LA Times: Humboldt Bay Poised to Play Key Role in California’s Offshore Wind Future
Wind farm under construction off Martha’s Vineyard [Photo taken April 2024) by Maia Cheli from Schatz Energy Research Center at Cal Poly Humboldt]
The project would involve putting together hundreds of huge wind turbinesm each as tall as Los Angeles’ tallest skyscrapers, at Humboldt Bay before towing them 20 to 60 miles offshore. If successful, proponents say offshore wind could supply 10% to 15% of California’s electricity as the state tries to meet its goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.
However, the technology required for floating turbines that far out in the Pacific is still emerging and the method hasn’t ever been used at this scale or depth. The project would also require major port upgrades, hundreds of miles of new transmission lines, and a lot of coordination between state, federal, and private partners.
And, the Trump administration isn’t excited about the project. It has canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in funding tied to Humboldt Bay’s port development and has taken broader actions to halt offshore wind projects nationwide.
Locally, reaction is mixed. Some see economic opportunity and a path toward cleaner energy, while others worry about impacts to marine ecosystems, fisheries, tribal resources, and the small community of Samoa, which would sit adjacent to the turbine assembly site.
Read the full LA Times report here for a complete look at Humboldt’s offshore wind plans.
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Calm down folks, it is not going to happen. They are simply “floating” the idea. It’s definitely not a “shore” thing but “gust” a proposal.
In A Related Story…… California to use wind turbine generators to offset deadly Santa Ana winds……. Hopes to blow fire danger to Arizona. Story at ten.
Classic 🤣
https://youtu.be/1Wa0g3USqo4?si=RbPGAgaoJb5AHOuy
Or we could just use natural gas to produce power. The carbon thing is myth.
Do you wonder why your electricity cost is $.35 a KWT, when most of the country pays $.13? The green new deal. The people in government with a green agenda are the cause. They mandate electric car, electric appliances, high fuel TAX, ban gas appliances, bike lanes, 15 minute cities, ban on combustion engines, mandate solar panels on new construction…………..
If Trump is against wind farms Humboldt will be all for it, but California has been bad and mismanaged. Look no further than the high-speed rail. Bad news for Humboldt, Trump holds the purse strings.
Another thought for energy, is Fuel Cells.
From AI:
propane works in specific types of fuel cell generators, particularly Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFCs). Instead of burning it, these systems typically use a reformer to convert propane into hydrogen on-site. They are quieter, more fuel-efficient, and require less maintenance than traditional combustion generators.
Key Details About Propane Fuel Cells:
Propane Fuel Cell Generator vs. Traditional Generator
Note: You cannot use propane in a standard Hydrogen PEM fuel cell without a dedicated, specialized fuel processor.
Propane Fuel Cells still emit Carbon Dioxide.
Not as much as a gas or diesel generator, but still too much.
You emit co2 as well, trees love it
You’re thinking of the Carbon cycle.
Fossil fuels are not part of the Carbon cycle.
Remember learning that in 8th grade?
Of couse they are. Just on a hugely long cycle unless extracted and burned. You have confused idea of the carbon cycle with the idea of a accelerated change in the carbon cycle.
“Carbon is in a constant state of movement from place to place. It is stored in what are known as reservoirs, and it moves between these reservoirs through a variety of processes, including photosynthesis, burning fossil fuels, and simply releasing breath from the lungs. The movement of carbon from reservoir to reservoir is known as the carbon cycle.”
“Rocks like limestone and fossil fuels like coal and oil are storage reservoirs that contain carbon from plants and animals that lived millions of years ago. When these organisms died, slow geologic processes trapped their carbon and transformed it into these natural resources. Processes such as erosion release this carbon back into the atmosphere very slowly, while volcanic activity can release it very quickly. Burning fossil fuels in cars or power plants is another way this carbon can be released into the atmospheric reservoir quickly.”
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/carbon-cycle/
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/carbon-cycle/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
>”Fossil fuels are not part of the Carbon cycle.”
Eh ? Should add ‘short term’ to the above sentence.
Fossil fuels are the remnants from a very ‘carbon-rich’ earth environment… a looong time ago. ‘Fossil’ is a key word here.
All are part of the overall carbon balance of the planet.
