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

Van Wijngaarden: “No scientific support for net zero policies”

Are net-zero climate policies based on sound science? Professor William A. van Wijngaarden examines observational climate data to show why the evidence does not support radical net-zero policies.

July 24, 2026|Categories: News|Tags: Climate models, Climate Science, CO₂, Net Zero, William A. van Wijngaarden|

No Evidence That Weather Extremes Becoming More Frequent or Intense: (1) Heat Waves

In a series of articles on extreme weather attribution, physicist Ralph B. Alexander examines whether observational evidence supports claims that weather extremes are becoming more frequent or intense. Following his previous article on the methodology behind attribution studies, this installment focuses on heat waves and the historical temperature record.

July 23, 2026|Categories: News|Tags: Climate change, Extreme weather, heat waves, Ralph B. Alexander, Weather Extremes|

Professor Seok Soon Park: Climate Models Are Fear-Mongering Machines

During a lecture in Oslo on June 30, 2026, Professor Seok Soon Park, a leading South Korean environmental scientist and Clintel Ambassador for South Korea, presented a comprehensive critique of the climate models used by the IPCC. Drawing on decades of experience in environmental modeling, he argued that these models have fundamental scientific limitations and function more as "fear-mongering machines" than reliable tools for predicting future climate.

July 22, 2026|Categories: News|Tags: Climate models, Climate policy, Climate Science, IPCC, Seok Soon Park|

Previous 789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next