Tag: Wind power

Environmental activists show their true color is red, not green

On August 9, Save Long Beach Island (LBI), an organization based in New Jersey and founded in 2021 for purpose of fighting offshore wind, announced its intention to file a lawsuit against U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC).

NOAA denied the petition on July 22 after Save LBI filed suit to compel the agency to follow the Endangered Species Act’s (ESA) 90-day review standard for acting on petitions. ‘The new legal notification from Save LBI is modest in scope in that it simply asks NOAA to reconsider its prior decision to turn down the petition.

The NRDC and Sierra Club, along with many other environmental activist groups, have a history of opposing military exercises they view as harmful to whales and other marine life. But as Save LBI points out, both groups support offshore wind despite a growing body of evidence that shows the projects harm whales.

A wind turbine stands against a colorful sunset over the ocean, with a whale partially visible in the foreground.

From CFACT

By Kevin Mooney

The clock is ticking on a decision to join litigation that would ban offshore wind to save the whales.

In a strange twist, the largest, most well-funded environmental advocacy groups have thus far declined to join a growing effort to protect an endangered whale species. This has left grassroots conservationists flummoxed. There is still time for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Sierra Club, and others to jump in, but the clock is ticking on pending litigation.

On August 9, Save Long Beach Island (LBI), an organization based in New Jersey and founded in 2021 for purpose of fighting offshore wind, announced its intention to file a lawsuit against U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC). Save LBI is calling on the department to have its National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) revisit a 16-month-old petition to designate a critical habitat along the East Coast for the benefit of the North Atlantic right whale. The petition also asks NOAA to exclude wind complexes from the migratory critical habitat Save LBI seeks to establish.

Wind or Whales?

NOAA denied the petition on July 22 after Save LBI filed suit to compel the agency to follow the Endangered Species Act’s (ESA) 90-day review standard for acting on petitions. ‘The new legal notification from Save LBI is modest in scope in that it simply asks NOAA to reconsider its prior decision to turn down the petition. However, it does come with a sense of urgency since NOAA figures show the whale species is down to a sparse population of about 380 with just an estimated 70 females that are reproductively active.

As part of its petition, Save LBI also asked the Department of Interior to conduct an analysis of underwater noise from offshore wind to determine what kind of impact those projects might have on the whales’ migration.

Bob Stern, the president of Save LBI, has followed up on previous correspondence addressed to the NRDC, Sierra Club, and more than a dozen other groups in July 2025.

Neither the NRDC nor the Sierra Club have responded to any of Save LBI’s correspondence. Stern told Restoration News that Save LBI received “very little response” from other long established environmental outfits with one notable exception. Stern says the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental advocacy group based in Arizona, did provide Save LBI with a favorable response indicating it would support the petition.

Abandoning Their Pro-Whale History

The NRDC and Sierra Club, along with many other environmental activist groups, have a history of opposing military exercises they view as harmful to whales and other marine life. But as Save LBI points out, both groups support offshore wind despite a growing body of evidence that shows the projects harm whales. Save LBI has released detailed studies that showthe construction and potential implementation of offshore wind have already caused whale fatalities migrating up and down the East Coast.

Stern explained to Restoration News why time is a factor for the NRDC and the Sierra Club if they want to protect whales from offshore wind.

“Regarding our lawsuit on the NARW [North Atlantic right whale] migration corridor petition, the filing of our intent to sue starts a 60-day clock by which NOAA has to either agree to reconsider the petition or continue to deny it,” Stern said. “If they continue to deny it, which is the likely course, then we will go back to the Court to ask a judge to compel them to consider it, how long that will take I cannot tell. If they agree to consider then they have a year to do a rule-making and based on that make a decision.”

Restoration News sent media inquiries to NRDC and the Sierra Club asking their media representatives if the advocacy groups would join in the litigation to protect the right whale, and whether they would make a decision on Save LBI’s litigation during the 60-day time frame Stern referenced. Neither group responded.

Save LBI has about 10,000 core members and 100,000 online supporters including homeowners, business owners, and other residents who have united in opposing offshore wind, which they view as harmful to whales and other marine life. The most recent tax filings show Save LBI has just over a million dollars in assets. By comparison, the NRDC sits on almost $660 million in assets and more than 3 million members, while the Sierra Club has $152 million in assets and more than 3.8 million members.

In his latest letter to the NRDC, Sierra Club, and others, Stern makes the point that Save LBI’s efforts to protect whales is consistent with the stated missions of the largest environmental advocacy groups.

Stern wrote:

If your organization has already considered this issue and determined that participation would not be appropriate, we would appreciate understanding your reasoning. Your organization has consistently articulated a mission of defending whales and their habitats; silence on this issue, which goes to the heart of that mission as we understand it, is puzzling to us.

