The Saudis have enormous influence over Trump through business deals. So does Qatar through the jet they gifted Trump, and the UAE through crypto deals.
These oil rich countries are no fans of clean energy.
Is it merely coincidence, then, that Trump is canceling wind and solar projects in the United States?
Previously Trump also canceled the largest solar project in the United States. Known as Esmeralda 7, the project planned in the Nevada desert would have produced enough energy to power nearly two million homes.
It's actually the other way around; the Saudis are only able to sell their oil because the oil money is flowing into US treasuries and other financial instruments, and it has been like this since the 70s.
Are wind turbines remotely similar? I would have thought something mounted high up on an always-moving top would have to be smaller, lighter, and sturdier than something that sits on the ground in a controlled environment. I'm not sure the two are in competition for production.
To be fair, there could absolutely be national security issues. One example might be undersea (or even surface) navigation. If the coastline is littered with windmills off shore, this might create a negative of submarine navigation routes. That's clearly information we don't want shared with adversaries. There might be undersea classified cables. There might be classified sonar stations. It might be hard to detect adversary subs within a windmill field due to extra noise, etc.
>To be fair, there could absolutely be national security issues.
Which is precisely why US defence agencies are heavily involved in the permitting and design of these wind farms from the start, to account for these valid issues.
I looked into this a little because I was curious. I guess the ostensible "national security" rationale (which clearly is not the only reason!) for this is that turbines severely degrade the utility of radar surveillance along the coastlines.
This is particularly relevant for low-altitude incursions and drones.
Now, other large governments (UK) have resolved this in several ways, including the deployment of additional radars on and within the turbine farms themselves.
So clearly this is politically motivated, and they're using what seems to be a real but solveable concern as a scapegoat.
UK has a much smaller coastline, so it might be more cost efficient for them to install extra radars. Also I'm sure the wind turbines interfere in acoustic submarine detection due to the noise they generate.
Deployment of radars on the turbine farms themselves? I don't see how that's supposed to be a good idea. In the scenario we're talking about, war, electricity is one of the first targets. And those relatively defenseless turbines themselves are going to be targeted, and not only by air. The enemy getting to knock out military quality radar setups (which tend to be absurdly expensive), at the same time, is just icing on the cake.
This may be the major reason, but I can think of another. How will you protect far away sprawling wind fields from attacks in case of war? They can be attacked by ships, aircraft and subs. You can expect them to be taken out almost immediately imo.
Only reason is that orange mussolini does not like seeing wind turbines. That's it.
He sees them on Scotland's shores while flying to his resort - like a child he needs to have a personal vendetta on something he does not like, especially now when he has power to do it. God forbid he will need to see such monsters on God loving free country of US of A.
It's interesting that people are very incredulous of there being a legitimate defense reason for this when we have had unilateral unanswered drone incursions all over Europe and the US.
There's obviously some sort of arms race occurring and some of it is public.
The world in on the precipice of many technologies advancing at an all too rapid pace. The idea that technology will become tightly regulated isn't inconceivable.
FYI Sweden did the same thing last year. There is likely a (drone) reason, it's all but completely clear.
There's obviously transparently political antipathy from the Trump administration towards offshore wind development in the US. It's far more likely this is gross political interference by an unserious and vendetta-driven administration.
I've been wondering all year about what happens when an executive-branch office issues orders that it is not legally qualified to issue; by and large everybody has just... followed them. This may be another example (I don't know quite enough of the legal specifics in this case, though there are certainly others that are more slam-dunk-y in this respect).
What are the enforcement mechanisms here if the states in question---MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, and VA---just said "no go ahead, keep building"? What happens to the companies if they just keep building? I'm not saying they should but at this point rule-of-law has fallen apart so badly that I literally don't know what happens when the government invents a new rule and people just... disregard it. (Particularly if state-level enforcement decides not to play along.) Do they bring in the FBI? Military?
Just something to keep in mind - the actual site of these wind farms is offshore in federal waters, and construction is subject to federal (as well as state) permits.
What the... It seems we crossed into the realm of intentionally doing damage.
I'm reminded of threatening tariffs to successfully derail global carbon levy on ship emissions.
Meanwhile China runs away with all the clean energy tech (solar, wind, batteries, etc, etc.) while we hold to fossil fuels to save less than 200,000 jobs.
83 comments
[ 80.3 ms ] story [ 1208 ms ] threadThese oil rich countries are no fans of clean energy.
Is it merely coincidence, then, that Trump is canceling wind and solar projects in the United States?
Previously Trump also canceled the largest solar project in the United States. Known as Esmeralda 7, the project planned in the Nevada desert would have produced enough energy to power nearly two million homes.
Edit: Looks like they were a bit late to veto it here though.
Which is precisely why US defence agencies are heavily involved in the permitting and design of these wind farms from the start, to account for these valid issues.
This is particularly relevant for low-altitude incursions and drones.
Now, other large governments (UK) have resolved this in several ways, including the deployment of additional radars on and within the turbine farms themselves.
So clearly this is politically motivated, and they're using what seems to be a real but solveable concern as a scapegoat.
This rationale by the U.S. is total BS.
The oil price is too low. Venezuela and now this, it is all part of selling fossil fuels.
He sees them on Scotland's shores while flying to his resort - like a child he needs to have a personal vendetta on something he does not like, especially now when he has power to do it. God forbid he will need to see such monsters on God loving free country of US of A.
There's obviously some sort of arms race occurring and some of it is public.
The world in on the precipice of many technologies advancing at an all too rapid pace. The idea that technology will become tightly regulated isn't inconceivable.
FYI Sweden did the same thing last year. There is likely a (drone) reason, it's all but completely clear.
What are the enforcement mechanisms here if the states in question---MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, and VA---just said "no go ahead, keep building"? What happens to the companies if they just keep building? I'm not saying they should but at this point rule-of-law has fallen apart so badly that I literally don't know what happens when the government invents a new rule and people just... disregard it. (Particularly if state-level enforcement decides not to play along.) Do they bring in the FBI? Military?
If they ordered sloppy joes in the white house cafeteria a federal judge would stay the order by noon the next day.
Meanwhile China runs away with all the clean energy tech (solar, wind, batteries, etc, etc.) while we hold to fossil fuels to save less than 200,000 jobs.
China understands and is gunning for Nuclear and Solar. Geothermal and wind are nice but too location dependent.
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2025/02/07/half-of-global-opera...
Between MAGA blocking wind and Progressives blocking nuclear, the US is left with solar and carbon.
Solar is fine, but it needs a 24/7 base. Unfortunately it increasingly appears that base will remain carbon.