Periodically, some are recycled back into the atmosphere by volcanic action, magma discharges and uplifted sediments.
—
Estimates of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from volcanoes may have been significantly underestimated, according to new research by The University of Manchester.
Published in the journal, Science Advances, scientists have developed an advanced sensor that can detect volcanic gases with rapid speed and precision.
Using the sensor mounted on a helicopter, the research team measured emissions at Soufrière Hills Volcano on the Caribbean Island of Montserrat, revealing that the volcano emitted three times more CO2 than earlier studies had estimated.
—
The real issue is 7 billion extra inhabitants (well beyond the carrying capacity) of the earth.
Estimates of Earth’s human carrying capacity vary widely, but recent studies suggest our current population of over 8 billion has already exceeded the planet’s sustainable capacity, which is estimated to be around 2–3 billion people for a high-quality standard of living.
Current Overshoot: With a population surpassing 8 billion, humanity is currently in “overshoot,” consuming resources faster than Earth can regenerate them (approximately 1.75 Earths needed to sustain current levels).
—
Go figure.
No need to call it the short term Carbon cycle.
That’s the generally understood meaning.
The Carbon that has been locked away for hundreds of millions of years is not part of the– OK, fine, let’s just call it the short term Carbon Cycle. And it’s the burning of these fossil fuels that is driving global warming and climate change.
Volcanoes do add Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere, but it’s a tiny fraction of that emitted by humans. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities#:~:text
You are correct that the number of humans on the planet is a huge environmental problem.
In order to have a chance at continued existence, we need to rapidly phase out fossil fuels while also working to reduce the number of people. And, because I can already sense the spurious vituperation brewing, that would be reducing the population through reduced birth rates, not genocide.
If running with your own unique and generally incorrect definition, it would be better not to ridicule others for being more on point.
Total volcanic activity likely contributes around 2.25% of co2 added to the atmosphere from geological sources. The other 97.75% is human activity.
80%+/-
Humans tend to ignore that the earth had very different environments in the past and may have different environments in the future… both due to ‘human activities’ or ‘cosmic’ events.
[Example, ‘Milankovitch cycles’, asteroid/comet collisions, solar burbles, supernova radiation.}
If left to the ‘natural’ processes’… the earth will be mostly covered in ice in a few thousand years
Guess the bottom line is… ‘human caused global warming’ may deter the next ice age.
— web stuff
We are approximately 12,000 years into the current Holoscene interglacial period … a warm, stable phase that typically lasts 10,000–20,000 years.
While the ‘natural cycles’ suggest we should be entering a long-term cooling trend, human-driven greenhouse gas emissions have delayed the next potential ice age by at least 50,000 years.
—
We are still a ‘short-term’ species… with only a few thousand years of recorded history. Undertaking (some) massive efforts to somehow ‘keep everything the same’.
Hint: we probably can’t.
Soylent Green
Everything we were taught in 8th grade was true. The system never lies.
It’s a great step in the right direction. And a decade or two later something better will be ready. Moving forward to higher ground away from combustibles is good. Even though it’s a tsunami of problems that’s behind us.
Just to be clear, Trinity county is paying the lowest price in the western states, as far as I know. We are based on hydro power. everyone else is paying PG&E for all the lawsuits and campaign contributions. Thats the difference. Keep taking out those dams and we will be flooded and have to dream of power generation 60 miles off the coast. Yikes.
The Green New Deal wasn’t passed. It never even had a hearing in any committee in either house of Congress. Stop watching Fox News
IMHO:
Newsomites are still trying to resurrect this (probably a trillion dollar*) project ?
Hopefully it joins the ‘High Speed Rail’ ($135 billion) fiasco into the eternal ‘govt toilet’.
Nothing exists for the offshore wind. No ships, no turbines, no ports, no nothing.
After 20 years, the high speed rail… no tracks have been laid, no locomotives, no trains.
Meanwhile:
USA $40 is Trillion in Debt. (Adds a trillion every 3 months.)
Californika $1.6 Trillion in Debt. (Included are un-funded pension moneys).
Humboldt County $12 Million in Debt.
(*) Projections.
Cost of High Speed Rail. $33 billion… then $45 billion… then $135 (?) billion. Quadrupled.
