• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

China’s Wind Power ‘Bet’ Will Cost Trillions — Yet Coal Still Rules The Roost

China builds duplicate power grids—one works, one doesn't. Guess which one?

by Thomas Richard
May 07, 2026, 1:59 PM
in Energy, Media, Money & Finance, News and Opinion, Politics
Reading Time: 6 mins read
A A
4

chinese mountain wind farm
Two articles from the New York Times in the past couple of days describe the widening divergence between the approaches taken by the U.S. and China on the subject of wind energy. I apologize that these pieces are behind the Times’s paywall, but remember that I subscribe there so that you don’t have to. [some emphasis, links added]

On Monday (May 4), the article was about the status of wind energy development in the U.S., with the headline “More Than 150 Wind Projects Stall as Pentagon Delays Reviews.” Tuesday’s (May 5) piece covered the same subject in China, with the headline “China’s Big Bet on Wind Power Is Paying Off.”

These articles once again illustrate the extent to which the U.S. and its people are uniquely blessed in the world. Our biggest blessing is that we have been bequeathed by our forebears with the freest economy in the world, and with structural obstacles that make it very difficult for politicians to undo that.

But almost as big a blessing is the total incompetence of our geopolitical adversaries.

The May 4 piece about the U.S. reports on the latest gambit by the Trump administration to shut down wind power development. The asserted basis is national security, and particularly the alleged interference of wind turbines with military radars and flight paths.

Excerpt:

“The Trump administration is blocking more than 150 onshore wind farms across the United States by delaying military reviews that were once considered routine, according to a leading industry trade group. . . . [T]he administration has held up a large number of onshore wind projects under development on private land, citing national security concerns. These wind farms typically have to undergo a review by the Pentagon before being built to ensure that their turbines won’t interfere with military radar or flight paths. In the past, those reviews have been fairly straightforward, but they have ground to a halt in recent weeks, and the Pentagon has canceled some meetings with developers. “The Department of War is currently making it almost impossible to build a new wind project in the United States,” said Jason Grumet, chief executive of the American Clean Power Association, which represents renewable energy companies.”

I do not know the extent to which the asserted basis for restricting wind power development is real versus pretextual. On the other hand, I would not be surprised at all to learn that wind turbines have at least some negative effects on military radars and flight paths.

An evaluation of the extent of a real national security concern is something uniquely within the President’s responsibilities, with the courts having little power to second-guess.

Meanwhile, these 100+ wind turbine projects, if they were undertaken in time to qualify for tax credits but have now been terminated for newer projects, could cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars over the next couple of decades, for nothing of any value.

The administration has done us all a huge favor by preventing these projects from proceeding.

Needless to say, the Times and Mr. Grumet of the ACPA don’t see it that way:

“The stalled projects together would have about 30 gigawatts of electric generating capacity if they were built, Mr. Grumet said. One gigawatt can provide enough electricity for more than 300,000 homes, although wind turbines can’t produce power at all hours.”

Somehow, the Times and Mr. Grumet don’t see it as a significant problem that wind turbines work only about 30-35% of the time. You may have a different view of your own home or business.

Then we come to yesterday’s piece about how China’s big bet on wind power is, supposedly, “paying off.” How do we know that?

Excerpt:

“Across China, hilltops are dotted with wind turbines, and long rows of them span many miles in western deserts. Ultrahigh-voltage power lines carry electricity thousands of miles to the energy-hungry factories along China’s coast. Last year, China installed three times as much wind power capacity as the rest of the world combined, even as its turbine exports jumped. The global industry’s center of gravity has shifted decisively: All of the world’s six largest wind turbine manufacturers are Chinese, displacing once-dominant European firms and companies like General Electric. The war has made China’s investments in wind look prescient. Its Asian neighbors, long reliant on Middle Eastern oil and gas, are struggling to secure fuel supplies. Meanwhile, China, with its massive reserves and modern electric grid, is better positioned to weather the energy crisis.”

OK, they have wind turbines all over the place. There are several pictures accompanying the article depicting huge and hideous wind farms in China. Here is one of them [via Pexels]:

Expansive aerial view of wind turbines dotting farmland in Jiujiang, China. Photo by Jason Hu via Pexels

But how do you know that these wind farms are “paying off”? Sorry, but there is no such thing as “massive reserves” of wind power. The wind blows when it feels like blowing.

So are all these wind turbines creating wealth or destroying it? In a market economy like ours, you get the answer to that question from profitability.

If a project makes a profit after paying for factor inputs at prices determined by markets, then you have an excellent indication that the project is creating wealth.

If the project loses money or requires subsidies to get built or to continue to operate, then you know that it is destroying wealth.

