ICEBREAKER Wind Dead: Great Lakes Alive

From MasterResource

By Sherri Lange — December 19, 2023

“The levels of opposition to Leedco (now Icebreaker) have stood firm over 14 years. They are not likely to disappear.”

The Icebreaker Wind Project–six turbines offshore Cleveland in the Great Lakes–has been “temporarily” suspended, halted, or otherwise “iced.” This is very good news for taxpayers, ratepayers, and the environment, mainstream media reporting aside. The Great Lakes will not be “the Saudi Arabia of wind.” Less is always best with government-dependent industrial wind turbines.

Take aways:

  • You can pepper the Great Lakes or the entire planet with wind turbines, and there will be zero impact on the climate out decades, if at all
  • $50 million promised with completion of target objectives; not met, $37 million being returned to DOE
  • Millions are opposed, not merely electrical unions, Audubon, Sierra, and the city of Cleveland
  • Independent environmental studies are still lacking after 14 years. A failure of LEEDCo (now ICEBREAKER) in 2014; a resurrection of “pathos” and STILL incomplete assessments; yes, for recent years, it looked like a lesson in pathos (permit denied by then Chair Todd Snitchler)
  • HUBRIS? The pride of false messages and unsubstantiated environmental ideas, hinged on corruption of climate fear mongering; the arrogance of never providing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Climate News says the project now is engulfed in an “indefinite suspension of what was once set to be the first offshore wind farm built in the Great Lakes.” Little surprise: this project attracted lawsuits and public dissent (even internationally) as facts contradicted rosy predictions of the Lakes becoming the “Saudi Arabia” of wind development.

Victors All

The fight for the preservation of the Great Lakes is time-honored. Albright and Isselhard and Marks, leaders in the fight against the GLOW (NYS: Great Lakes Offshore Wind) proposal, defeated for reasons of cost and environmental unknowns; Galloo Island, saved by an active eagle nest; Lighthouse Wind (onshore but nearly in the Lakes), expertly outmaneuvered by John Riggi and Save Our Shores’ Pam Atwater; and not to forget Ontario’s Offshore Moratorium, 2011, protecting on Canada’s side, four of the five Great Lakes.  

Project developers/apologists must deal with their inability to test migratory impacts, including insect life; facile and manufactured studies on endangered species impacts; tourism impact studies. Also missing:

  • FAA rubber stamps; Great Lakes Wind Truth sent an 88-page objection, never responded to (this is not published anywhere at this time, but we have a copy; it was prepared and sent just hours before a deadline)
  • Lies re birds and bats: developer attested repeatedly that bats and birds do not fly over the Lake
  • Laundry list never completed and here: (Former Chair of OPSB, Todd Snitchler)
  • Saudi Arabia…. thousands of turbines promised; this was no single one off demonstration project!
  • DESIGN morphed to mono bucket, but that was a crushing disaster in North Sea; never heard about a newer design
  • Lies to trades, re job promises (Block Island had about 300 temporary construction jobs and six permanent jobs) The Block Island Wind Farm has experienced multiple issues, causing it to fail to perform on some occasions. Problems include turbine stress fatigue on four of the five turbines and erosion exposing the underwater cables that took the power to the mainland. The combination of the issues resulted in extensive shutdowns in the summer of 2021 for repairs and safety inspections. The turbines were offline for months.” Our note: add another 100 million or so for the technical difficulties involving sea cables that floated to the surface.
  • Lies re climate remediation: it’s always about saving the planet.

Supporters of Icebreaker have lingering hopes that the project may morph or another developer suddenly appear. But the media fails to mention thundering opposition from “conflict free” Lake Erie Foundation Cleveland, Save Our Beautiful Lake, Great Lakes Wind Truth bi national organization, No Lake Erie Wind Farm…Add in: Letters of opposition from Spain, UK, Slovenia, France, Canada, and the august Dr Scott Petrie of Delta Waterfowl, or Keith Stelling, or HMANA (Hawk Migration Association of North America).  To mention only a few. Hundreds of groups from North America, representing millions.

