national security, and environmental issues. Coastal residents, tribes, fishing interests, power customers, and other affected parties have rebelled. Their concerns won’t be smoothed over by increasing consultation.
So now the wind program is in a dark and windless place (a regulatory dunkelflaute?). Five projects are under construction or in the early stages of operation. Construction has been authorized for 6 other projects. Five more projects are in various stages of permitting. What next?
Meanwhile, we still haven’t seen a report on the ugly and embarrassing Vineyard Wind blade failure offshore Nantucket last July. Shouldn’t that report be a precursor to further offshore wind development in the US Atlantic? Also of note, that same turbine was struck by lightning 2 months ago.
Should directed suspension orders be issued pending a complete review of the wind program? If so, for which leases and for how long? Suspension of projects still in the permitting phase would be relatively painless and maybe even attractive given the current state of the wind industry. However, financial impacts for projects in the construction phase would be significant. These important next-step decisions need to be made soon. Muddling along is not a strategy.
Table 2: Examples of Potential Impacts of Offshore Wind Development to Marine Life and Ecosystems
| Impact | Description |
| Acoustic disturbance | Construction and survey activities produce underwater noise that can disturb sensitive marine species. Offshore wind projects take measures to mitigate underwater noise, including the use of bubble curtains to dampen pile driving sound and pausing operations if protected species are sighted. |
| Changes to marine habitat | Installation of infrastructure, such as turbine foundations and transmission cables, introduces new structures and causes changes to the ocean floor that can alter marine habitat and affect the distribution, abundance, and composition of marine life in the area. These new structures can create artificial habitat that may benefit some species while displacing others and could affect bottom-dwelling species through disturbing the seabed. Artificial habitat effects of wind turbines are well documented, but research is ongoing to monitor and understand impacts on marine life. |
| Hydrodynamic effects | Operation of wind turbines can affect hydrodynamics and ocean processes such as currents and wind wakes, but little is known about regional effects of widescale deployment on ecosystems. |
| Vessel disturbance | Vessels can disturb some species and pose strike risks to large marine animals, but the increase in offshore wind vessels is projected to be small compared to the total volume of vessel traffic. Offshore wind vessels are required to take measures such as following speed restrictions and employing protected species observers. |
| Entanglement risk | Structures, such as mooring cables from floating wind turbines, could snag fishing gear and other marine debris and create entanglement risk to marine animals. Wind projects employ measures to minimize entanglement (e.g., mooring systems designed to detect entanglement), but there is uncertainty about the extent of the risk from floating turbines because of limited deployment.a |
| Collision risk to birds and bats | Turbine blades pose a collision risk to some sea birds, but little is known about offshore collision risk to bats. Research on collision risks and mitigation measures (e.g., lighting and curtailment) is ongoing. |
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 