So, how about the China wind projects? From the Times:

“An industrial policy of subsidies and import restrictions laid the foundations for China to become almost as dominant in wind turbines as in solar panels. … Chinese manufacturers, led by Envision Energy, are also gaining ground in India. Buoyed by tax incentives and government support, the country vies with the United States as the world’s second-largest wind market, after China. … China’s state-owned banks keep the renminbi weak against the euro, making Chinese wind turbines less expensive abroad.”

So the industry has grown massive based on “tax incentives,” “government support” [i.e., subsidies], “import restrictions,” and currency manipulation.

In other words, they have no way to measure whether they are creating or destroying wealth. However, since the “incentives” and subsidies are apparently necessary for the industry to survive, the odds that the industry is creating wealth are nil.

This article does not mention anything about China’s parallel and massive expansion of its coal power plant fleet over the past two decades, nor does it consider the question of why all those coal power plants are needed, even though all this wind power capacity has been built.

man money wind solar
China is building two full overlapping and duplicative electricity generation systems, one of which works all the time and the other of which does not. Somebody has to pay for both of them.

You can hide who’s paying by concealing the cost in subsidies and tax incentives, but that does not change the fact that somebody is paying. So how does this add up to the wind turbines “paying off”?

The article does provide the answer to why China might be spending billions on this uneconomic endeavor. Xi wants it!

“Energy is a strategic issue in development — our pioneering development of wind power and solar technology has proved to be forward-looking,” Xi Jinping, China’s top leader, said in late March. … In a speech in July, Mr. Xi urged China to “promote the orderly and well-regulated expansion of offshore wind power.”

It looks like Xi is no better at doing basic arithmetic or physics than the morons who are in charge of climate policy here in New York. And in China, nobody dares to speak up and contradict Xi, no matter how obviously wrong he may be.

As I said, the U.S. is blessed by the total incompetence of its geopolitical adversaries.

The article takes note of the fact that nobody in China is pushing back against the wind power expansion, despite obvious downsides:

“The push has faced little public resistance because of strong government backing. Even though local residents complain, they have little power to stop projects from moving forward. ‘The noise from these turbines is quite loud,’ said Wang Cuifen, who lives on a small farm outside Yancheng, near the base of towering turbines in a tidal zone. ‘They run nonstop from around 4 p.m. to 4 a.m., and it affects our rest.'”

There’s nothing like a government that does not need to respond to complaints from the population. In the view of the New York Times, this is a good thing.

So, dear readers, you can place your bets on whether it is the U.S. or China that is making the right bet on the future of wind energy. I bet that within about a decade, China will be taking hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions of dollars, in write-offs on its wind energy investments.

Or, given that this is China and no loss of face for the leaders is ever allowed, it will be propping the industry up with ever-increasing subsidies as its economy gets eaten away from within.

Read more at Manhattan Contrarian

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…

Popular Posts

Bipolar

New Study: Ice Core Data Shows Modern Warming Is Statistically Unremarkable

Mar 05, 2026
Energy

Professor Makes Stunning Discovery: ‘Absolutely, 100 percent, Offshore Wind Kills Whales’

Jul 15, 2024
Electric Vehicles (EVs)

The ‘Green’ Scam Of The Century: How ‘Renewables’ Increase Fossil Fuel Demands

Oct 23, 2024

Comments 4

  1. Richard Greene says:
    3 weeks ago

    2026
    Chinese wind farms are currently profitable,
    generating significant revenue
    by selling electricity to grid companies
    at a massive scale.

    they are mainly owned by the government
    but the wind turbines that they buy
    are usually from private investors

    this article does not recognize the current profitability
    of wind farms in china and its prediction
    “trillions of dollars, in write-offs on its wind energy
    investments” should not be taken seriously

    the manhattan contrarian
    is an unreliable website
    (has made wrong predictions
    about the collapse
    f the chinese economy
    for many years)

    Reply
    • Steve Bunten says:
      3 weeks ago

      Either you or the Chinese are lying. Which is it? They fully subsidize their wind turbine industry which doesn’t make it profitable. And as the column said they are essentially running duo grids to maintain a stable grid. But of course your hatred of Thomas Richard is so great you can’t read anything from him with an open mind.

