10 ms·

US attack on renewables will lead to power crunch that spikes electricity prices

236 points by rntn 1y ago

decremental 1y ago
[dead]
yathaid 1y ago
This is a feature, not a bug.
- roxolotl 1y ago
  Yea all the “this bad thing will happen” discussion misses that the intent has been plain for at least a year now. The administration has plainly said what they would do during the election and they have rather faithfully executed on that plan. This isn’t about fixing things or saving people money it’s about doing what they want to do.
  - mlinhares 1y ago
    Its about inflicting as much pain in the american public as possible because if you cause indiscriminate damage its bound to also damage their enemies. Its a death cult.
    - ambicapter 1y ago
      I don't think they think about the other side much at all. It's all about enriching themselves, end of story.
      - mlinhares 1y ago
        Nah, these people are already rich beyond imagination, they want to be venerated, they have to see their enemies crushed. Money isn't enough for them, they want praise and the peasants haven't praised and honored them enough.
  - xyzzzzzzz 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - afavour 1y ago
      “I know this will be removed” is a pretty transparent attempt to sell the real reason for downvotes (you’re talking utter nonsense) as a made up one that suits your personal narrative. Don’t be under the mistaken impression that you’re being smart here. It’s very transparent.
      - olddustytrail 1y ago
        Exactly right. HN is generally right-wing but I think it aspires to be more intelligent right-wing than dumb. Think more Bloomberg News than Fox News (or, for UK folk, more FT than DM).
- von_neumann 1y ago
  Exactly, see Enron. Once you control the production and can manipulate the price you then extract obscene profits.
jfengel 1y ago
“We will not approve wind or farmer destroying Solar,” Trump posted on Truth Social Wednesday. “The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!” It's just so self fulfilling. Someone is being very stupid. Maybe it's me. Maybe it's him. Possibly it's both of us. But there is no way out of the conclusion that the country is (at least) a near majority of very stupid people. Not merely mistaken or holding different values, but genuinely incapable of distinguishing reality from fantasy. Of course if I'm the stupid one, maybe my reasoning there is also wrong. I know I conflated individuals and groups in a less-than-rigorous fashion. But either way I feel unable to find a solution to this conundrum. Certainly I can't if I'm stupid. And if a majority of voters are stupid, then it undercuts the principle that enables us to live in the same region together. I am rapidly running out of ideas to continue that.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  I think about one third who heard what they wanted to hear in his campaign promises, one third completely against and one third who consider themselves "apolitical". With any luck the midterm elections will allow sanity to return.
  - SoftTalker 1y ago
    I think you will be disappointed but we'll see.
  - jfengel 1y ago
    As far as I can tell, those who heard what they wanted in his campaign promises are reasonably satisfied that they are getting it. There's some loss of approval as reality precludes some options, but that happens to everyone. Nor do I think the "apolitical" will become any less so. I see no reason why the midterms should give radically different results. Now, it just so happens that historically things swing a bit back at midterms, and given how close things are that's enough to sway the entire power structure. It's an unfortunate reality of voting: a one-vote margin is no different from unanimity. Even so I do not expect the overall tone to change any time soon. Those proportions seem fairly durable.
aurareturn 1y ago
I'm guessing the US/foreign oil companies paid enough bribe for Trump to do this?
- xhkkffbf 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - barbazoo 1y ago
    Interested in this. Source please as I couldn’t find anything.
  - whatisthiseven 1y ago
    This is what-aboutism and sealioning taken to a disingenious level Total world oil revenues: $4.2 trillion in 2025, market cap of $7.2 trillion in 2023 Total world solar/wind revenues: estimate $500 billion, so 1/8th. Market cap between $1.02 trillion and $1.51 trillion in 2024. Oil, gas, and coal have spent: $150 million on federal lobbying in 2024, and has consistently spent over $100 million annually since 2006. At the state level, hard to get data for. In CA alone, it was estimated $40m in 2024. For the renewables industry in 2024: $60 million in federal lobbying in 2024. That has increased over the years, unlike oil and gas. At the state level, renewables spent in CA: $4.68 million on state-level lobbying, or 1/10th. In conclusion: oil and gas have been consistently spending hundreds of millions of dollars to convince politicians alone to support their cause for years, whereas renewables has been increasing their spend and is only a fraction of it. Yes, both sides are putting money into it. No, both sides are not equal. FWIW, democrats support oil and gas just fine: under Obama oil and gas exports and refining grew to record highs, just as they did under Trump, and as they did under Biden. The US is the largest oil exporter in the world. That has happened despite the mix of politicians holding majority of SCOTUS, Congress, and President. That has happened despite the small fraction of spending from renewables. We prefer renewables because, unlike oil and gas, they aren't rejecting their role in climate impact: renewables do studies to understand them, and they are always far lower than oil and gas, an inconvenient truth the anti-renewable crowd wants to deny because they want to shout a wind turbine killing some birds is somehow equivalent to the millions of birds coal kills every year, along with the cancers it causes in humans, and the climate change, and the dirty business of mining the coal, and the water needed to cool the turbines. Yes, renewables obviously have some environmental impact. Its always less in total. We prefer renewables because they aren't profitting to TRILLIONS of dollars and poisoning political discourse to spread lies about climate change. We prefer renewables because it means less cases of asthma. It means less control over the world's stage by extractive autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Russia. It means less cancer, less pollutants, less damage overall. Less oil spills. Maybe we prefer renewables because we have a lot of reasons to prefer them, despite the relatively small amounts of cash flows desperately trying to prevent oil and gas from KILLING their industry. Which, btw, oil and gas have now successfully done. Renewables are significantly hampered under this administration.
shmerl 1y ago
Luddites having their fun. I wish them to fail soon.
- lazide 1y ago
  Eh, careful what you wish for. They’re masters at doing this sort of thing in a way that makes it everyone else’s problem too.
- softwaredoug 1y ago
  Maybe the silver lining is the US will updating its ailing nuclear infrastructure, which lags behind other countries. At least he’s talking about nuclear now and not the pipe dream of coal generation
  - warmedcookie 1y ago
    Yeah, here in TN we're getting a new type of "small" nuclear power plant by 2030, sponsored by Google / Kairos Power.
xyzzzzzzz 1y ago
[flagged]
- garciasn 1y ago
  Like any project you need both.
- softwaredoug 1y ago
