Biden administration plans to build wind farms to power 10 million homes

By Thomas Catenacci

The Biden administration laid out an ambitious plan Wednesday for government-funded wind farms along the east coast, which it said would sustain millions of Americans’ energy needs.

Multiple federal agencies are planning to collaborate on the project, which will be completed by 2030, Interior Department Secretary Deb Haaland said during a renewable energy conference in Boston on Wednesday. Overall, at least 30 gigawatts will be produced by offshore wind farms by decade’s end.

Wikimedia Commons/Paul Anderson

“Wind is not consistent and cannot be relied upon to generate the electricity demanded by U.S. consumers,” a report on wind energy published by the Utah State University Institute of Political Economy stated.

“The Interior Department is laying out an ambitious roadmap as we advance the Administration’s plans to confront climate change, create good-paying jobs, and accelerate the nation’s transition to a cleaner energy future,” Haaland stated.

“Together, we will meet our clean energy goals while addressing the needs of other ocean users and potentially impacted communities,” she continued. “We have big goals to achieve a clean energy economy and Interior is meeting the moment.”

The farms would produce enough energy, Haaland added, to support more than 10 million homes by 2030, the Associated Press reported.

The U.S. wind sector currently has a total capacity of 118 gigawatts, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Roughly 3% of the nation’s total energy is produced by wind farms, additional government data showed.

“We are working to facilitate a pipeline of projects that will establish confidence for the offshore wind industry,” Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Director Amanda Lefton said in a statement.

There will be up to seven new wind farms developed under the initiative, according to the Interior Department’s announcement. They would be located in Maine, New York, the Central Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, the Carolinas, California and Oregon.

Environmental groups were quick to applaud the announcement Wednesday, characterizing it as a major step forward in the transition from fossil fuels to renewables.

“Harnessing America’s offshore wind resources will create tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs, revitalize coastal communities, and deliver vast amounts of reliable clean energy,” American Clean Power Association CEO Heather Zichal said in a statement.

However, some research has indicated that wind is unreliable, both because it relies on taxpayer funding and doesn’t produce a consistent amount of energy. Because of its inconsistency, wind may also lead to greenhouse gas emissions since it requires backup fossil fuel-powered energy sources.

“Wind is not consistent and cannot be relied upon to generate the electricity demanded by U.S. consumers,” a report on wind energy published by the Utah State University Institute of Political Economy stated.

“Wind energy is not as clean as most people assume due to the fact that wind energy requires backup forms of electricity generation,” it continued. “Wind power may actually result in more greenhouse gas and pollutant emissions than conventional power generation due to the inefficiency of repeatedly ramping up backup power plants.”

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email

Images courtesy of Public domain and Wikimedia Commons/Paul Anderson

5 thoughts on “Biden administration plans to build wind farms to power 10 million homes




    Serbia, Hungary and Turkey had recently signed long-term contracts with Russia at about $3/million Btu.
    Those countries were vilified by EU bureaucrats and the handmaiden Media.

    Subsequently, SPOT prices of gas started to increase, and the three countries are smiling.
    EU SPOT prices of gas increased to about $40/million Btu
    US SPOT prices increased to about $5/million Btu. See below image.

    The EU SPOT price surge is entirely the fault of EU bureaucrats in Brussels, which have urged EU countries NOT to sign long-term gas supply contracts with Russia, because it would send a “the wrong signal regarding fighting climate change”.

    NOTE: Often prices are stated as $/1000 m3 of gas
    1000 m3 contains 1000 x 35.315 ft3/m3 x 1000 Btu/ft3 = 35,315,000 Btu
    $3/million Btu would be 3 x 35.315 = $105.94/1000 m3
    $40/million Btu would be 40 x 35.315 = $1412.6/1000 m3


    1) EU bureaucrats had urged EU countries not to sign long-term gas supply contracts with Russia, because electricity from wind, solar, etc., would increase, and signing long-term contracts would “send the wrong signal”, plus it would give “evil” Russia more clout in EU energy markets.

    2) However, EU bureaucrats did not take into account the vagaries of wind and solar. In that regard, they are far from unique.
    From April, 2020, to the present, there has been significantly less wind than in prior years.

    Even though more onshore and offshore wind turbine capacity, MW, was installed in the UK, Ireland, Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, that did not result in as much of an increase in wind electricity as predicted.