Cost of Offshore Wind. $250 billion… then…$500 billion… then a Trillion (?). Quadrupled.
Go figure.
I guess news from here to LA travels rather slow.
Nuclear.
It’s the only practical way forward. Deploying a operating prototype of micro nuclear plant was one of the biggest things to happen in this administration, and it was glossed over or ignored by most media:
https://www.valaratomics.com
The navy has been doing it for a long time
Micro plants are already a thing, but really nobody has any. NC State U. has a reactor on campus, the only one of it’s type still in existence and part of the University’s nuclear reactor program. NAVY and the DoE use them quite a bit to train up personnel on nuclear powered vessels, as well as civilian use. I’ve visited the campus any number of times years ago never knowing this (the State Fair is held on parts of campus) and you wouldn’t know a nuclear reactor was nearby unless someone pointed it out to you. Safe as can be and never a real threat to anybody.
yet.
Life itself carries risk. That itself is not strong enough a reason to prohibit progress on an 80+ year old idea. I’m more worried about earthquakes here than anything, something that NC doesn’t have. They have more nuke plants than the entire west coast, with more planned. This isn’t your 3-mile island meltdown plants we’re talking about here.
Off topic intro.
Just because it is done elsewhere doesn’t make it safe.
Where and how does fuel come from? Where and how is waste fuel disposed?
All that has been mitigated since we split the first atoms. We’ve got a lot of research on the matter. I am not afraid of it.
Only if you are not looking. PG&E had to encase their spent fuel rods in their plant near the bay because they couldn’t safely get rid of them when they shut down. There are lots of unresolved issuee.
Not completely PG&E’s fault. Nobody around that wants to handle it, but mostly because there is no national depository for it at this time. So they’ll sit in those casks. People looked for all sorts of ways to kill off nuclear but some of those rules are prohibiting what’s stored from being properly stored somewhere else.
Implying I’m afraid of it? I am not.
We’ve had the tech since the 50s to process used fuel. Breeder reactors.
How’s that working out? (It’s not) Why are there encased fuel rods stored here? Why is uranium still being mined?
All US nuclear power plants store their spent fuel on site, because there is no established Federal nuclear spent fuel repository. Until such time one is established by the Feds, spent fuel is store in a dry cask storage system on site. This has been an ongoing issue for over 40 years. Yucca Mountain had been looked into, in the past.
Did you know that California’s last operational nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon, recent received a 20 year extension to its nuclear operating license? The original operation license for Unit 1 had expired in 2025, and Unit 2 was set expired in 2026.
Yes I know..I’m not comfortable with all that.
Kind of a testament to PG&E’s nuclear operational and safety record of operating Diablo Canyon safely during it’s first 40 years of its operating license, that it gets extended another for 20 years.
Talk about risk!
From Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:
The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant: assessing the seismic risks of extended operation
https://thebulletin.org/2022/08/the-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-assessing-the-seismic-risks-of-extended-operation/
and the petition sent to NRC (pdf):
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2430/ML24302A153.pdf
Yabut not practically…. it has not been technically or economically possible. India and Russua supposedly have recently done it but both countries are not reliable, having insane levels of corruption in their governments. So take their word for what its worth. But?? Maybe.
https://newsable.asianetnews.com/world/india-nuclear-feat-stuns-world-why-us-france-failed-despite-billions-explained-articleshow-8in64qf
The issue is the transportation of the material, not the processing.
Different tech. These are modular and scalable without meltdown risk.
Link please. (not without any meltdown risk?)
Read my original post.
(apologies for the long delay; I’m experiencing login problems)
The manufacturer website? (you’re kidding, right?) In typical Trump fashion they are suing the NRC…however, I prefer the NRC website document:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2021/ML20216A453.pdf
Meltdown Prevention Features
Valar Atomics utilizes a combination of advanced materials and passive physics to eliminate traditional meltdown risks:
Marketing claims of the manufacturer, however the NRC has concerns. Noted above and in more detail in the pdf.
Build them in Moron Bay and SLO. Drag them down to Point Conception (lotsa wind). Close to LA.