Suspected Foreign Agents Sue U.S. Navy 

The NRDC was involved in a high-profile lawsuit against the U.S. Navy that went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008. In Winter v NRDC, the environmental activist group argued that naval sonar exercises were harmful to whales and other marine mammals. But the high court in a 5-4 decision ruled against the NRDC and said that the plaintiffs needed to demonstrate an irreparable harm to marine life was likely and not just possible. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts determined that Navy’s need to conduct realistic training with active sonar far outweighed the specious concerns raised by the NRDC. That’s because, as the chief justice explained, the Navy must have the ability to respond to the growing threat of enemy submarines.

Despite setbacks in court, the largest environmental groups remain united in opposition to certain military exercises for the ostensible purpose of protecting sea life. For instance, the Sierra Club, says on its website that “some forms of ocean military testing produce powerful noises capable of harming and killing marine mammals and adversely disrupting behavior.” In April, the Sierra Club joined with other green groups in litigation against the Trump administration to restore ESA protections for the Rice’s Whale and other species in the Gulf of Mexico. The administration says an exemption to the ESA was needed to allow oil and gas drilling to proceed in the region for national security reasons. But the Sierra Club and its co-litigants are making the case that the national security concerns are not valid and that the oil and gas activities could harm Rice’s Whale along with other species.

So why are the NRDC and the Sierra Club running silent when it comes to protecting whales up and down the East Coast? As I argue in my book Climate Porn: How and Why Anti-Population Zealots Fabricate Science, while Targeting American Capitalism, Freedom, and Independence the largest, most well-funded environmental groups have been usurped by the climate movement, which often supports measures that are harmful to the environment.

This would help explain why groups like the NRDC and Sierra Club prioritize offshore wind over vulnerable whale populations. Both groups have also been the focus of congressional probes into potential violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The restrictions green groups seek to impose on U.S. military testing could redound to benefit of Russia and China and raise questions about the sincerity of their environmental efforts.

Stern, an engineer who previously managed environmental reviews for the U.S Department of Energy, wants the NRDC, the Sierra Club, and others to produce evidence (if they have it) showing that the long-term climate benefits of offshore wind “outweigh and justify” near-term risks to the right whale. He also makes the point that Save LBI’s own assessments show the climate benefits of offshore wind would be “minute” and accrue over the span of several centuries. At the same time, the conservation group’s offshore wind studies show the damage to the environment and the whales would be immediate and severe. Even so, Save LBI invites the NRDC and Sierra Club to produce competing evidence.

Stern wrote:

If you have scientific evidence, modeling, or peer-reviewed analyses that demonstrate that operation noise from full-scale wind complexes will not pose a significant behavioral or physiological risk to North Atlantic right whales, we would welcome the opportunity to see it. Conversely, if our concerns are valid and these complexes are built and operating at scale, any resulting harm to this critically endangered species may be irreversible. Given the right whale’s precarious status, we believe we are at a pivotal juncture: decisions made now could determine whether these species survive.

Save LBI’s conservation efforts on behalf of whales may be for all the marbles. Environmental advocacy groups that have been in operation for decades now appear poised to advance offshore wind projects that put whales not just in danger put on a path to extinction.

Beyond Hypocrisy

Bonner Cohen, a senior fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research, told Restoration News that he expects the big green groups to drop the mask and show their true colors.

The deafening silence from NRDC and the Sierra Club on the threat to endangered Atlantic right whales posed by offshore wind turbines reflects these organizations’ real commitment to protecting wildlife. Their sympathies clearly lie with propping up what we hope are the remnants of America’s misbegotten transition to green energy, and not with the ocean-borne creatures getting in the way. The word ‘hypocrisy’ doesn’t begin to capture what’s going on here. There are funds to be raised from deep-pocketed anti-fossil-fuel interests—foreign and domestic. Keeping the climate narrative alive—no matter the cost to marine life or to ocean-front communities—is what this game is all about.

If NOAA decides once again to reject Save LBI’s petition, the New Jersey conservationists will most certainly file suit to reverse that decision. They may have also have an ace in the hole in the form of President Donald Trump. In the press release announcing its intention to sue the Commerce Department, Stern says his group is “perplexed” by the department’s position because the petition to ban offshore wind is in line with Trump’s own stated objectives.

Save LBI has written to the president asking him to intervene. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick may want to call his office.

This article originally appeared at Restoration News

Wyoming needs eagle death numbers before it approves more wind projects

The Wyoming wind power permitting authority has a formal hearing beginning on August 31, 2026, to consider the application from a major wind project.

Wyoming needs to decide how many eagles it is willing to kill.

