> The unfortunate message to investors is clear: the U.S. is no longer a reliable place for long-term energy investments.
Absolutely this, there’s no longer any confidence to begin a project anymore. Would like to see the legal action go ahead against the government and set a standard that contracts can’t be treated just as “suggestions”.
Trump appears to have particular hatred for the wind farms, not necessarily for all the renewables. He was talking about it, he brings it up when visiting European countries. What's up with that is it like a NIMBY thing?
They mention things like wind farms killing birds other says it's making noise or looking ugly but even though I never lived around a wind farm, I have came close to some large wind farms and they looked futuristic to me I didn't hear any noise. I'm not convinced that is uglier or noisier than any other modern infrastructure, like roads or planes.
Is this about money? is this ideological? what is this, what's going on?
Additional context missing in the NPR: Denmark is the majority owner of the offshore wind company, Ørsted, holding 50.1% of its shares (has to hold a majority by law[0]). This is could be Trump retaliating against or pressurizing the Danish government—likely his ongoing attempt to anschluss Greenland.
edit to add: Moreover, Denmark's foreign minister visited California this Friday, and met with Gavin Newsom[1]—obviously a provocation to Trump, given Newsom's political actions. A connection FT also made[2].
I don't know why I'm being mass-downvoted. This is a perfectly valid theory—it'd be a continuation of a retaliation threat Trump himself made, overtly [3].
This has nothing to do with national security, or trump, or anything else in the past few years other than that being the hook some slimy editor uses to get your eyeball dollars to their website.
This is just another round of a fight that's been happening for over 20yr now.
Wind farms in this area have been a constant political football. Regardless of the pretext the real story is that the people who have a view they want to protect, the tourism industry and the hippie/nature/biology types are on the no-wind side and the climate types, greenies, domestic energy and big business types are on the other. Sometimes one side wins, sometimes another side wins. But nothing ever gets built.
Politics aside, why not let the market drive the adoption of renewables? The former administration went to great lengths to penalize petroleum and subsidize solar and wind, without much regard for the damage this would do to the economy.
I'm all for funding the development of alternative energy sources, but forcing their deployment before they're viable is a mistake.
The title says because of national security, but no where in the article does it explain how a new wind energy farm poses any such security threat.
Is there actually a threat, or is it just that Trump needs to cite national security in order to cancel the work. In other words, its yet another blatant abuse of executive power.
13 comments
[ 419 ms ] story [ 1919 ms ] threadAbsolutely this, there’s no longer any confidence to begin a project anymore. Would like to see the legal action go ahead against the government and set a standard that contracts can’t be treated just as “suggestions”.
I wonder if that's related to this.
The amended title here gave me the false impression that NPR had started speaking valley girl.
They mention things like wind farms killing birds other says it's making noise or looking ugly but even though I never lived around a wind farm, I have came close to some large wind farms and they looked futuristic to me I didn't hear any noise. I'm not convinced that is uglier or noisier than any other modern infrastructure, like roads or planes.
Is this about money? is this ideological? what is this, what's going on?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ørsted_(company)#Shareholders
edit to add: Moreover, Denmark's foreign minister visited California this Friday, and met with Gavin Newsom[1]—obviously a provocation to Trump, given Newsom's political actions. A connection FT also made[2].
I don't know why I'm being mass-downvoted. This is a perfectly valid theory—it'd be a continuation of a retaliation threat Trump himself made, overtly [3].
[1] https://www.nbcbayarea.com/california-3/newsom-partnership-d... ("Newsom signs partnership with Denmark on climate and tech" (Aug. 22))
[2] https://www.ft.com/content/27bce438-9008-4c46-979a-26217e75a... ( https://archive.is/r2FfQ ) ("Ørsted hit by US stop-work order on Rhode Island wind farm")
[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-01-07/trump-... ("Trump Threatens Denmark With Tariffs Over Greenland" (Jan. 7))
This is just another round of a fight that's been happening for over 20yr now.
Wind farms in this area have been a constant political football. Regardless of the pretext the real story is that the people who have a view they want to protect, the tourism industry and the hippie/nature/biology types are on the no-wind side and the climate types, greenies, domestic energy and big business types are on the other. Sometimes one side wins, sometimes another side wins. But nothing ever gets built.
I'm all for funding the development of alternative energy sources, but forcing their deployment before they're viable is a mistake.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44991696
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44966233
Above ground power lines and wind farm plans have been stopped before due to it.
Is there actually a threat, or is it just that Trump needs to cite national security in order to cancel the work. In other words, its yet another blatant abuse of executive power.