  “Neat” is not how I’d describe the most successful new energy technology in the last few decades. It doesn’t need subsidies, it just needs to not be obstructed.
- rini17 1y ago
  The solar panel production is now hundreds of gigawatts of nominal capacity added every year. Batteries are not far behind, still ramping up aggressively. Good luck trying to use nuclear to catch up.
- hooverd 1y ago
  Well, they're stupid if they think attacking renewables permitting will lower energy prices. How does building less solar and wind help?
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  The US needs to increase generation by 1% p.a. to accommodate increasing A/C usage due to climate change, by 2% p.a. for AI&blockchain, by 1-2% p.a. for electric cars and other decarbonization efforts. IOW, about 50GW p.a. Or about 10-50 nuclear plants per year, starting now. Not a couple of plants 20 years from now. OTOH the world builds >1TW of solar panels every year and similar massive numbers of batteries. We have the capacity to do this with solar. We don't with nuclear, even if it was economical.
- ants_everywhere 1y ago
  This isn't about energy policy. It's about trying to find money to fund increased government spending and specifically looking for it in places his base won't object to. The long term negative impacts on energy aren't even being considered because it's a short term calculus.
jmyeet 1y ago
They are correct. You will see in the coming years that electricity across the US is going to get substantially more expensive. There are several reasons for this: 1. Data centers, primarily driven by AI. Why? Because they can (and do) negotiate deeply discounted prices AND either don't pay for the connection and required infrastructure or they only pay a portion of it. Who pays for the rest? Consumers. Who subsidizes the discounted electricity? Consumers. 2. Increased electricity use in an area tends to raise the prices for everyone. We actually saw this in the crypto mining boom (eg [1]). In short, in a region like upstate New York where it otherwise has access to cheap hydro power, the local provider will have a long term power supply contract for a certain amount of electricity. A big increase usually means they now have to buy power on the spot market, which can be much more expensive. This raises the average electricity price for everyone; 3. The administration is pushing a huge expansion in LNG exports. IIRC ~41% of US power generation comes from natural gas. A huge increase in LNG exports will inevitably cause a rise in natural gas prices for all domestic power producers. This is in part driven by the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine but natural gas suppliers have seen (and pounced upon) an opportunity to drive up the wholesale price of natural gas; 4. The dam has really broke on contraining price hikes for pure profit purposes (eg [2]). If you look at the finances of any private electricity utility, you'll see that simply increasing shareholder profits is probably the biggest single factor in electricity price hikes; 5. While all this is happening and we're not really building new power plants (at least not enough to match demand), the administration has cut off renewables, which are key to meeting demand beyond any environmental concerns (which are real and true). Power usage spikes during the day. Well guess what? That's when solar power production happens. So adding significant solar power production to your electricity mix will decrease the baseline power needed from other sources; 6. Private equity has turned its eye to the guaranteed profits of electricitiy providers [3]. This will do absolutely nothing other than raise prices; and 7. Lip service is given to nuclear but it simply isn't the answer, primarily because the lead time for building a nuclear power plant is about 10-15 years. Plus it's one of the most expensive forms of electricity (in LCOE terms) and having a company safely manage a nuclear power plant in an era where regulation is being gutted doesn't seem like a great idea. Not a single nuclear power plant has been built without government subsidy. Why not just subsidize renewables instead, particularly solar? Efforts such as small modular reactors to lower costs simply make no sense. Larger reactors are more efficient. I think by 2030 a significant portion of the population will be paying $0.50/kWh or more for residential electricity. [1]: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insight/research-summary/when-cryptomining-comes-to-town-high-electricity-use-spillovers-to-the-local-economy/ https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insight/research-summary/when-crypt... [2]: https://cleanenergy.org/news/tva-executes-the-largest-electric-rate-increase-in-more-than-a-decade-while-providing-the-least-amount-of-information-of-any-major-utility/ https://cleanenergy.org/news/tva-executes-the-largest-electr... [3]: https://jacobin.com/2025/08/private-equity-minnesota-power-takeover https://jacobin.com/2025/08/private-equity-minnesota-power-t...
colechristensen 1y ago
The reason this won't be effective is money. The more they obstruct, be more motivated people with money will be to get around the restrictions. Here greed is our friend.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > more they obstruct, be more motivated people with money will be to get around the restrictions Or you build the power plant and data centre somewhere with a stable economy. No tariffs on importing model weights.
kyrra 1y ago
[flagged]
- AtlasBarfed 1y ago
  Utility companies: We don't want to do solar or wind because it's too much of a bother to the adapter grid for it. Okay fine. We'll put it on residential solar so they don't even need the utility company most of the time Utility company: please don't allow that government
  - chermi 1y ago
    I'm pretty sure residential solar is harder for a utility to handle that commercial/utility-scale. Residential solar was a silly thing to prioritize, given the other options. I mean, it's overall good, but given the (in)competency of the utilities and the state of the grid, we'd be much better off we hadn't been idiots about nuclear for 50 years.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- olddustytrail 1y ago
  If the Sun is 100% offline then we're all dead anyway. Generally we can rely on there being a day though. Can even predict sunrise and sunset.
  - bethekidyouwant 1y ago
    When i go outside, sometimes there are clouds between the Sun and myself
    - olddustytrail 1y ago
      When I go outside on a cloudy day I can still see clearly because there's still electromagnetic radiation from the Sun reaching the Earth.
gonzo41 1y ago
Enjoy having brown outs to keep data centers running guys.
ihsw 1y ago
[dead]
picafrost 1y ago
We tried ideology driven energy policy in Europe and it hasn't gone well. We phased out nuclear power plants (because nuclear = bad) while doubling down on Russian gas dependency (because trade = peace). Clearly this has gone poorly and it will take Europe a decade to strengthen its energy sovereignty again. There are good reasons to question renewable energy: the cost picture doesn't make sense right now, it has intermittency problems, etc. But killing renewable projects because, uh, farming or whatever?, particularly at a time when the demand for energy is growing faster than ever, seems short sighted at best.
- HPsquared 1y ago
  Still, farming is pretty important and we must strike a balance.
  - dalyons 1y ago
    The US grows more acres of corn just for ethanol than the number of acres needed to go 100% solar. We would have _more_ useful farmland if we switched.
    - HPsquared 1y ago