Ok!!! For the downvoters: Build them in Blowdega Bay and tow them to Pt.Arena. Run electric cables everywhere like through Tomales Bay and into Marin. While they are at it … California must pass a law requiring a mandatory row of solar panels between each row of grapes in the “wine country”. Napa could light all of California.
It’s good to see we finally agree upon something.
A project off the coast of Sonoma would be great, as the electricity could be delivered directly to the Northern Bay Area.
However, since Sonoma lacks a port to assemble and launch the turbines, assembling and launching them from here would be the most likely solution. That would be good for our local economy.
As for your previous comment, there is already a project under development for a wind farm off Morro Bay. It’s my understanding that those turbines will be built in and launched from Long Beach.
Your idea of using solar on vineyards is also interesting, and it seems it is being tried in other places. https://www.winespectator.com/articles/solar-panels-in-vineyards#:~:text
Putting panels over parking lots and canals also makes a lot of sense, and projects such as these are already underway. https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/california-first-canal-array-project-nexus
California should also pass a law requiring all hats to have propellers for charging cell phones. The wine idea would be funded by a minimum $ 2.00 per bottle tax. Don’t you agree?
Now you make sense , unlike high speed or should we say no speed rail project ?
Almost forgot jebs… you finally agree with me! Remember yesterday, day before? I said would cost $ Trillion in Government subsidies! Why haven’t seen that type of action since Solyndra. They went bankrupt. Where did the money go go?
Hmmmm jebs… they seem to refute your constant assertion that windmills are A-ok! Why these monsters have never been made before and the application never tested! Glad you finally agree with that. Hey, maybe it’s fake news! Sad when you validate something that blows out your entire argument. I know where you can take critical thinking classes so you don’t make that mistake on facts again!
Darn. You stopped making sense again.
Oh well, it was cool while it lasted.
Jebs… look before you leap. Hey, Solyndra – half a $Billion government loan guarantee that got ripped-off was a deal compared to this. What? You work for them – the windmill people?
No need for regs when you can buy the DIY parts for them on Amazon
Unless those who build an offshore windfall accept responsibility for the future decommissioned turbines, it is not good for the local economy. And they won’t do it because it ruins the massive profits that makes so many international companies salivate over those contracts.
What it really would mean is a small boom in the first place because almost all labor and manufacturing would take place elsewhere while the crumbs would fall to local construction companies to modify roads and transmission lines to allow these products to move to the bay just because it is cheaper to use local equipment for short term projects. There will be only a small cadre of maintenance companies, who themselves might not even be local, left after construction. Most repair contractors for almost everything come from outside the county now.
Why? Because Humboldt County only has two modes of thinking- allow everything willy nilly because the money is needed and screw everything up because it is offends socially justice. And demand, tax and sue until producers runaway as fast as they can. And let the unproductive hangers-on suck the county dry.
In the end those turbines will age out and fail or a newer technology will replace them but the companies who reaped big profits from their construction will have moved on, sold off the infrastructure and there will be no money left to take care of the debris and pollution that no-longer-functioning wind mills leave behind.
This is not some idea to be so easily dismissed by the starry eyed Progressives who are all about the theories and fantasies but refuse to examine the details from the start. This is how environmental super sites all came to be and are not even cleaned up from a hundred years ago. But think ahead? Nope. The negatives will just be discovered as they happen.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++!
In Scandinavia, Norway and Denmark specifically have successfully installed huge windmill farms offshore. The ecological impact is real at first , during install phase. But marine life quickly reclaimed the sites after install and energy is produced constantly as winds off shore are reliable and always free. And… if trump’s against it you know it’s got to be good for the country and California
this project will kill our bay in many ways. up to 14 of these 1,200 foot tall structures will be resting on the bottom of the bay during most low tides for 25 years. the shade, the 24 hour lighting will destroy moon life cycles. the noise, the release of hydrocarbons by 1,000s of spills over the 25 year project span. the mass dredging. and then you have the affects to the community. loss of use, visual blight, loss of tourism. this project will kill our community. don’t be so short sighted and comparing this to Denmark is not accurate. just wait until you learn that they are lubricated from shore via a tube within the main cable.
Are they in the bay? I thought they were to be over 20 miles off shore. But it is true that the Baltic is way different than the Pacific.