These levels of opposition have stood firm over 14 years of close observation of the proposal. They are not likely to disappear.

The media has attempted to link this opposition to, in one case, “dark money,” or to persons conflicted by fossil-fuel interests. From our point of view, linking Sam Randazzo, then Chair of OPSB (Ohio Power Siting Board), with his current woes, to decisions made on Icebreaker is a political play, and grossly incorrect: it is my view, and that of many, that Randazzo in this instance, acted fairly, and rationally, requiring turn offs of said proposed turbines to avoid catastrophic migratory impacts. Let’s separate the issues, for once and for all. This requirement is now generally seen as fairly routine.

It’s been quite the flower bed of hopes, and a lot of optimism, falsely placed; now Icebreaker faces the somewhat predictable lack of financial and environmental viability, no matter which way you slice it.

It hasn’t been a sudden demise, but one could call it a slippery slope of failure. To many watchers, it was inevitable. One very visible delay was a joint lawsuit from American Bird Conservancy (ABC) and Black Swamp Bird Observatory (BSBO) claiming complete dereliction of duty regarding environmental reviews.

Cleveland dot com reports:

Two bird conservation groups sued the Energy Department and Army Corps of Engineers in an attempt to stop the development of a Lake Erie wind turbine farm about eight miles off the coast of Cleveland named “Icebreaker.”

The American Bird Conservancy of Washington, D.C. and the Black Swamp Bird Observatory in Ohio said in a lawsuit that the evaluations of the project by both agencies flies in the face of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act.

Our Note: This suit in our view, with the suit of Bratenahl residents, sufficiently delayed any progress the Icebreaker proposal could make, and promoted the proponents’ continued floundering (searching for purchasers of the “electricity,”  leadership, as well as international input), and financial ennui.

It really is hard to imagine: a demonstration project with these implications and NO independent environmental impact study. Imagine, Lorry Wagner pointing out that Michael Parr of ABC (American Bird Conservancy) had indicated repeatedly, that there were NO wind turbine bird studies, analyses of any worth, anywhere! Imagine the shock for Mr. Wagner.

Shock and Disappointment?

Some are obviously disappointed.

“It’s disappointing but not surprising to learn that Icebreaker has been suspended, said Greg Nemet, a University of Wisconsin public affairs professor who tracks renewable energy projects. The first of anything, which Icebreaker would have been, is more difficult to achieve, he said, plus current economic conditions have become a drag, even causing a couple of proposed wind farms along the Atlantic Coast to be cancelled.”

Repeats LEEDCo Chairman Ronn Richard:

“I am disappointed by this pause on Icebreaker, but I believe that there will be a significant number of offshore wind turbines in the Great Lakes in my lifetime. Climate change will necessitate it.”

Others sigh with a nod, because they know intrinsically, there can be no turbines in the Great Lakes. They will continue to fight any and all industrialization. Six turbines or 1,000, the “weather” will continue to do what it does. The objectors, a large furl of legitimate and non conflicted persons, agencies, further reflect on the obvious chill this LEEDCo, Icebreaker “retreat” will have on “offshore dreams” along the Atlantic Coast.

Terry Collister-Johnson Jr. was the former Chair of the VA Port Authority, a member of the Board of the Overseas Private Investment Corp., and as Administrator of the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp. He currently serves on the Board of Advisors of the (Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow).  He offered this comment for our blog: (By phone: Dec 14, 2023):

It’s unimaginable to put these in drinking water for 20 million. When you examine it: nothing good can be said about industrial wind. It’s a collection of bad. And hard to imagine how the clever and manipulative the manoeuvres to push for industrial wind really are. It’s obviously a threat to the environment and living things; it’s also a threat to security. We need to remember the fragility of the grid, the non performance of wind (and solar), and that any application/build out of these, is furthermore a threat to national security.

Mr Collister-Johnson is currently engaged in pointing out the fallacies of offshore Atlantic wind projects, as well as in particular, offshore Virginia. Thanks, Terry, for the input and for your longtime service preserving water and ensuring additional safety for the US and Canada.

4.8 27 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 19, 2023 10:29 pm

Equal parts eyesore, hazard to navigation, and existential threat to any living being who dares to fly anywhere near them.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  GeorgeInSanDiego
December 20, 2023 1:15 am

At least the whales will be safe for a while.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
December 20, 2023 5:40 pm

In the Great Lakes?

Reply to  GeorgeInSanDiego
December 20, 2023 3:51 am

Cleveland has a business travel airport right next to the lake and a larger international airport just a few miles from the lake. There is lots of air travel over the lake.

Reply to  scvblwxq
December 20, 2023 4:25 am

The “business travel airport” is Burke Lakefront Airport (KBKL) and parallels the shoreline right at the shore. The airport’s runways point Northeast/Southwest (six and 24) just North of downtown. Nearby buildings south of the airport (Terminal Tower is 771 feet tall on land a hundred feet or so above KBKL) are bigger obstacles than wind turbines would be. Instrument traffic approaches from the NE along the shoreline away from where any wind turbines would be built. VFR traffic flies its downwind leg over the lake near the shore — some distance from where any turbines would be built.

Reply to  rovingbroker
December 20, 2023 9:40 am

And planes leaving the runway will only fly AWAY from the lake, all the time, forevermore.

Reply to  Drake
December 20, 2023 3:02 pm

Please explain.

 TAKEOFF RUNWAYS 6L/R: Climb on heading 065° to 1100, then on heading 350°  or as assigned by ATC, maintain 2000 (do not climb above 2000) for RADAR vectors  to cross AHMET at or above 3000, thence….

TAKEOFF RUNWAYS 24L/R: Climb on heading 245° to 1100, then right turn to heading  350° or as assigned by ATC, maintain 2000 (do not climb above 2000) for RADAR vectors to cross AHMET at or above 3000, thence…. ….on track 169° to cross KKIDS at or below 14000, then on (transition).

Maintain altitude assigned by ATC, expect filed altitude ten minutes after departure …

They generally fly north … over the lake and in the future over or around any obstacles planted in the lake.

Turbines used in wind farms for commercial production of electric power are usually three-bladed. These have low torque ripple, which contributes to good reliability. The blades are usually colored white for daytime visibility by aircraft and range in length from 20 to 80 meters (66 to 262 ft). The size and height of turbines increase year by year. Offshore wind turbines are built up to 8 MW today and have a blade length up to 80 meters (260 ft). Designs with 10 to 12 MW were in preparation in 2018,[44] and a “15 MW+” prototype with three 118 meters (387 ft) blades is planned to be constructed in 2022.[45] The average hub height of horizontal axis wind turbines is 90 meters.[46]

Do the math.
The reality is that there won’t be any wind turbines directly off-shore of the airport. The area of the lake is approximately 10,000 square miles.

John Hultquist
Reply to  rovingbroker
December 20, 2023 10:09 am

Why you get down-votes for supplying interesting information is somewhat of a mystery. My experience is that any comment that doesn’t fit with the “narrative” will bring about a negative reaction, regardless of the topic, from a few folks.

Reply to  rovingbroker
December 20, 2023 11:06 am

I’ve flown into Burke many times (the first being the first ever meeting between the Browns/Bengals) and agree the wind turbines probably wouldn’t be a problem for traffic in and out. The only issue is the instrument departures off 24 initially turns the traffic to 350 north and keeping it 1500 AGL, but 100% of the time ATC will keep all safe. Also going north you go over a really big lake with an international border in the middle. Not many C-172’s going that way.

Around my home base, RDU and the two satellite airports, we contend with some extremely tall towers and so far no one has ran into them and that is true for other airports. Everyone knows they are there. Out west and mountains it’s another story. You know they are there but for some reason GA planes keep flying into them.

Reply to  rbabcock
December 20, 2023 3:18 pm

Thanks. I worked at KBKL for several years — a time when Cleveland’s Muni Light and CEI had stacks NE of the airport. Nobody ever ran into either.