From CFACT

By David Wojick

The Wyoming wind power permitting authority has a formal hearing beginning on August 31, 2026, to consider the application from a major wind project. An approval decision on this project would be premature, because a crucial piece of environmental data, the projected eagle kills from the project, is still in progress.

Wyoming needs to decide how many eagles it is willing to kill.

The permitting authority is the Wyoming Industrial Siting Council. At issue is the proposed 650-megawatt Laramie Range Wind Project with hundreds of eagle-killing turbines. This is a very large project.

The Siting Council is supposed to carefully consider the environmental impacts of the project, but there is a glaring gap in their information. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is supposed to predict the number of eagles killed by this project but has yet to do so. The Siting Council should wait for this crucial data.

Of particular concern are the golden eagles because Wyoming is central to their population. This population has reportedly declined by an incredible 30% since wind development began two decades ago. See my article, “Wyoming Golden Eagles should be listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.”

FWS normally estimates the golden eagle death rate for a wind project when that project applies for a permit to kill eagles under the Eagle Protection Act. In this case, Wyoming should ask FWS to do the calculations directly for them, not via the wind project developer. To the extent the developer’s eagle-related data is being used, it needs to be verified.

The FWS uses what is called a Collision Risk Model to predict golden eagle deaths from a proposed wind turbine array. The model output is a probability distribution, not a single death number. There is a probability for a given number of deaths.

For eagle-kill permitting purposes, the FWS uses the number of deaths with an 80% probability of occurring. The Siting Council might also want to consider numbers like the 50% and 30% death rates, which will be increasingly larger than the 80% rate. These lower-probability death rates are still serious likelihoods, calling for appropriate caution.

If the FWS will not provide these golden eagle death calculations, then Wyoming should develop them itself. The Siting Council must have the relevant eagle death data before it can make an informed decision on the huge Laramie Range Wind Project.

It is likely that the eagle-killing issue will come up at the Siting Council hearing where project opponents will testify.

The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality has provided the following information on viewing the hearing, which begins each day at 10:00 am Mountain Daylight Time:

“Persons wishing to observe day one of the permit hearing on August 31, 2026, may watch the hearing virtually via this information.

“Persons wishing to observe day two of the permit hearing on September 1, 2026, may watch the hearing virtually via this information.”

Wind turbines killing eagles cannot be ignored.

Batteries failed on day One

Wind power suffered a crippling failure in South Australia. It was providing 2 Gigawatts, or 100% of the state’s power on Friday June 19th, but by Sunday, the High had arrived and wind generation had collapsed to 0%. Worse, it stayed near there for the next three days.

From CFACT

By Joanne Nova

https://anero.id/energy/2026/june/21

By Jo Nova

The high pressure cell that burned the electricity bill

Wind power suffered a crippling failure in South Australia. It was providing 2 Gigawatts, or 100% of the state’s power on Friday June 19th, but by Sunday, the High had arrived and wind generation had collapsed to 0%. Worse, it stayed near there for the next three days.

The big beautiful batteries failed on the first day and prices took off accordingly. Only half the batteries were still there in the first big price spike of the first day, but on Sunday night and Monday morning, when prices hit $20,000 per megawatt-hour, they had nothing left to offer.

Paul McArdle calculates that the four day wind drought in South Australia was the worst since at least 2019.  We might wonder if there were worse ones in the naughies or the 1990s, but back then no one gave a toss. There were no price spikes on windless days when the nation ran on coal power.

https://anero.id/energy/2026/june

Staff at RenewEconomy got excited on the first day of the wind drought, talking about how the batteries ran out by the early evening and the prices spiked after that. Apparently this meant that the state needed even more batteries, and urgently!  But after the wind drought went on for another three days, they didn’t say a thing. It turns out the state needs five or ten times as many batteries as it has, and bezillions of dollars.

Big batteries caught short as worst wind drought in two years sends prices through the roof

By Sophie Vorrath, RenewEconomy, Monday June 22, 2026

Australia’s main grid chalked up its worst one-day wind drought in more than two years over the weekend, causing a series of price spikes in South Australia and highlighting the urgent need for more battery storage in the state with the highest penetration of renewables.

“The volatility didn’t stop there. Elevated prices persisted overnight, and this morning delivered another period of $20,000 [per megawatt-hour] prices in SA.”

As OptiGrid explains it, many of the state’s batteries discharged heavily through Sunday afternoon and early evening and, as batteries across the state ran low on charge, several dispatch intervals cleared above $3,000/MWh, with prices peaking above $20,000/MWh.

“Around half managed to catch the first extreme price interval,” says OptiGrid, “but far fewer were able to discharge in the later spikes. A couple of batteries were even charging through dispatch intervals above $10,000/MWh.

“By [Monday] morning, many batteries still had limited energy available after the overnight price event. Despite another period of $20k prices, relatively little battery capacity was able to respond.”