      100% solar on electricity, or all energy usage including vehicles? Vehicles use a lot of energy.
      - dalyons 1y ago
        all energy including vehicles. The US grows an unfathomable amount of ethanol corn, ~ 30 million acres. Its insanity, its an incredibly inefficient way to get energy.
      - xbmcuser 1y ago
        If all vehicles in the US were electric US total Electricity demand would rise from about 4,000 TWh to only 4,800 TWh. That’s it. And this is exactly why the U.S. risks losing both the trade war and the AI race to China. China is going all-in on electrification, and that alone gives it a massive efficiency edge. Layer on top the fact that renewables and batteries keep getting cheaper every year, and the advantage compounds exponentially. Take heavy equipment as an example: a Caterpillar machine might cost $10 million, while the Chinese electric equivalent is just one-fifth the price and burns only a third of the energy. That’s already nearly half the cost compared to diesel or gas-powered machines before you even count lower maintenance and fuel savings. The math is simple: electric wins. And renewable compound the victory
TrackerFF 1y ago
I'm all for nuclear power, but those project take years. Even the small modular ones, even if fast tracked. I think it is a misstep to simply cancel current projects, and hope (?) that nuclear will pull it all. Even if it does so, you'll have a big gap in where demand could outpace supply.
- HarHarVeryFunny 1y ago
  Exactly - electricity demand is surging NOW due to datacenter/AI use, and all signs are that this increased demand will continue to grow. Nuclear is a decent option, but it takes years to bring new capacity online. There's nothing wrong with investing in nuclear that'll come online in 5+ years time, but at the same time the government should also be green lighting all projects capable of adding capacity more quickly.
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  > Even the small modular ones, even if fast tracked. Of which none exists in the west. I love how suddenly we will achieve scale without the middle step of... building hundreds of prototypes to scale up the industry. Everyone talks like it is already done.
elzbardico 1y ago
Intermittent renewables are what is making the grid less reliable and energy more expensive. A truly Orwellian article this piece from cnbc
- jeffbee 1y ago
  Renewables are the only reason the lights are regularly on in California. Go look at the timeline of large-scale blackouts in California, then compare with the buildout of solar and storage.
  - elzbardico 1y ago
    No. The reason lights are on in california is because california imports massive amounts of firm power from other states. Intermitent renewables are a terrible investment, because you need to back up every single GW with dispatchable sources like gas generation. Battery storage is a joke and will probably never be economical. Every single place in earth that went all in in solar and wind is now paying the price of their eletrical engineering ignorance in absurdly expensive bills and low reliability.
cbradford 1y ago
Just look at the title.. "Solar executives warn..". Of course they do, their business model is government subsidy. I live in a blue state that has decided to bet on renewables and our electricity rates are skyrocketing. If solar was viable, it would not require forcing tax payers to fund these businesses.
- olddustytrail 1y ago
  It doesn't. Solar is ridiculously cheap and requires no subsidy at all to be profitable. If this is happening (which frankly I doubt) it's just corruption.
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    If this were true, then wouldn’t every electricity supplier be building tons of solar, regardless of what the government does?
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > wouldn’t every electricity supplier be building tons of solar, regardless of what the government does? They are. And it’s undercutting the owners of pricier plants. Hence Trump using environmental regulation to block more solar.
      - lotsofpulp 1y ago
        Land of the free, home of the brave gets funnier and funnier.
    - softwaredoug 1y ago
      93% of new energy generation is renewable. Nobody wants a new coal or nuclear plant in their back yard. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/12/nx-s1-5319056/trump-clean-energy-electricity-climate-change#:~:text=The%20buildout%20of%20big%20solar,93%25%2C%20the%20EIA%20said. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/12/nx-s1-5319056/trump-clean-ene...
    - 1y ago
softwaredoug 1y ago
So just for context about 10% of solar in the US depends on NEPA approval [1] Then 4% relies on Federal lands [2] 1 -https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/how-long-does-it-take-national-environmental-policy-act-timelines-and-outcomes-for-clean-energy-projects/ https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/how-long-does-it-ta... 2 - https://www.nrel.gov/news/detail/program/2025/vast-federal-lands-have-potential-for-renewable-energy-but-only-a-small-fraction-is-needed https://www.nrel.gov/news/detail/program/2025/vast-federal-l...
chermi 1y ago
My optimistic take is that the left takes this + the slight momentum from books/ideas like Abundance and coalesce into a pro-build anti red-tape yimby party. That's very optimistic. And yeah, I see how this comment is kind of the equivalent of bringing up Obama or Hillary or something when it's about Trump's bullshit. To be very clear, I hate any efforts to impede energy build out.
declan_roberts 1y ago
CPI energy prices have risen for the last 10 years steadily, and is now going parabolic. Maybe some forms of green energy have helped in some areas and times of day, but they have done nothing to stop the climb. It's time to try something other than solar and wind, which are demonstrably not lowering energy prices, and may be making it worse (TOU energy plans are becoming the norm because of the broken duty cycle of solar)
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  The price of a commodity is the marginal cost. The marginal electricity provider in the US is natgas.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > CPI energy prices What does this mean? > solar and wind, which are demonstrably not lowering energy prices Why would the government intervening to ban supply make things better? This policy is a hand-out to power producers. It constricts supply. It’s Trump copying San Francisco and Los Angeles housing policymakers, except for energy.
- softwaredoug 1y ago
  If you want to lower costs, why would you prevent the easiest to deploy form of supply? Why would you prevent the market from meeting the demand? This isn’t about subsidies, it’s about standing in the way of the free market. And why do you think cost relates to a form of supply? It seems more likely that demand is also much higher (data centers, more air conditioning, etc).
- wat10000 1y ago
  Why put the blame on renewables instead of on fossil fuels, which have been the majority for that entire time?
  - wat9999 1y ago
    > Why put the blame on renewables instead of on fossil fuels, which have been the majority for that entire time? I can't even begin to understand your logic here.
softwaredoug 1y ago