Yes, they’re miles off the coast. At sea level they would not be seen at all on a crystal clear day, and be hidden in the marine layer fog the rest of the year. They’re in the North Atlantic off the UK too. Japan has installed subsurface tidal generators where the entire structure is underwater. They also have lots of whales. Why is it everyone but the US seems to figure out these issues but we’re hung up on everything? Can’t be progressive (if only at a tech level) if people don’t actually do that.
the plan is to build up to 2,500 of them in Humboldt Bay. you might want to look more into it. they would be able to moor up to 14 of them at a time before dredging the entire length of the transit to exit the bay. it will be 25 years of that. and it will be the worst thing that will have ever happened to the bay.
I’m well aware of the project. And the one on Bear River ridge before it. A difference? Aesthetics and that Big Oil Shell was behind the project. Can’t have Big Oil trying to go green now can we?
And how is using a port for what it’s designed for (commerce and industry) the worst thing for the Bay? Do you want to be economically free from being a social services sponge for the state or what? 25 years sounds like a few jobs a person right out of college can settle into for a while and do things HERE like buy a home, raise a family, buy local food and crafts because now they’re not using EBT but American Express at the registers.
Weeeelll neither the Japanese nor Norwegians are good references about the health of whales. Being two of the last remaining countries to hunt whales. Japan calls it “studying” but they “study” only the dead ones. Lots of them. Also Japan has had failures in floating wind turbines and had to retool their program. There is reason for distrust and weariness.
I have found studies and linked them here that off shore wind farms change the ocean ecosystem, favoring increases in some species and declines in others. This is not old, established science and it’s hard to get companies to release what they know.
When these wind farms reach the end of their life spans, no one wants to pony up the funds to keep them going. Or clean up when they fail. This is not a minor issue, the ocean is a hard and relentless damage of all things mechanical.
“The UK’s energy mix changed forever in December 2000. The country’s first offshore wind farm began operating off the coast of Blyth in Northumberland, showing a bright, decarbonised future for the grid.
Almost a quarter of a century later, offshore wind is one of our most important sources of green energy. Blyth Offshore Wind Farm is no more, however, after it was decommissioned in 2019.
That fate soon awaits many other early offshore wind farms unless swift action is taken, a new report has warned. The country risks losing five gigawatts (GW) of capacity by 2035, according to the report from trade organisation RenewableUK – equivalent to one-third of total offshore capacity.”
https://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/uk-risks-losing-one-third-of-offshore-wind-capacity-without-action-report-warns
Nantucket had to sue to get the failed wind turbine debris cleaned up.
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/07/16/nantuckets-south-facing-beaches-are-closed-to-swimming-as-debris-from-a-damaged-wind-turbine-washes-ashore/
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2025/07/14/ge-vernova-to-pay-nantucket-usd-10-5-million-for-economic-impact-caused-by-blade-debris/
yet another ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++! comment!
Well no, and I sort of expected to be noted on that when it comes to whales, but those projects are operating now nonetheless. I feel the market for recycling blades is in it’s infancy and can catch up, much like CA likes to brag about renewables generation, yet can’t find a place to put it. I have hope. But I’ll admit even that is an expensive waste stream industry.
I really don’t have a problem with developing technology for recycling but what happens is no one, not government, the companies that profit or the company that buy tne infrastructure off them or the end line users pay for it when it comes time. It’s just on the backs of the locations effected. There is no honor in it. Just “that was then and this is now.”
the key phrase being “At sea level” — got a map for visibility from higher elevations close to shore?
How about a formula? If you’re 6ft tall or say 180cm, visibility on a clear day is ~3mi.
The formula to calculate the distance to the horizon (d) in miles is approximately: d = 1.22 × √h, where h is the height of the observer’s eye above sea level in feet. In metric units, the formula is d = 3.57 × √h, where h is the height in meters and d is the distance in kilometers.
That’s the horizon. The tip of a blade at say 750′ would be seen on the beach at a distance of ~33.4 miles using that formula. In perfect conditions too. Haze, fog, sea spray, all that contributes to limiting the visibility.
https://www.northcoastoffshorewind.org/post/what-is-an-offshore-wind-heavy-lift-marine-terminal-and-what-is-its-purpose
Why would the presence of windmills waiting to be finished and hauled out to the offshore Anchorage kill tourism? Have you looked at the current view of the Samoa peninsula from eureka? How would active use discourage tourists more than neglect and decay?