Renewables fans still don’t understand the free market (by definition, almost).

“Obviously, no wind meant gas generators had a field day,” David Leitch writes in his own LinkedIn post on the pricing event. “I guess they needed it. There have been so many posts about the decline in gas generation.

Gas wouldn’t be having a field day if there were enough gas generators to compete with, would they?

The problem is any grid dominated by random generators is either going to have to have huge generation oversupply to cover the worst days of the year, or they’re going to have huge price spikes. If they have a huge oversupply and those generators can only earn money on a few days a year, they’re going to have to charge like a Space X IPO on the days they’re needed. There is no way out of this. Intermittent generators are never going to cheaper or better unless we decide blackouts are OK.

“Batteries in South Australia are paying $250/MWh to recharge and on this day ultimately did little to keep prices down.”

So on the first whole day of the wind drought the batteries were already flat, and had to pay $250/ MWh to recharge.

Even after the bonfire on Sunday Monday, things were not looking all that healthy on Wednesday and Thursday either. That’s a lot of red price spikes in the $300 – $500/MWh zone hour after hour.

AEMO Despatch June 25 https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem

Looking at the average daily prices in South Australia, the state was already in deep trouble on Saturday the 20th. Prices for the entire 24 hour period averaged $469/ MWh.  On Sunday they blistered in at $1,165 per megawatt all day long.

Paul McArdle at WattClarity looks closely at the bidding behaviour wonders if  the “goose was already cooked” by lunchtime Sunday.

This article originally appeared at JoNova

 New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time

“Unlike dispatchable fossil-fuel or nuclear generation, solar and wind power output varies unpredictably with weather conditions, leading to mismatches between supply and demand.” — Sargentis et al., 2026

From NoTrickZone

By Kenneth Richard

“Unlike dispatchable fossil-fuel or nuclear generation, solar and wind power output varies unpredictably with weather conditions, leading to mismatches between supply and demand.” — Sargentis et al., 2026

New research utilizes stochastic analysis to assess the effectiveness of renewable energy sources (RES) in satisfying energy demands in Greece.

Results indicate solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind power only meet annual energy demands 32% and 44% of the time, respectively. When electricity is needed to heat or cool a home, wind and solar power cannot deliver most of the time.

Furthermore, a greater penetration of RES is known to “increase reliance on fossil-fuel generation or increases the risk of blackouts.”

Heavier reliance on wind and solar power is also “linked to higher electricity prices.” So we pay more to obtain less.

“Although solar photovoltaic (PV) generation can theoretically meet annual per-capita electricity demand, its stochastic variability significantly limits system reliability in the absence of storage. In the examined case study, a PV-only configuration satisfies demand during only about one-third of the examined time steps, while also producing substantial surplus energy that must be curtailed.”

If reliably meeting electricity demand is the intended goal of a higher penetration of wind and solar power, a documented ~62% combined failure rate demonstrate these technologies are severely unreliable and inadequate.

Image Source: Sargentis et al., 2026

Wyoming wind farms are ecological death traps for eagles

In fact, Wyoming wind power is a double death trap for golden eagles. First, as Audubon says, when the local eagles are killed, this creates a sparsely populated area which other eagles will then come into. Eagles, like most birds, try to spread out, probably to maintain the local food supply for their hatchlings. These new eagles are then also killed, and the cycle is repeated in a true death spiral.

From CFACT

By David Wojick

In my last Wyoming wind power article, I noted a National Audubon Society warning that the growing masses of wind farms could be “population sinks” for golden eagles. This means that many eagles will be attracted to them, to then be killed by them. See my article here.

Digging into the scientific literature I found that this is a well-recognized wildlife management issue. It usually goes by the name “ecological trap.” Since being trapped means being killed, I think ecological death trap is more appropriate.

In fact, Wyoming wind power is a double death trap for golden eagles. First, as Audubon says, when the local eagles are killed, this creates a sparsely populated area which other eagles will then come into. Eagles, like most birds, try to spread out, probably to maintain the local food supply for their hatchlings. These new eagles are then also killed, and the cycle is repeated in a true death spiral.

In addition, wind farms kill a lot of other birds, as well as a huge number of bats. Golden eagles are scavengers, so they are attracted by this abundant food supply. In fact, being struck by cars while eating roadkill is a major cause of golden eagle death.

Ecological death traps are not new science, so the Federal and State Wyoming wildlife managers must know about them. To give you the flavor of the science, below are two quotes from a 2002 literature review article entitled “Ecological and evolutionary traps” available here.