A lot of people on this thread don’t seem to realize that solar and wind now work fine without government subsidies. The Biden-era subsidies have been about accelerating decarbonization, not about propping up the market. If you let the market choose, it would choose a lot of wind and solar. > Despite facing macro challenges and headwinds, utility-scale solar and onshore wind remain the most cost-effective forms of new-build energy generation on an unsubsidized basis (i.e., without tax subsidies). So the admin just needs to get out of the alway and let the market solve this problem. Not try to centrally manage the economy like the Soviet Union. 1 - https://www.lazard.com/news-announcements/lazard-releases-2025-levelized-cost-of-energyplus-report-pr/ https://www.lazard.com/news-announcements/lazard-releases-20...
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > lot of people on this thread don’t seem to realize that solar and wind now work fine without government subsidies This isn’t about subsidies. Orsted, for example, is being blocked on national security grounds using environmental regulation [1]. Power producers are in on a fix. [1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-orders-orsted-halt-offshore-wind-project-deepening-industry-woes-2025-08-22/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-orders-orsted-ha...
  - softwaredoug 1y ago
    Yes it’s about naked obstructionism now. Which is horrible for the US economy as it insulates our companies from market pressure, preventing them from adapting.
    - delusional 1y ago
      It's also quite bad for US "allies". My country, Denmark, is (in my own opinion, this hasn't been discussed by the media yet) going to have to bail out Orsted.
  - Spivak 1y ago
    Ah yes Republicans, the party of strong environmental regulations and impeding business. "You betrayed everything you believe in, and for what?" "To own the libs."
mensetmanusman 1y ago
Lots of states are still supporting renewables, that’s the great thing about a republic.
- softwaredoug 1y ago
  Exactly. Solar / wind on land, on private property rarely needs Federal approval Even stats I find are from a friendlier permitting regime. And now I bet all the money will be poured into projects not needing federal approval. And we might hope something good comes out of the nuclear this admin wants to build. The US has a lot of room for approval there.
losvedir 1y ago
It frustrates me that neither party is about energy abundance. The Democrats have clamped down on coal, fracking, nuclear for various largely climate reasons. And now the republicans want to reverse it and restrict renewables mostly in a "turnabout is fair play" kind of way. I wish the current administration had just cut regulations and enabled more fracking or whatever and left it at that. Taking the environmental hit for lower energy costs is understandable at least, even if those who are more financially stable would prefer not to. But whatever this is makes no sense and is just puerile revenge.
ruined 1y ago
conversely, china has installed more solar than the US has in total capacity - every year for the past several years https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/07/10/1119941/china-energy-dominance-three-charts/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/07/10/1119941/china-en... https://apnews.com/article/china-climate-solar-wind-carbon-emissions-ab119c39f226cfbeb2f5c1449747cae9 https://apnews.com/article/china-climate-solar-wind-carbon-e... https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65064 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65064
- linotype 1y ago
  Amazing what you can do when you don’t have elections. Edit: I’m 100% for renewables. Unfortunately half my country is against them and they won last time.
  - softwaredoug 1y ago
    Solar and Wind are some of the most popular forms of energy generation https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2025/06/05/americans-views-on-energy-at-the-start-of-trumps-second-term/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2025/06/05/americans-vie...
    - Kye 1y ago
      Representative democracy in name only, for it is neither.
  - ruined 1y ago
    the central committee is actually trying to slow it down https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/07/07/china-moves-to-curb-solar-overcapacity-stabilize-pricing/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/07/07/china-moves-to-curb-s...
  - ZeroGravitas 1y ago
    Climate action and renewables has always been very popular with voters. Since political action has consistently lagged popular support I'd suggest that you'd need to look outside elections to see what is holding the west back on this.
bArray 1y ago
In the UK the push towards renewable energy has so far been disastrous for energy prices and stability. There have been days in the UK where the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, and we came extremely close to blackouts [0]. We were forced to buy energy for eye watering prices. After the initial shock from the Russia-Ukraine conflict gas prices moved slightly, but electricity prices are not really recovering well and are projected to rise [1] [2]. According to government figures, 11% of electricity costs goes toward green initiatives, and 5% to VAT, which is also earmarked for green initiatives. The government has promised that as we become greener, we should see the prices come down, but the opposite has been true [3]. The green energy sector is currently largely subsidised by fossil fuels, as we transition more and more to green energy, the true costs are realised. Our Energy Secretary (failed prime minister candidate) says: > Responding to the 6% price cap rise, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said it was due to "our reliance on the fossil fuel markets" and added: "We're acting to bring down bills for everyone with our mission for clean, home-grown power that we control." The irony is that we don't make our own wind turbines or solar panels, so our grid is still precariously dependant on foreign actors. We're breaking away from the likes of Russia to become dependant on China - great. Bare in mind, all of this effort for the UK which produces less than 1% of global emissions, but outsources its manufacturing to Countries such as China that have not even started to attempt to reduce their emissions (recent drops are due to economic collapse). [0] https://watt-logic.com/2025/01/09/blackouts-near-miss-in-tighest-day-in-gb-electricity-market-since-2011/ https://watt-logic.com/2025/01/09/blackouts-near-miss-in-tig... [1] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9714/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-... [2] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9491/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-... [3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkep1vx3mro https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkep1vx3mro
- ajoseps 1y ago
  One difference with renewables and traditional fuel sources is that once renewable infrastructure is built you don’t need to continually import from another country. Maintenance is definitely an issue and on going expansion and upgrades as well. I do think long term renewables wouldn’t have the same issues as oil dependency on another country though. The UK does still need to build more on shore nevertheless.
euroderf 1y ago
1) Elect stooge 2) Sabotage 3) PROFIT!
more_corn 1y ago
Idiots who ignore evidence cause avoidable harm to selves and others. Again.
duxup 1y ago
The scale of stupid and unnecessary from this administration is bizarre. President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho was smart enough to rely on people smarter than him. But Trump and Co just aren't that smart...
owenversteeg 1y ago
It's amazing how out of nearly 300 comments here, only one person mentioned how the article is bullshit - Trump can't do much because the overwhelming majority of solar does not rely on federal approval.