CRIB FOUR DEPARTURE: Right turn 240 degrees. Cross CRIB (intersection) at 2,000. Maintain 3,000. Expect 4,000 ten minutes after departure.

Reply to  rovingbroker
December 22, 2023 2:29 pm

The “point” in these comments is missing. Wind turbines ANYWHERE are NOT cost-effective, CANNOT BE, using present-day technology, and are just p***ing away MY tax dollars.

Reply to  GeorgeInSanDiego
December 20, 2023 12:04 pm

Many of the below comments ignore the effects of Wind turbines on aircraft Radar. Those that disagree with this comment are welcome to continue flying to airports that are affected by these Wind Turbines.

As wind development continues to grow and expand to new areas of the country, the likelihood that some turbines will be located within the line of sight of radar systems also increases. Wind turbines can cause interference for radar systems because their large towers and moving blades reflect electromagnetic radiation.”


Reply to  usurbrain
December 20, 2023 3:25 pm

Also at your link …

With continued growth of wind energy installations and without adequate wind turbine-radar interference mitigations it will be a challenge to maintain the benefits of wind energy deployment while ensuring the integrity of critical radar missions. Overcoming this challenge will require continued coordination of investment in mitigation measures across the government, as well as dialogue between the wind industry and government agencies charged with carrying out critical radar missions. Through this strategy, the WTRIM WG seeks to build off the considerable progress made by the IFT&E program and other WTRIM efforts in addressing the challenge of wind turbine-radar interference.  

They’re on it! We’ll see.

Dennis Gerald Sandberg
December 19, 2023 10:40 pm

The author states, “The objectors, a large furl of legitimate and non conflicted persons, agencies, further reflect on the obvious chill this LEEDCo, Icebreaker “retreat” will have on “offshore dreams” along the Atlantic Coast”.

I welcome the thought. Wind turbines are bad everywhere, some places worse than others. With a bit of good luck, the East Coast Offshore Wind folly will also be recognized as so bad it must fail.

Scarecrow Repair
December 19, 2023 11:23 pm

Curiosity question: I had to look up “monobucket”, and it seems to be a cylindrical foundation which “sucks up seafloor mud and pulls itself down into the seafloor, eliminating the need for expensive and slow pile-driving.” The one example I found said the canceled one would have been 16 meters deep in the sandy seafloor.

  1. Is this depth typical of offshore seafloors? I would have guessed a meter or two, but IANASFE.
  2. What exactly went wrong with the failed installation?
  3. Was it a predictable failure, glossed over by the wind turbine fanbois?
Richard Page
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
December 19, 2023 11:38 pm

Nobody really knows. All the company has said was that it had experienced ‘technical difficulties’ with the monobucket installation and scrapped the test. I should imagine that after successful testing under laboratory conditions it failed the reality test, but don’t know any specifics.

Reply to  Richard Page
December 20, 2023 4:43 am

Most of the seabed throughout the world’s oceans is covered in layers of marine sediments. Categorized by where the materials come from or composition, these sediments are classified as either: from land (terrigenous), from biological organisms (biogenous), from chemical reactions (hydrogenous), and from space (cosmogenous). Categorized by size, these sediments range from very small particles called clays and silts, known as mud, to larger particles from sand to boulders.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  rovingbroker
December 20, 2023 5:23 am

I’m not a geologist, but I would think the Great Lakes are much different from the oceans in this aspect because of the way they were formed and their relatively recent creation.

Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
December 20, 2023 3:29 pm

The geology of the Great Lakes basin consists of two fundamentally different successions of bedrock overlain by unconsolidated glacial clastic sediments. Bedrock in the more northern parts of the basin is composed of Precambrian metamorphosed igneous and sedimentary rocks.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
December 20, 2023 12:00 am

Seafloors ain’t made of sand for a start.
(They’re made of soil erosion. ha ha ha ha)

We know that because the sand stays behind on the land and makes deserts.
Amazingly, ‘some people’ don’t seem to know that.
Is there anything else they don’t know = something that *we* should know about

Reply to  Peta of Newark
December 20, 2023 1:59 am

Well, Peta, you of all folk should know that the seafloor of the Solway is mostly sand, and the depth of the piles of the Robin Rigg windfarm are many meters deep although still not deep enough which is why some of the units have been removed due to the strong tidal currents scouring the sand around the jackets causing them to start falling over.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Peta of Newark
December 20, 2023 4:48 am

At least it isn’t made of sugar, right Peta?