“Deterministic models have shown that, as one might expect, when there are major differences in quality between habitats and population sizes are small, behavioral preferences for the habitats that yield no net reproduction (habitat ‘sinks’) can lead to population extinction. More surprisingly, this result appears to hold true even when patches of poor habitat represent a relatively small proportion of the entire landscape. Thus, alteration of only a fraction of the habitat in such a way that the decision-making rules of an organism no longer yield adaptive outcomes can result in the demise of the whole population if the preferences of individuals are strong enough.”

“Organisms often rely on environmental cues to make behavioral and life-history decisions. However, in environments that have been altered suddenly by humans, formerly reliable cues might no longer be associated with adaptive outcomes. In such cases, organisms can become ‘trapped’ by their evolutionary responses to the cues and experience reduced survival or reproduction. Ecological traps occur when organisms make poor habitat choices based on cues that correlated formerly with habitat quality. Ecological traps are part of a broader phenomenon, evolutionary traps, involving a dissociation between cues that organisms use to make any behavioral or life-history decision and outcomes normally associated with that decision. A trap can lead to extinction if a population falls below a critical size threshold before adaptation to the novel environment occurs. Conservation and management protocols must be designed in light of, rather than in spite of, the behavioral mechanisms and evolutionary history of populations and species to avoid ‘trapping’ them.”

Spacing out their nesting and scavenging for food are two deeply rooted survival instincts in golden eagles. Wind farms turn these survival skills into a death trap. Federal and state Wyoming wildlife and energy managers need to recognize this potentially catastrophic fact.

Wind power does more than kill the eagles that happen by; it repeatedly draws them in, then kills them.

Wyoming wind power needs a Programmatic Environmental Impact Assessment

A programmatic EIA is a comprehensive analysis of the cumulative impacts of the massive wind development underway in Wyoming. The growing adverse impact on golden eagles and other wildlife is especially disturbing. What can be done to limit the damage is a big part of the assessment.

From CFACT

By David Wojick

A programmatic EIA is a comprehensive analysis of the cumulative impacts of the massive wind development underway in Wyoming. The growing adverse impact on golden eagles and other wildlife is especially disturbing. What can be done to limit the damage is a big part of the assessment.

There is NEPA language for this. It is called a “Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)” looking at “cumulative effects”. The Feds completed two back in 2024. The first one was for multiple offshore wind projects in the New York Bight. They then completed one for the five proposed floating wind projects off California. These are a good precedent for Wyoming.

Of course, both these offshore wind studies were Biden era greenwash jobs that mostly ignored the obvious adverse impact on protected whales and other marine mammals. This does not mean that a good PEIS cannot be done for Wyoming.

A good start on the PEIS issues can be found in the numerous comments already filed in opposition to individual Wyoming wind projects. For example, the Two Rivers Project received over a hundred pages of detailed technical comments, many regarding the extreme threat to golden eagles. Two Rivers is part of what is called the growing “wall of wind” in southeastern Wyoming.

The Two Rivers comments are here.

One of the best is “Comments on Environmental Assessment of the Two Rivers Wind Energy Project on behalf of National Audubon Society and the Wyoming Outdoor Council.” It is really a 17-page research report including lots of data and maps. See letter #16 of 18.

Here are two quick quotes to give the flavor of Audubon’s objections to the project:

“Wyoming is home to the largest breeding population of Golden Eagles in the lower 48 states and provides critical habitat for wintering and migrating individuals; the state contains some of the most valuable areas for long-term conservation in the western United States”

This one specifically refers to cumulative effects:

“Inadequate protections in a Golden Eagle stronghold experiencing high growth in wind development risks the project area becoming a “population sink” (aka: ecological trap) – an area Golden Eagles are strongly attracted to where they experience high mortality, leading to continued population level declines. When year-round breeding eagles experience mortalities, “floater” eagles are likely to be the ones that fill territory vacancies, which themselves also face the same fate, a downward population spiral becomes possible. Several existing wind developments (Dunlap and Ekola Flats) are located adjacent to Phase I-III. The proposed Lucky Star Wind Project would be adjacent to Phase IV, among others.”

These telling technical comments, and myriad more filed on other projects, need to be incorporated and addressed in a proper PEIS.

A NEPA PEIS is a federal action, but the State of Wyoming could also conduct a thorough assessment of the cumulative adverse impact of runaway wind power. In some ways, it is better positioned to do so.

NEPA only applies to federal agency decisions, although it can include consideration of non-federal activities that those decisions facilitate, including wind facilities. Moreover, while there is federal protection for endangered species, as well as for golden eagles under the Eagle Protection Act, there is little protection for the many other species threatened by deadly wind turbines.