236 points by rntn 1y ago

decremental 1y ago

[dead]

yathaid 1y ago

This is a feature, not a bug.

roxolotl 1y ago
Yea all the “this bad thing will happen” discussion misses that the intent has been plain for at least a year now. The administration has plainly said what they would do during the election and they have rather faithfully executed on that plan. This isn’t about fixing things or saving people money it’s about doing what they want to do.
- mlinhares 1y ago
  Its about inflicting as much pain in the american public as possible because if you cause indiscriminate damage its bound to also damage their enemies. Its a death cult.
  - ambicapter 1y ago
    I don't think they think about the other side much at all. It's all about enriching themselves, end of story.
    - mlinhares 1y ago
      Nah, these people are already rich beyond imagination, they want to be venerated, they have to see their enemies crushed. Money isn't enough for them, they want praise and the peasants haven't praised and honored them enough.
- xyzzzzzzz 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - afavour 1y ago
    “I know this will be removed” is a pretty transparent attempt to sell the real reason for downvotes (you’re talking utter nonsense) as a made up one that suits your personal narrative. Don’t be under the mistaken impression that you’re being smart here. It’s very transparent.
    - olddustytrail 1y ago
      Exactly right. HN is generally right-wing but I think it aspires to be more intelligent right-wing than dumb. Think more Bloomberg News than Fox News (or, for UK folk, more FT than DM).
von_neumann 1y ago
Exactly, see Enron. Once you control the production and can manipulate the price you then extract obscene profits.