      Reply
      • Fede says:
        3 weeks ago

        You may want to check or revisit your Microeconomics theory fundamentals regarding market “failures”. Social optimal quantity or output (and therefore associated social marginal costs) may not be equal to “at market prices” implied private quantities and costs. This may well be the case here, given that the cost of running a partly duplicate grid is understood to be compensated by the social, external benefit provided in terms of energy resilience in geopolitical situations like the present. Those governmental or public subsidies act as Pigouvian subsidies incentivising a strategic policy which makes sense when going beyond shortsighted present value, private market-only considerations. I won’t delve into other considerations at the moment, to keep the focus. And, no —I am not Chinese, neither lying.😅

        Reply
      • Richard Greene says:
        3 weeks ago

        the manhattan contrarian ( francis menton ) has been claiming for three years that the chinese economy is going to collapse
        so far he’s been wrong for three years

        the chinese wind farms owned by the government have become marginally profitable
        the government owned wind and wind farms don’t care about profits and they’re certainly not going to write off trillions of dollars as claimed by the manhattan contrarian

        and chinese turbine manufacturers that are privately owned have become marginally profitable. the shareholders do care about profits which have been missing for many years and even now are just marginal

        Chinese state-owned farms benefit from turbine costs that are up to 50% cheaper than Western counterparts, along with lower financing costs from state banks.

        China’s direct fiscal subsidies for renewable energy are estimated to be approximately 0.04% to 0.05% of its GDP.

        While the entire clean energy sector (including manufacturing and power generation) accounted for 11.4% of China’s GDP in 2025, the specific fiscal subsidy scale for renewables is estimated at roughly $7–8 billion.

        statistics coming from china are likely to be unreliable so the marginal profits in these industries could just be a fantasy

        As the world’s leading wind energy producer for 15 consecutive years, China continues to set records in both installed capacity and power output. As of early 2026, China operates approximately 700,000 wind turbines. This figure represents nearly half of the world’s total operating wind capacity, satellite observations have been used to confirm and map China’s wind turbine infrastructure.

        Wind energy provided about 16% of China’s electricity in late 2025 and early 2026.

        Reply

Comments are welcome! Those that add no discussion value may be removed.Cancel reply

Stay Connected!

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Get notified when new posts are published!

Subscribe to receive a digest of daily stories, or get emailed once they're published. Check your Junk/Spam folder for a verification email.

Recent Posts

  • nytimes hq underwaterOof! NY Times Dances Around UN Scientists Scrapping Trendy Climate Armageddon Scenario
    May 29, 2026
    The NY Times soft-pedals the death of RCP8.5 — the doomsday climate scenario its own reporters hyped for years as inevitable. […]
  • earth bbc signBBC Puts Its Own Spin On Earth’s Climate-Driven ‘Rotation Crisis’
    May 29, 2026
    BBC hypes a 1.33 millisecond-per-century change in Earth's rotation as 'unprecedented,' but natural variation dwarfs it and the effect is biologically nil. […]
  • frozen thames maunder minimumDeclining Solar Activity Confirms New Little Ice Age Has Begun, Researchers Say
    May 29, 2026
    New research links declining solar activity to a Grand Solar Minimum, confirming a new Little Ice Age with 1°C cooling expected by mid-century. […]
  • Newsom presser on gas price lawCalif. Unions Use Environmental Law To Fight Newsom’s Return-To-Office Order
    May 29, 2026
    California unions are weaponizing CEQA, the state's environmental review law, to block Newsom's return-to-office mandate for state workers. […]
  • Amsterdam’s Ban On Meat And Oil Ads Exposes The Farce Of Climate Alarmism
    May 28, 2026
    Amsterdam banned public ads for meat and fossil fuels, exposing climate alarmism's hollow core of grand gestures and zero real-world results. […]
  • airliner airport jetLefty UK Newspaper Claims ICE Deportations Worsen ‘Global Warming’
    May 28, 2026
    The Guardian claims ICE's 2025 deportation flights emitted 335,000 tonnes of CO2 — just 0.05% of U.S. domestic airline emissions. […]
  • gavel wetlandsLouisiana Climate Lawfare Bill Hobbled By Last-Minute Activist Amendment
    May 28, 2026
    Louisiana's HB 804 climate litigation shield was weakened by a Senate amendment protecting 40+ coastal lawsuits from preemption. […]
  • newsom solar maniaInside Gavin Newsom’s $900 Million Solar Scam
    May 28, 2026
    California's SOMAH program promised solar panels for a million low-income renters but delivered just over 65,000 — with $700 million still unspent. […]
  • coral danger signFish Don’t Lie: The Collapse Of The Ocean Acidification Scare
    May 27, 2026
    From rigged fish studies to misleading pH charts, the acidification alarm has always been more spin than science — and new research proves it. […]
  • city sun concreteHow Urban Heat Islands Skew Climate Central’s Overbaked Warming Claims
    May 27, 2026
    A meteorologist breaks down why Climate Central's summer warming analysis mistakes urban heat island effects for climate change-driven […]

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books You May Like

Cold Facts About the Great Global Warming Scam

Climate prn book

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Climate Change Dispatch

 
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky
Share via
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky