Offshore Wind’s Epic Fail

Feds pull plug on Revolution Wind amid security fears.

Dr. Matthew Wielicki on Irrational Fear

Clintel Foundation
Date: 26 August 2025

What happened this week

This week, the federal government slammed the brakes on the nearly completed Revolution Wind project off Rhode Island and Connecticut, citing vague ‘national security concerns’. With 45 of 65 turbines already piercing the ocean floor and the developer boasting 80% completion, this sudden stand-down may signify deeper issues… or is it just another sign that offshore wind’s house of cards is collapsing?

https://apnews.com/article/trump-renewable-energy-offshore-wind-farm
-c1faf852d2960473b8f96b14321f6832

What Revolution Wind actually is

Revolution Wind, Ørsted’s bloated offshore brainchild, lurks 15 miles south of Rhode Island’s coast, poised to feed power to Rhode Island and Connecticut. Up to 65 turbines and two substations promise 700 MW… enough for 350,000 homes, they claim. But let’s cut the spin: Connecticut grabs 300 MW, Rhode Island 400 MW, all at a locked-in 9.8 cents/kWh for 20 years… cheaper than New England’s retail average? Sure, but only if you ignore the massive subsidies propping it up.

What the hardware looks like at sea

Picture this: Massive steel monopiles, up to 12 meters wide for turbines, 15 for substations, hammered into the seabed like industrial spikes. Each gets a rock apron, devouring 0.7 acres, stacking 2-4 feet high to fight erosion. Total toll? 190 acres of mangled seabed in a 97,000-acre lease… plus 155 miles of inter-array cables and 42 miles to shore, buried 4-6 feet deep but still scarring the ocean floor. This isn’t clean energy; it’s an underwater industrial zone.

How much surveying and offshore work it took

Before and during construction, the project carried out high-resolution geophysical mapping, geotechnical borings, and seasons of monitoring runs to track seafloor conditions, scour around foundations, and cable burial. Regulators anticipated survey activity during construction and intermittent surveys across the life of the project, in addition to round-the-clock pile driving windows when weather allowed.

What the subsidies would look like

Offshore wind can claim the federal Investment Tax Credit at thirty percent of capital costs. Projects that meet domestic content rules may add a ten percent bonus, and there are other potential adders that depend on location and materials. Alternatively, a project can choose the Production Tax Credit, which pays a set amount for each kilowatt hour for ten years. At today’s rate, that is about 2.75 cents per kilowatt hour. A 700 megawatt project that runs near a mid-forty percent capacity factor would generate on the order of 2.8 billion kilowatt hours a year, making the 10-year value of the Production Tax Credit alone roughly 750 million dollars in nominal terms. Which path a particular project elects is a financing choice, but the scale of the federal help is not in doubt.

Who really gets what from Washington? In “Federal energy subsidies in the USA”, I walk through the federal books and show the totals for 2010 to 2019, then normalize by electricity produced. The surprise is not the dollars, it is the dollars per kilowatt hour. Solar and wind look very different once you scale by output.

Source: Federal energy subsidies in the USA

The Maryland piece of the story

Meanwhile, the feds are also yanking approval for US Wind’s Maryland monster, once hyped to power 700,000 homes. Coincidence? Or proof the offshore wind bubble is bursting?

Why this pause strengthens the case I have been making

This halt vindicates everything I’ve warned about offshore wind: Low power density demands sprawling setups that trash habitats. For years, I have shown why offshore wind looks good in slogans but fails in the real world. The resource is low in power density; it needs wide spacing, and it spreads machines across waters that are still living habitats. If you want the full walkthrough on why area and output are the crux, start with my power density explainer here.

Source: It’s all about power density and land use…

I have also compared like with like. When you stack the energy from a compact oil development against the output from sprawling wind arrays, the space and materials story is not even close. See the side-by-side numbers and maps in my field comparison here.

Then there is the surface warming problem. Very large wind and solar builds change local temperatures, especially at night, which cuts against the promise that these projects will cool the surface. I unpack the evidence and why it matters in “Chasing the Heat”.

Source: Chasing the Heat

Finally, follow the money. When a technology cannot stand on its own without long-term guaranteed prices and rich federal credits, private capital steps back, and taxpayers are asked to step in. I break down the economics, the risk, and who pays in my wind finance article, “Will wind energy survive?”.

About whales and habitat

Readers can judge the marine risks for themselves. I will include the video that has sparked so much debate over whale strandings and offshore work from my friend and colleague, Michael Shellenberger. This isn’t how we protect the environment for future generations.

The bottom line

Revolution Wind isn’t revolution… it’s real steel, scarred seabeds, and a subsidy-sucking machine that fails on reliability and habitat. This pause isn’t a glitch; it’s a wake-up call to scrap the ‘build first, regret later’ insanity.

Dr. Matthew Wielicki

This article was published on 26 August 2025 by Dr. Matthew Wielicki on his substack Irrational Fear. Wielicki is offering this article for free because he believes these facts should be public. By subscribing to Irrational Fear, you will gain access to 380+ unique articles that dismantle the climate-crisis narrative with data, figures, and receipts… and you will help keep his work independent.

Subscribe to our newsletter

more news

No, Washington Post, ‘Carbon Pollution’ Isn’t Making Food Less Healthy

Carbon dioxide is not a toxin to crops, as The Washington Post recently claimed. Demonizing it as the “invisible force” behind nutritional decline ignores the broader picture, says Anthony Watts. “The Washington Post has taken a modest statistical decline in select minerals and inflated it into a planetary health crisis.”

May 10, 2026|Categories: News|Tags: agriculture, Anthony Watts, carbon dioxide, CO₂, crop yields, food nutrition|

Thomas Kurz: Why there is no climate crisis

There is no climate emergency, says Clintel’s World Climate Declaration. Thomas Kurz is the author of an upcoming book with that very theme. Recently he spoke about it on Tom Nelson’s podcast.

May 9, 2026|Categories: News|Tags: Climate change, climate cycles, cosmic rays, Milankovitch cycles, Solar variability, Thomas Kurz|

Why solar is much more expensive than coal in Germany

The more solar and wind energy is deployed, the more it reshapes the system around it and the more costs shift into areas that are often not immediately visible but should be considered, says energy expert Lars Schernikau.

May 8, 2026|Categories: News|Tags: coal power Germany, electricity system costs, Germany energy policy, Lars Schernikau, solar energy costs, wind and solar|

12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next