jfengel 1y ago

“We will not approve wind or farmer destroying Solar,” Trump posted on Truth Social Wednesday. “The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!” It's just so self fulfilling. Someone is being very stupid. Maybe it's me. Maybe it's him. Possibly it's both of us. But there is no way out of the conclusion that the country is (at least) a near majority of very stupid people. Not merely mistaken or holding different values, but genuinely incapable of distinguishing reality from fantasy. Of course if I'm the stupid one, maybe my reasoning there is also wrong. I know I conflated individuals and groups in a less-than-rigorous fashion. But either way I feel unable to find a solution to this conundrum. Certainly I can't if I'm stupid. And if a majority of voters are stupid, then it undercuts the principle that enables us to live in the same region together. I am rapidly running out of ideas to continue that.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
amanaplanacanal 1y ago
I think about one third who heard what they wanted to hear in his campaign promises, one third completely against and one third who consider themselves "apolitical". With any luck the midterm elections will allow sanity to return.
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  I think you will be disappointed but we'll see.
- jfengel 1y ago
  As far as I can tell, those who heard what they wanted in his campaign promises are reasonably satisfied that they are getting it. There's some loss of approval as reality precludes some options, but that happens to everyone. Nor do I think the "apolitical" will become any less so. I see no reason why the midterms should give radically different results. Now, it just so happens that historically things swing a bit back at midterms, and given how close things are that's enough to sway the entire power structure. It's an unfortunate reality of voting: a one-vote margin is no different from unanimity. Even so I do not expect the overall tone to change any time soon. Those proportions seem fairly durable.

aurareturn 1y ago

I'm guessing the US/foreign oil companies paid enough bribe for Trump to do this?

xhkkffbf 1y ago
[flagged]
- barbazoo 1y ago
  Interested in this. Source please as I couldn’t find anything.
- whatisthiseven 1y ago
  This is what-aboutism and sealioning taken to a disingenious level Total world oil revenues: $4.2 trillion in 2025, market cap of $7.2 trillion in 2023 Total world solar/wind revenues: estimate $500 billion, so 1/8th. Market cap between $1.02 trillion and $1.51 trillion in 2024. Oil, gas, and coal have spent: $150 million on federal lobbying in 2024, and has consistently spent over $100 million annually since 2006. At the state level, hard to get data for. In CA alone, it was estimated $40m in 2024. For the renewables industry in 2024: $60 million in federal lobbying in 2024. That has increased over the years, unlike oil and gas. At the state level, renewables spent in CA: $4.68 million on state-level lobbying, or 1/10th. In conclusion: oil and gas have been consistently spending hundreds of millions of dollars to convince politicians alone to support their cause for years, whereas renewables has been increasing their spend and is only a fraction of it. Yes, both sides are putting money into it. No, both sides are not equal. FWIW, democrats support oil and gas just fine: under Obama oil and gas exports and refining grew to record highs, just as they did under Trump, and as they did under Biden. The US is the largest oil exporter in the world. That has happened despite the mix of politicians holding majority of SCOTUS, Congress, and President. That has happened despite the small fraction of spending from renewables. We prefer renewables because, unlike oil and gas, they aren't rejecting their role in climate impact: renewables do studies to understand them, and they are always far lower than oil and gas, an inconvenient truth the anti-renewable crowd wants to deny because they want to shout a wind turbine killing some birds is somehow equivalent to the millions of birds coal kills every year, along with the cancers it causes in humans, and the climate change, and the dirty business of mining the coal, and the water needed to cool the turbines. Yes, renewables obviously have some environmental impact. Its always less in total. We prefer renewables because they aren't profitting to TRILLIONS of dollars and poisoning political discourse to spread lies about climate change. We prefer renewables because it means less cases of asthma. It means less control over the world's stage by extractive autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Russia. It means less cancer, less pollutants, less damage overall. Less oil spills. Maybe we prefer renewables because we have a lot of reasons to prefer them, despite the relatively small amounts of cash flows desperately trying to prevent oil and gas from KILLING their industry. Which, btw, oil and gas have now successfully done. Renewables are significantly hampered under this administration.

shmerl 1y ago

Luddites having their fun. I wish them to fail soon.

lazide 1y ago
Eh, careful what you wish for. They’re masters at doing this sort of thing in a way that makes it everyone else’s problem too.
softwaredoug 1y ago
Maybe the silver lining is the US will updating its ailing nuclear infrastructure, which lags behind other countries. At least he’s talking about nuclear now and not the pipe dream of coal generation
- warmedcookie 1y ago
  Yeah, here in TN we're getting a new type of "small" nuclear power plant by 2030, sponsored by Google / Kairos Power.

xyzzzzzzz 1y ago

[flagged]

garciasn 1y ago
Like any project you need both.
softwaredoug 1y ago
“Neat” is not how I’d describe the most successful new energy technology in the last few decades. It doesn’t need subsidies, it just needs to not be obstructed.
rini17 1y ago
The solar panel production is now hundreds of gigawatts of nominal capacity added every year. Batteries are not far behind, still ramping up aggressively. Good luck trying to use nuclear to catch up.
hooverd 1y ago
Well, they're stupid if they think attacking renewables permitting will lower energy prices. How does building less solar and wind help?
bryanlarsen 1y ago
The US needs to increase generation by 1% p.a. to accommodate increasing A/C usage due to climate change, by 2% p.a. for AI&blockchain, by 1-2% p.a. for electric cars and other decarbonization efforts. IOW, about 50GW p.a. Or about 10-50 nuclear plants per year, starting now. Not a couple of plants 20 years from now. OTOH the world builds >1TW of solar panels every year and similar massive numbers of batteries. We have the capacity to do this with solar. We don't with nuclear, even if it was economical.
ants_everywhere 1y ago
This isn't about energy policy. It's about trying to find money to fund increased government spending and specifically looking for it in places his base won't object to. The long term negative impacts on energy aren't even being considered because it's a short term calculus.