In contrast, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission (and Department) operate under a statutory requirement to care for all Wyoming wildlife. Their website puts it this way:

“In 1937, the Wyoming Legislature granted the Commission authority over all wildlife matters and allowed financial independence. Since then, Wyoming Statute 23-1-103 has guided our work in stating, ‘It is the purpose of this act and policy of the state to provide an adequate and flexible system for control, propagation, management, protection and regulation of all Wyoming wildlife.’“

It would be best if the Feds and Wyoming teamed up on a comprehensive assessment of how to control the adverse impact of wind generation on wildlife, especially golden eagles. That this assessment needs done is now beyond question.

EXCLUSIVE: Half a Million Balsa Trees Illegally Logged in Amazon Rainforest Every Year to Feed Global Wind Turbine Demand

Over half a million balsa hardwood trees are being illegally logged in the Amazon rainforest every year to feed the massive demand for wind turbines in many parts of the world. Balsa is a lightweight but strong wood that is commonly used in the core of giant turbine blades. It can make up around 7% of the blade and each set of three can use up to 40 trees.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Chris Morrison

Over half a million balsa hardwood trees are being illegally logged in the Amazon rainforest every year to feed the massive demand for wind turbines in many parts of the world. Balsa is a lightweight but strong wood that is commonly used in the core of giant turbine blades. It can make up around 7% of the blade and each set of three can use up to 40 trees.

This discovery is a genuine shock and follows an exclusive investigation by the Daily Sceptic. It adds to the huge ecological toll that the ‘green’ wind turbines are taking on the natural environment. These inefficient, unreliable, unsightly monsters require a large footprint on land and sea, kill millions of bats, decimate raptor populations, sweep the air of quadrillions of insects and alter local ecology on both land and sea. Nobody would install one in a free market, so they require vast financial subsidies to produce expensive electricity.

Given what is known about annual balsa production, the scale of illegal logging and the demands of wind turbine manufactures, it is not difficult to arrive at a possible Amazon forest yearly loss of over half a million trees. Most commercial balsa is exported by Ecuador and it has produced approximately 500,000 cubic metres annually in recent years, or about 80,000 metric tonnes. Around 55% of production is thought to end up in wind turbines and each group of three requires about 10.5m3 a set. Each set requires about 40 trees so annual balsa consumption for wind turbines equates to 1,047,619. Balsa is a relatively fast growing tropical wood and until the soaring demand from turbines kicked in, it was harvested in sustainable plantations. But since the turn of the decade, this sustainable harvest cannot keep up with demand. In a damning survey, the Environment Investigation Agency (EIA) found that exports were boosted by up to 50% following illegal logging in virgin rainforest.

Halve the turbine consumption of 1,047,619 trees and the illegal logging amounts to around 523,810 mature specimens. This figure is likely to be controversial so the Daily Sceptic has shown its workings-out in full. But any substantial annual cull is horrific, and far outstrips the one-off loss of 100,000 tropical rainforest trees logged to build a convenient road for delegates attending the recent ‘save the forest’ COP30 meeting in the Brazilian city of Belém.

Blind eyes are of course turned to the illegal logging, and have been for some time. In 2020, it was reported that 20,000 balsa trees were illegally felled between March and September in the Achuar indigenous territory along Ecuador’s Copataza River. Other reports refer to intense illegal logging, with some estimates noting the removal of 75% of the trees in some areas.

The EIA report that was published in 2024 was damning. Investigators toured many of the illegal logging sites and charged that most, if not all, exporters turned to natural forests as a “convenient and immediate replacement” when plantations were quickly depleted of older trees. The areas under attack were noted to be some of the last intact forest landscapes in the country. They were said to be unique protected areas and emblematic indigenous territories. Traders are said to have told the EIA that the logging of balsa was taking place “from north to south across most of the Amazonian provinces of the country”. It is estimated that at least 50% of production is currently being supplied by these illegal means. Blending of plantation wood with illegal logging is thought to vary between 10% to 70% depending on the exporter.

The EIA report gained little mainstream media or political attention when it was published, although the body is an established NGO, founded in the UK in 1984 with offices in the UK and Europe. For the narrative-driven mainstream, this type of upsetting news is simply too hot to handle.

However there have been attempts by turbine manufactures and supporters to suggest that balsa is being replaced in parts of the turbine core by various synthetic polymer foam substitutes. This is true, but balsa remains in popular use due to its excellent strength-to-weight ratio. Hybrid designs are said to have become more common, with balsa used in high-shear and other critical areas. In these areas it still holds an advantage over foams. But overall production figures suggest wind turbines are still using a great deal of the wood. Ecuadorean production is said to have spiked around 2020 with a previous sustainable total of 33,000 tonnes rising to 75,000, driven by Chinese turbines manufactures. It is a little difficult to get exact production figures but sources such as the EIA and UN Comtrade suggest exports of 80-100,000 tonnes in 2021, 60-80,000 in 2022, and 50-80,000 in 2023 and 2024.