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Peta of Newark
December 20, 2023 7:42 am

By that logic, we’d have to say that the oceans are not made of water, because the water remains in the rivers and lakes.

Steve Case
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
December 20, 2023 12:19 am

Google search on IANASFE comes up empty, what does it mean?

Reply to  Steve Case
December 20, 2023 12:43 am

I am not a sea floor expert would be my guess.

Richard Page
Reply to  Steve Case
December 20, 2023 12:44 am

I was wondering that as well. The whole point of using an acronym or abbreviation is that everybody knows it so you save a bit of typing. If no-one knows it you’re just wasting everybodies time.
Ah, I may have it – I Am Not A Sea Floor Expert, well that’s underwhelming.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Steve Case
December 20, 2023 7:43 am

I thought it was obvious, and two did guess it. Bent humor, I suppose.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
December 20, 2023 10:18 am

Obvious or not, at some point in a person’s reading they have to encounter these things for the first time. The proper way is to spell out the phrase or name [example: Department of Defense, with the acronym following, namely DoD]. Small “o” there, while the Enviromental Protection Agency {EPA} gets all CAPS. 🙂

Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
December 20, 2023 4:39 am

“The one example I found said the canceled one would have been 16 meters deep in the sandy seafloor.”

I read that to mean that the monobucket would be 16 meters under the sea floor and the sea floor is some number of meters below sea level.

Engineers have lots of experience installing things “on” the sea floor — oil drilling platforms, bridge pilings for example — which are really on pilings that extend under the sea floor.

What Is A Pier Foundation?

December 19, 2023 11:42 pm

The rest of the world moves on…

EU Adopts Wind Charter to Accelerate Offshore to Reach 111GW by 2030

China’s Growing Offshore Wind Energy Drive

“industrial wind turbines.”

Instead of bio-dynamic wind turbines? Free-range wind turbines?

Iain Reid
Reply to  MyUsername
December 19, 2023 11:55 pm


that just proves that there is no end to the stupidity of politicans. Wind is a third rate generator from practical (Intermittency) to technical, asynchronous, no inertia, no reactive power all essential for a stable and economicgrid.

Richard Page
Reply to  Iain Reid
December 20, 2023 12:47 am

The fact they’re still pushing these things just means we haven’t reached peak stupidity yet. It’ll come.

Reply to  Richard Page
December 20, 2023 3:45 am

Maybe the Grand Solar Minimum that just started will wake them up to the fact that cold is much more dangerous than heat to humans. It’s already snowy and icy early around Cleveland.

Reply to  Richard Page
December 22, 2023 2:35 pm

We haven’t? R.P., you are not paying attention.

Reply to  MyUsername
December 20, 2023 1:37 am

What about China’s coal drive? Is that a blind spot?

Reply to  MyUsername
December 20, 2023 2:04 am

Is that the same China which has tens of millions of empty, half-finished apartment blocks?

Reply to  MyUsername
December 20, 2023 2:10 am

Just because China and the EU are still pursuing the unicorn of Wind Energy does not mean the policy is rational.

Reply to  Graemethecat
December 20, 2023 4:00 am

In fact, probably the opposite.

Ron Long
Reply to  MyUsername
December 20, 2023 2:12 am

I wondered who clicked on one star…..

Reply to  Ron Long
December 20, 2023 8:17 am

I didn’t, so that means there are at least two of us!

We’re multiplying! 🙂

Gunga Din
Reply to  MyUsername
December 20, 2023 11:37 am

So “MyUserName” is a pod person?
Who was the original? 😎

December 20, 2023 3:23 am

This has been going on for ever. In 1976 or 1977 I met an engineer who was spending a year in Cleveland (south shore of Lake Erie) studying the feasibility of building a wind farm in the lake.

There are three wind turbines built on solid ground just south of Lake Erie and east of Cleveland. They are owned and operated (from memory) by the manufacturers that own the land. This is one …

EUCLID, Ohio — A towering wind turbine rose on Cleveland’s horizon last week, a symbol of Ohio’s potential future as a center of alternative-energy manufacturing.

“Massive” doesn’t begin to describe the wind turbine that Lincoln Electric completed Monday, 278 feet above its headquarters in Euclid and just a few hundred yards from the Shoreway.

December 20, 2023 3:39 am

I live in Cleveland, Ohio and there is a nuclear reactor nearby that we get our electricity from. They just put in an application for another 20 years of power generation.

The population is declining with people moving to the warmer southern states, so there probably isn’t much need for more power generation around here anyway.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  scvblwxq
December 20, 2023 4:50 am

So, Indians or Guardians?

Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 20, 2023 5:49 am

Indians, Redskins, Warriors, Orangemen, Chiefs.

But one of these things is not like the others.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 20, 2023 5:51 am

And then there’s The Fighting Irish.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 21, 2023 2:50 am


Reply to  scvblwxq
December 21, 2023 2:49 am

Nuclear Power: Clean, cheap, reliable and safe.

Let us not forget that a few decades ago, they turned the street lights off because coal was frozen in the railroad cars making it unavailable for electricity generation. The problem has since been solved but it is a reminder that s__t happens.

December 20, 2023 4:03 am
Reply to  observa
December 20, 2023 8:52 am

It delays adoption of EVs maybe by one or two years, if at all.

And subsidies for motorized individual traffic is lunacy anyways. Better tax them and invest in public transport.

John Hultquist
Reply to  MyUsername
December 20, 2023 10:34 am

“It delays adoption of EVs maybe by one or two years, if at all.

Give us some detail. What, in your mind, does “adoption of EVs” mean?
Then, give us an estimate, say plus or minus 3 years (or 7) as to when this will be accomplished.

I just read a review of a 2024 EV with a base price of $150,000 and saw an ad for one that is only $75,000. Bringing a car home will add another 15% where I live for various charges, tax, license, and insurance. I’ll pass.

Reply to  MyUsername
December 21, 2023 8:50 am

The market for EVs is already saturated as everyone who wants one has already bought one. Sales of EVs are now declining month on month.

Reply to  observa
December 22, 2023 2:48 pm

France will prob’ly be offering the rebates on the CCP autos coming via the plants in Mexico.

December 20, 2023 4:28 am

So who is the moron who thinks putting windmills in a lake the FREEZES OVER is a good idea?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  2hotel9
December 20, 2023 4:52 am

Most likely Southern Democrats.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  2hotel9
December 20, 2023 5:31 am

With all the global warming that won’t be a problem soon. Just another 10F rise and they’ll be OK.

Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
December 20, 2023 6:42 am

You forgot the sarc tag – comments like that would go right over the head of any climate alarmist that happened to reach WUWT by accident – sending them to their safe-place in a panic re: soon 10F rise.

At current rates, 10F or say 5°C rise would take approximately 3 centuries. Not exactly soon, except to geologists.

December 20, 2023 5:51 am

Levelized Cost of Energy by US-EIA

Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need expensive support systems to exist on the grid.
The LCOE of expensive support systems increases exponentially with more W/S systems
The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE “analyses”, are deliberately working to keep the people ignorant.
The wind/solar/battery bubble is in meltdown mode. This is not a surprise, because the US-EIA makes LCOE “evaluations” of W/S/B systems that purposely exclude major LCOE items.
The EIA deceptions reinforced the delusion W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.
The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.
W/S would not exist without at least 50% subsidies
W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without the last four freebies.
1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project owning and operations cost,
2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S to load centers
3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the W/S up/down output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 
4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during low-W/S periods, and during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked,
5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced

general custer
December 20, 2023 6:50 am

The real justification for wind turbines, solar arrays, green hydrogen development, carbon capture and all the other subsidized schemes is the economic concept of externalities.

Wikipedia: A negative externality is any difference between the private cost of an action or decision to an economic agent and the social cost. In simple terms, a negative externality is anything that causes an indirect cost to individuals.

A theory exists that says the use of fossil fuels produces CO2 that enters the atmosphere, absorbs and reflects energy and increases the temperature of the earth. The raised temperature imposes costs on uninvolved parties. Floods, droughts, fires, heat waves, all manner of weather events producing costs for those whose homes are flooded or burned, whose crops are destroyed in the fields, who die from excessive heat.

Merely by being alive every organism, not just humans, produces externalities, both negative and positive. In a risk/reward scenario societies collectively decide what externalities can be accepted on the basis of their benefits outweighing their costs. This isn’t always easy to measure. Someone might be willing to accept the risk of walking through the park on a sunny afternoon but decline to stroll through an alley in a bad neighborhood at 2 am on a risk/reward analysis. During the Covid crisis people were advised or compelled to wear masks but weren’t encouraged to wear bullet-proof vests when shopping on West Madison St. in Chicago, a site of dangerous externalitiies.

Difficult as it is to measure externalities, the measurement must be based on reality. In the case of existential climate change that reality has yet to be definitely determined. The scientific research involved in making this determination is so infiltrated with political,academic, government and commercial interests that it’s impossible for anyone to make a truly informed personal decision. The fact that there’s a substantial amount of skepticism by the scientific community itself means that transforming an efficient, reliable, economically viable source of energy into an unproven experimental paradigm could produce negative externalities that dwarf whatever currently exists.

A major part of this situation is the contemporary concept of time, in which our leaps in technology involve compressing the linearity of time into segments as small as “nanoseconds”. Real time hasn’t actually changed during the lives of humans, only their perception of it. The earth still takes pretty much the same amount of time to orbit the sun as it always has. The idea that the production of energy on earth will make it unlivable within the next generation or too is an example amazing hubris.

Continuing on the present course will eventually be seen as the height of folly.

December 20, 2023 11:12 am

Another taxpayer subsidized energy boondoggle fail. The question is the fail due some supremely predictable oversite in system design, (lack of viable electrical energy storage) or is it a fail because of mother nature? Looks like both!

This is the problem when energy input capitalization happens due to a political impetus. The impetus can be leveraged by Global market powers whose long term strategy is to destroy public desire to fund renewables as an energy input 10-40 years out in the future.

Fact remains, renewables are a bad idea only because of the supremely predictable oversite in system design, (lack of viable electrical storage) and nature. They would only be a good idea if that system design failure was resolved and were the cheapest option. Otherwise, if fossil fuel is the cheaper option, then it should be the only option because it’s cheaper.. Climate is a political decision factor based on a false problem. When political power has more leverage than my dollars or my vote, then we have a serious problem.

Reply to  JC
December 22, 2023 2:45 pm

Well… we do!

Gary Pearse
December 20, 2023 11:35 am

They will have to change the name again to Windbreaker project.

general custer
December 20, 2023 1:21 pm

A similar sitiuation has been developing on a wind farm off the Irish coast. In that case public opposition wasn’t the problem, the permitting process and officials of the European Court of Justice and the European Commission have been throwing sand in the gears of the Derrybrien Wind Farm.

December 20, 2023 2:29 pm

More good news.

Walter Sobchak
December 20, 2023 3:20 pm

Bratenahl is a little separate village north of I-90 on the lake front east of downtown Cleveland. It is mostly really big early 20th Century mansions. south of I 90 is very urban until you get to the Cleveland Clinic/ university Circle area.

Loren Wilson
December 21, 2023 2:27 pm

Project name “Icebreaker” is pretty descriptive of what will happen when the lake freezes up and then the wind blows. The piers the wind turbines sit on will have to be pretty stout to withstand the storms and moving ice. Just more wasted CO2 for all the wasted steel and concrete.

Verified by MonsterInsights