jmyeet 1y ago

They are correct. You will see in the coming years that electricity across the US is going to get substantially more expensive. There are several reasons for this: 1. Data centers, primarily driven by AI. Why? Because they can (and do) negotiate deeply discounted prices AND either don't pay for the connection and required infrastructure or they only pay a portion of it. Who pays for the rest? Consumers. Who subsidizes the discounted electricity? Consumers. 2. Increased electricity use in an area tends to raise the prices for everyone. We actually saw this in the crypto mining boom (eg [1]). In short, in a region like upstate New York where it otherwise has access to cheap hydro power, the local provider will have a long term power supply contract for a certain amount of electricity. A big increase usually means they now have to buy power on the spot market, which can be much more expensive. This raises the average electricity price for everyone; 3. The administration is pushing a huge expansion in LNG exports. IIRC ~41% of US power generation comes from natural gas. A huge increase in LNG exports will inevitably cause a rise in natural gas prices for all domestic power producers. This is in part driven by the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine but natural gas suppliers have seen (and pounced upon) an opportunity to drive up the wholesale price of natural gas; 4. The dam has really broke on contraining price hikes for pure profit purposes (eg [2]). If you look at the finances of any private electricity utility, you'll see that simply increasing shareholder profits is probably the biggest single factor in electricity price hikes; 5. While all this is happening and we're not really building new power plants (at least not enough to match demand), the administration has cut off renewables, which are key to meeting demand beyond any environmental concerns (which are real and true). Power usage spikes during the day. Well guess what? That's when solar power production happens. So adding significant solar power production to your electricity mix will decrease the baseline power needed from other sources; 6. Private equity has turned its eye to the guaranteed profits of electricitiy providers [3]. This will do absolutely nothing other than raise prices; and 7. Lip service is given to nuclear but it simply isn't the answer, primarily because the lead time for building a nuclear power plant is about 10-15 years. Plus it's one of the most expensive forms of electricity (in LCOE terms) and having a company safely manage a nuclear power plant in an era where regulation is being gutted doesn't seem like a great idea. Not a single nuclear power plant has been built without government subsidy. Why not just subsidize renewables instead, particularly solar? Efforts such as small modular reactors to lower costs simply make no sense. Larger reactors are more efficient. I think by 2030 a significant portion of the population will be paying $0.50/kWh or more for residential electricity. [1]: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insight/research-summary/when-cryptomining-comes-to-town-high-electricity-use-spillovers-to-the-local-economy/ https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insight/research-summary/when-crypt... [2]: https://cleanenergy.org/news/tva-executes-the-largest-electric-rate-increase-in-more-than-a-decade-while-providing-the-least-amount-of-information-of-any-major-utility/ https://cleanenergy.org/news/tva-executes-the-largest-electr... [3]: https://jacobin.com/2025/08/private-equity-minnesota-power-takeover https://jacobin.com/2025/08/private-equity-minnesota-power-t...

colechristensen 1y ago

The reason this won't be effective is money. The more they obstruct, be more motivated people with money will be to get around the restrictions. Here greed is our friend.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> more they obstruct, be more motivated people with money will be to get around the restrictions Or you build the power plant and data centre somewhere with a stable economy. No tariffs on importing model weights.

kyrra 1y ago

[flagged]

AtlasBarfed 1y ago
Utility companies: We don't want to do solar or wind because it's too much of a bother to the adapter grid for it. Okay fine. We'll put it on residential solar so they don't even need the utility company most of the time Utility company: please don't allow that government
- chermi 1y ago
  I'm pretty sure residential solar is harder for a utility to handle that commercial/utility-scale. Residential solar was a silly thing to prioritize, given the other options. I mean, it's overall good, but given the (in)competency of the utilities and the state of the grid, we'd be much better off we hadn't been idiots about nuclear for 50 years.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
olddustytrail 1y ago
If the Sun is 100% offline then we're all dead anyway. Generally we can rely on there being a day though. Can even predict sunrise and sunset.
- bethekidyouwant 1y ago
  When i go outside, sometimes there are clouds between the Sun and myself
  - olddustytrail 1y ago
    When I go outside on a cloudy day I can still see clearly because there's still electromagnetic radiation from the Sun reaching the Earth.

gonzo41 1y ago

Enjoy having brown outs to keep data centers running guys.

ihsw 1y ago

[dead]

picafrost 1y ago

We tried ideology driven energy policy in Europe and it hasn't gone well. We phased out nuclear power plants (because nuclear = bad) while doubling down on Russian gas dependency (because trade = peace). Clearly this has gone poorly and it will take Europe a decade to strengthen its energy sovereignty again. There are good reasons to question renewable energy: the cost picture doesn't make sense right now, it has intermittency problems, etc. But killing renewable projects because, uh, farming or whatever?, particularly at a time when the demand for energy is growing faster than ever, seems short sighted at best.