After the spike, production has stabilised but at levels that can only have been possible by massive looting of the rainforest. It is obvious that a great deal of this is supported by huge increases in Chinese wind turbine manufacture. Overall figures for both domestic and export production are not available in one place, but credible estimate suggest monetary total of $8-12 billion in 2021 has risen to nearly $16 billion in 2024 with the projection for 2025 edging towards $18 billion.

The annual loss of balsa trees in virgin rainforests is unnecessary ecological rape traceable back to ideologues driving a hard-Left Net Zero fantasy. The Daily Septic has attempted to put an annual number on the loss using known figures. Our workings-out are supplied so others, if they wish, can contest our assumptions and maths and arrive at different conclusions. But few will be able to cover up the fact that there are very significant and continuing annual illegal logging balsa losses.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.

A Windy Day!

When it’s a windy day, guess what? We get a lot of wind power!

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

When it’s a windy day, guess what? We get a lot of wind power!

Yesterday we got 60% of our power from wind:

National Grid: Live

It does not take a genius to work out that when Ed Miliband succeeds in tripling wind power capacity, there will be far too much wind power for the grid to handle.

I have analysed the half hourly generation data for the full winter just gone. It’s a fairly basic summary, but my model assumes a tripling of wind output, 4400 MW of fixed nuclear generation and existing demand profile.

It calculates that there will be 19 TWh of surplus wind power during those periods when wind and nuclear exceed demand. Obviously there will be other periods when wind and nuclear cannot supply all demand.

Whatever battery storage we have by 2030 will be far too tiny to make any difference, so most of that 19 TWh will have to be constrained. At a going rate of £100/MWh, that could cost £1.9 billion. And this is just for winter.

With much lower demand in summer and plenty of solar power as well, plenty more surplus electricity will have to be chucked away.

The problem is probably much worse still. Although I have not factored in higher demand, the increased proportion of offshore wind in the mix will increase wind generation above my projections.

There is also the issue of grid stability. I cannot see how the grid can operate stably with above 90% of generation coming from wind at times. Including some dispatchable power to stabilise the grid will automatically increase the projected surpluses.

Thirdly is the question of regional imbalances. Will the grid be able to cope with large amounts of wind power coming from Scotland and the North Sea? It is, of course, lack of transmission capacity which results in constraint payments to Scottish wind farms. OFGEM is busy spending tens of billions upgrading the grid, but whether even that will cope in future must be debatable.

Some of the surpluses are massive, as much as 32 MW on one occasion. Surpluses were above 20 MW on 16% of the three month period. The model also predicts that more than half of wind generation will have to be constrained for 10% of the time.

The practical difficulties faced by NESO in having to implement all of this, every half hour are mid boggling.

Just a glance at yesterday’s generation shows how huge the problem is. Demand was 35.9 GW. Of that, 21.5 GW came from wind and 3.4 GW from nuclear. Triple that wind capacity and you are looking at about 68 GW from wind and nuclear.

Half of that will have to be switched off on average, and more at times of low demand.

Wyoming Moves to Pull the Plug on Costly Pronghorn and Sidewinder Wind Projects

Good news for eagles, hawks and other birds of the region.

From Watts Up With That?

Good news for eagles, hawks and other birds of the region.

From Legal Insurrection

Posted by Leslie Eastman 

The last time we looked at the Trump administration’s reversal of wind farm approvals, the Interior Department, led by Secretary Doug Burgum, had just put a deep freeze on the continuing construction of five East Coast wind farms.

These pauses included several projects familiar to our readers:

However, those are not the only projects that have been pushed by green energy industries, eco-activists, and politically motivated bureaucrats. As I have noted in a previous post, Wyoming has been the site of several of these projects.

Now Wyoming’s top land officials have moved to rescind the state wind leases underpinning the Pronghorn H2 and Sidewinder projects, effectively putting both projects on a path toward cancellation.

The State Board of Land Commissioners took a series of 3-2 votes that will begin the process of canceling two controversial eastern Wyoming wind leases that the panel approved last year.

The decision came after extensive and emotional public comment Thursday opposing the leases — one related to the Pronghorn H2 Clean Energy Project in Converse County and one for the Sidewinder Clean Hydrogen Project in Niobrara County.

The State Board of Land Commissioners consists of Gov. Mark Gordon, Auditor Kristi Racines, Treasurer Curt Meier, Secretary of State Chuck Gray and Superintendent of Public Instruction Megan Degenfelder. Gray, Racines and Degenfelder voted in favor of rescinding the leases while Gordon and Meier opposed the motion.

Commissioners supporting the reversal — which still must play out procedurally — cited a December ruling by Eighth Judicial District Court Judge Scott Peasley that invalidated another state land lease for the Pronghorn project. That lease, on a state land parcel south of Glenrock, was unlawful, the judge concluded, because it didn’t expressly prescribe that electricity from the windfarm would be pumped into the grid — a violation of the state’s own rules.

State officials rescind wind leases for Pronghorn and Sidewinder https://t.co/oHqd6BB88M #wyoming #usa #windpower

— Power Plant World (@powerplantworld) February 11, 2026

Pronghorn H2 is a Focus Clean Energy project originally designed as a combined wind‑and‑solar facility powering still-in-development hydrogen production on about 46,000 acres in Converse County. However, after a December 2025 ruling by District Court Judge F. Scott Peasley that vacated the project’s wind lease from the state, citing the fact that wind farms on state leases must provide electricity back to the grid

The developers then nixed the hydrogen production portion and substantially reduced the acreage requirements, and then tried to sell the new plan as an effective means of energy generation in the winter-blasted state.

Focus Clean Energy announced Thursday that its Pronghorn H2 Project footprint has been reduced to about 30% of its original size, from more than 57,000 acres down to about 16,571 acres.

… The company also said it is eliminating the hydrogen production component that had been central to the project’s original vision, which means it no longer needs industrial-scale water supplies.

“Rapidly increasing energy demand means Wyoming needs additional electric generation, and the Pronghorn Project is repositioned to help meet that need,” said Paul Martin, lead developer for the Pronghorn Project. “We anticipate these significant changes will resolve many of the concerns expressed by the community.”

Martin told Cowboy State Daily the decision was driven by market conditions rather than politics.

Sidewinder is a related Focus Clean Energy wind project in neighboring Niobrara County, intended to work in tandem with Pronghorn and originally linked to clean hydrogen production. The developer plans to continue the legal battle.

Meanwhile, Focus Clean Energy, the Colorado-based Pronghorn H2 and Sidewinder developer, says it is confident Wyoming’s top court will reinstate its wind lease.

“We believe we’re very likely to have that overturned at the Supreme Court, and then that just reinstates the lease and we move forward,” the company’s President Paul Martin told WyoFile.

Wyoming’s land commissioners didn’t just hit pause on another overhyped green mega‑scheme; by moving to pause the Pronghorn H2 and Sidewinder leases after emotional local testimony, a damning court ruling, and a last‑minute downsizing sales pitch, they began the process of pulling the plug on projects the public never really wanted and that still couldn’t prove they could reliably or inexpensively power that chilly corner of the country.

Many of the locals will be thrilled by this development.

Good news for eagles, hawks and other birds of the region. https://t.co/697rWJ4zi9 pic.twitter.com/WwTmCB88RI

— Leslie Eastman ☥ (@Mutnodjmet) February 12, 2026

Wasted Wind Power Costs Britain Almost £1.5 Billion in 2025

Nearly £1.5 billion worth of wind power has gone to waste in Britain this year, as grid bottlenecks dog Ed Miliband’s Net Zero plans and drive household bills higher.

A portrait of a man with wind turbines in the background, showcasing renewable energy in Britain.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Richard Eldred

A row of Union Jack flags in the foreground with offshore wind turbines visible in the background, set against a cloudy sky.

Nearly £1.5 billion worth of wind power has gone to waste in Britain this year, as grid bottlenecks dog Ed Miliband’s Net Zero plans and drive household bills higher. The Telegraph has the story.

The cost of switching off wind turbines and firing up alternative power sources in 2025 has jumped by nearly a fifth compared to last year, new data shows.

Households and businesses ultimately bear these costs through their bills.

It is a fresh blow to Mr Miliband, the Energy Secretary, who has pledged to cut household energy bills by £300 a year this decade.

So-called curtailment occurs when the grid is congested and cannot transport power from wind farms in remote areas, often in Scotland, to where it is needed most in other parts of the country.

Bar chart illustrating the combined cost of switching off wind turbines and using alternative power sources in Great Britain for the years 2024 and 2025, with monthly cost comparisons displayed.

At the same time, grid operators must call on gas plants to step in and keep the lights on with replacement power, often at great expense.

Regulator Ofgem warned earlier this year that curtailment had added around £15 to household bills under its October price cap.

With only days to go before the end of December, the combined total of this spending now stands at £1.46 billion this year – up from £1.23 billion in 2024, data from the Wasted Wind tracker website show. …

The cost of wasted wind power is expected to climb further in the coming years as Mr Miliband pushes for further wind and solar generation to be connected to the grid to meet Labour’s ambitious Net Zero targets.

By 2030, ministers have pledged to source at least 95% of Britain’s electricity from clean sources.

As part of the rollout, the Government is also scrambling to upgrade the electricity grid’s capacity. Still, key projects are currently on course to be delivered later than needed, raising the prospect of billions of pounds in additional curtailment costs.

Worth reading in full.