    3) As a result, the shortfall of wind electricity had to be made up by burning more gas and coal, which rapidly increased SPOT prices of gas to $40/million Btu, and also increased the SPOT prices of coal.

    4) Then, people became aware, the EU winter storage of gas was very low, compared to prior years, which meant energy markets began to bid up the SPOT prices of gas for future, i.e., winter, delivery.

    5) At first, EU bureaucrats tried to hide their lack of planning ability, and blame the shortfalls on market manipulation by Russia.
    However, Russia proved, with gas system operating data, it had been transmitting gas to the EU, IN EXCESS of long-term contract requirements; in case of Ukraine, the excess transmission was 10%. Various EU countries, that receive gas from Russia, chimed in to support Russia.

    BTW, had the Ukraine gas transmission been any quantity less than per contract, Ukraine would have cried “Russia is using gas as a weapon” to its EU, US, and NATO protectors.


    The Biden administration announced on October 13, 2021, it will subsidize the development of up to seven offshore wind systems (never call them farms) on the US East and West coasts, and in the Gulf of Mexico; a total of about 30,000 MW of offshore wind by 2030.

    All systems would have 800-ft-tall wind turbines, which would need to be located at least 30 miles from shores, to ensure minimal disturbance of night-time strobe lights.

    Any commercial fishing areas would be significantly impacted by below-water infrastructures and cables.

    Total production would be about 30,000 x 8766 h/y x 0.45, capacity factor = 118,341,000 MWh, or 118.3 TWh, which is about 100 x 118.3/4000 = 2.96% of all generation loaded onto US grids. That load would increase due to many millions of future electric vehicles and heat pumps.

    The turnkey capital cost for wind systems and grid extension would be 30,000 MW x $5,000,000/MW = $150 BILLION; Biden’s inflation rates may increase that cost.

    The all-in wholesale price of the offshore electricity would be about 18 c/kWh, without cost shifting and subsidies, and about 9 c/kWh, with cost shifting and subsidies. See URL


    Almost the entire physical supply of the offshore wind systems would be provided by EU companies, because they have the required expertise and the domestic onshore and seagoing facilities, due to building at least 25,014 MW (end 2020) of offshore systems, during the past 35 years.

    Duplicating the EU onshore and seagoing facilities in the US, PLUS implementing 30,000 MW of offshore wind systems in less than 8 years, 2022 to 2030, would be totally impossible.


    The EU gas storage reservoirs are way below where they should be at this time of the year.
    Filling storage for high levels of winter use, at SPOT prices, would be VERY EXPENSIVE.

    In fact, there may not BE enough gas available for adequately filling storage!!

    In 2020, gas storage levels were at 90% in January and 55% in April, the low point.
    In 2021, gas storage levels were at 74% in January and 30% in April, the low point.

    It is already too late to adequately fill the EU storage, because there is not enough available gas, no matter what the price!!


    After NORD-STREAM-2, capacity 55 bcm/y, gets final approval by the German government, only one of the two lines would be DELIVERING gas by the end of 2021; the second line would be ready to deliver gas by about March 2022.

    But wait, EU bureaucrats have concocted an EU THIRD ENERGY PACKAGE, which effectively states, Russia can use only one of the two NORD-STREAM-2 lines, because the capacity of other line has to be reserved for other gas delivering companies, as part of EU policy of “fostering competition”!

    Whereas, there ARE such gas delivering companies, none of them have any gas to ACTUALLY USE those lines, and if they HAD gas, they still could not use them, because the lines, which run under the bottom of the Baltic Sea, connect Russia directly to Germany, with no in/out connections for others.

    Now, you can see the level of nuttiness EU bureaucrats engage in just to “protect” the EU from “evil” Russia.
    I am not making this up!!

    Tens of millions of Europeans will have to put on extra layers of clothes, because it will be COLD in the EU this winter.
    EU bureaucrats have mucho eggo on their faces.


  2. And they nary mention the absolute destruction of birds that are murdered by those atrocious monstrosities that have been erected in places in the United States. Where are the greenies and the Audubon Society, PETA, et al when it comes to the birds?
    or bat mortality too

  3. Seems like they forgot to plan for any off Massachusetts, particularly off Martha’s Vineyard……….huh, that seems strange.

Comments are closed.