I know just enough to know that I dont know enough to assess this whole project. It seems like the economic benefit to our area is greatly overblown. It seems like the energy production vs ecological impact over their life and disposal may not be as rosy as it’s presented. But it still might be a project that works out. I definitely dont see how it would be a serious impact on our tourism
the current view is 300 feet tall. these are 1,200 feet tall. combine that with 24 hour lights, noise, and frequent loss of use of the bay. do you use the bay? the yacht club won’t be able to use the current area they sail in, which is the only area to sail in. restrictions similar to when the fuel barge enters the bay will be daily instead of monthly.
I’m still not seeing what tourist is coming for the view if Samoa from old town and will be impacted by these things.
I am curious about where youre getting the notion that these sorts of major disruptions of boat traffic on the bay will be daily things for 25 years. Is that from a planning document?
Im also curious about your claims of light and noise pollution 24/7.
the info is out there is you care to find it. the operation light poles will be 150 feet tall and operations will be 24/7 in order to complete 9 units per month. the units for the wind farm off SLO will also be built here. the only plus for the manufacturing plan is that our bay has no bridges, everything else about our bay is a negative. the continuous dredging alone is very cost prohibitive. my guess is that the Feds will issue a permit to allow dredge spoils to be disposed on land via a piping system or something easier than what is going on now. the HOODS will end up and a major mound or island if not. i am shocked that HWKs are all on board with this. the plan doesn’t include full cleanup of the pulp mill. it has 51 million for “environmental restoration” which is not cleanup of contamination, more like eel grass planted in front of the riprap. i am sure the grass will live about a year similar to the foot of H project a few years ago.
the deepest offshore floating windfarm was built in 2023 in Norway and is in ~1,000 feet of water. The purpose of this windfarm is to power offshore oil and gas exploration platforms. the proposed area off Humboldt is 2,000 – 4,000 feet deep. so it is safe to say that it has never been done before.
The tech exists for it to be done. So does the money. It’s just the source. What it needs to handle is our winters, widely varying ocean condition and it’s set to be sited very near the leading edge of the subduction zone so even a 7.0 could be problematic or if the seafloor decides to raise or drop there 15 feet.
Sorry. No they haven’t.
Norway has small deep water wind generators tied to providing power for some offshore drilling platforms. (Hywind Tampen)
—
Hywind Tampen has an expected economic lifetime of 19 years, bounded by the respective lifetime of Snorre and Gullfaks operations (Snorre until 2040, Gullfaks A until 2034 and B until 2030, and C until 2032). Hywind Tampen is therefore expected to be abandoned in 2041.
—
Scotland has (or had) about 5 of the deep water platforms. Capacity 30 MW.
Active about 50% of the time.
While cost was reduced compared to the very expensive Hywind One at $31m/MW,[8][21][4] it still came with a final capital cost of £264m, or £8.8m/MW, approximately three times the capital cost of fixed offshore wind farms
— web stuff
However, offshore wind parks are also objects of environmental concern. The production offshore wind turbines require large quantities of raw materials, including rare metals. Their installation also contributes to substantial carbon emissions, and the disruption of marine ecosystems and migratory species movement.
Furthermore, the maintenance of the turbines is assessed to emit 400,000 tons of CO2 over their entire lifespan and the rerouting of navigation could potentially lead to longer sailing routes which requires more fuel.
The decommissioning of wind turbines is perhaps under the most scrutiny. The wind turbines have a life expectancy of 25 years, and their methods of repurposing or disposal is yet to be decided. This hinges on the development of technology, which is currently limited.
—
Go figure
None of the local media has reported on the following facts: RWE is the biggest coal miner and carbon emitter in Europe, and also runs Urenco, the Uranium enrichment company that makes Uranium for nuclear power plants AND the nuclear weapons program. No scientific study has been done on the effects of blocking ocean wind and rain from the Redwoods and inland forest fire prone areas, but a 10 to 15% loss of wind is anticipated.