HPsquared 1y ago
Still, farming is pretty important and we must strike a balance.
- dalyons 1y ago
  The US grows more acres of corn just for ethanol than the number of acres needed to go 100% solar. We would have _more_ useful farmland if we switched.
  - HPsquared 1y ago
    100% solar on electricity, or all energy usage including vehicles? Vehicles use a lot of energy.
    - dalyons 1y ago
      all energy including vehicles. The US grows an unfathomable amount of ethanol corn, ~ 30 million acres. Its insanity, its an incredibly inefficient way to get energy.
    - xbmcuser 1y ago
      If all vehicles in the US were electric US total Electricity demand would rise from about 4,000 TWh to only 4,800 TWh. That’s it. And this is exactly why the U.S. risks losing both the trade war and the AI race to China. China is going all-in on electrification, and that alone gives it a massive efficiency edge. Layer on top the fact that renewables and batteries keep getting cheaper every year, and the advantage compounds exponentially. Take heavy equipment as an example: a Caterpillar machine might cost $10 million, while the Chinese electric equivalent is just one-fifth the price and burns only a third of the energy. That’s already nearly half the cost compared to diesel or gas-powered machines before you even count lower maintenance and fuel savings. The math is simple: electric wins. And renewable compound the victory

TrackerFF 1y ago

I'm all for nuclear power, but those project take years. Even the small modular ones, even if fast tracked. I think it is a misstep to simply cancel current projects, and hope (?) that nuclear will pull it all. Even if it does so, you'll have a big gap in where demand could outpace supply.

HarHarVeryFunny 1y ago
Exactly - electricity demand is surging NOW due to datacenter/AI use, and all signs are that this increased demand will continue to grow. Nuclear is a decent option, but it takes years to bring new capacity online. There's nothing wrong with investing in nuclear that'll come online in 5+ years time, but at the same time the government should also be green lighting all projects capable of adding capacity more quickly.
ViewTrick1002 1y ago
> Even the small modular ones, even if fast tracked. Of which none exists in the west. I love how suddenly we will achieve scale without the middle step of... building hundreds of prototypes to scale up the industry. Everyone talks like it is already done.

elzbardico 1y ago

Intermittent renewables are what is making the grid less reliable and energy more expensive. A truly Orwellian article this piece from cnbc

jeffbee 1y ago
Renewables are the only reason the lights are regularly on in California. Go look at the timeline of large-scale blackouts in California, then compare with the buildout of solar and storage.
- elzbardico 1y ago
  No. The reason lights are on in california is because california imports massive amounts of firm power from other states. Intermitent renewables are a terrible investment, because you need to back up every single GW with dispatchable sources like gas generation. Battery storage is a joke and will probably never be economical. Every single place in earth that went all in in solar and wind is now paying the price of their eletrical engineering ignorance in absurdly expensive bills and low reliability.

cbradford 1y ago

Just look at the title.. "Solar executives warn..". Of course they do, their business model is government subsidy. I live in a blue state that has decided to bet on renewables and our electricity rates are skyrocketing. If solar was viable, it would not require forcing tax payers to fund these businesses.

olddustytrail 1y ago
It doesn't. Solar is ridiculously cheap and requires no subsidy at all to be profitable. If this is happening (which frankly I doubt) it's just corruption.
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  If this were true, then wouldn’t every electricity supplier be building tons of solar, regardless of what the government does?
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > wouldn’t every electricity supplier be building tons of solar, regardless of what the government does? They are. And it’s undercutting the owners of pricier plants. Hence Trump using environmental regulation to block more solar.
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      Land of the free, home of the brave gets funnier and funnier.
  - softwaredoug 1y ago
    93% of new energy generation is renewable. Nobody wants a new coal or nuclear plant in their back yard. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/12/nx-s1-5319056/trump-clean-energy-electricity-climate-change#:~:text=The%20buildout%20of%20big%20solar,93%25%2C%20the%20EIA%20said. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/12/nx-s1-5319056/trump-clean-ene...
  - 1y ago

softwaredoug 1y ago

So just for context about 10% of solar in the US depends on NEPA approval [1] Then 4% relies on Federal lands [2] 1 -https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/how-long-does-it-take-national-environmental-policy-act-timelines-and-outcomes-for-clean-energy-projects/ https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/how-long-does-it-ta... 2 - https://www.nrel.gov/news/detail/program/2025/vast-federal-lands-have-potential-for-renewable-energy-but-only-a-small-fraction-is-needed https://www.nrel.gov/news/detail/program/2025/vast-federal-l...

chermi 1y ago

My optimistic take is that the left takes this + the slight momentum from books/ideas like Abundance and coalesce into a pro-build anti red-tape yimby party. That's very optimistic. And yeah, I see how this comment is kind of the equivalent of bringing up Obama or Hillary or something when it's about Trump's bullshit. To be very clear, I hate any efforts to impede energy build out.

declan_roberts 1y ago

CPI energy prices have risen for the last 10 years steadily, and is now going parabolic. Maybe some forms of green energy have helped in some areas and times of day, but they have done nothing to stop the climb. It's time to try something other than solar and wind, which are demonstrably not lowering energy prices, and may be making it worse (TOU energy plans are becoming the norm because of the broken duty cycle of solar)

bryanlarsen 1y ago
The price of a commodity is the marginal cost. The marginal electricity provider in the US is natgas.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> CPI energy prices What does this mean? > solar and wind, which are demonstrably not lowering energy prices Why would the government intervening to ban supply make things better? This policy is a hand-out to power producers. It constricts supply. It’s Trump copying San Francisco and Los Angeles housing policymakers, except for energy.
softwaredoug 1y ago
If you want to lower costs, why would you prevent the easiest to deploy form of supply? Why would you prevent the market from meeting the demand? This isn’t about subsidies, it’s about standing in the way of the free market. And why do you think cost relates to a form of supply? It seems more likely that demand is also much higher (data centers, more air conditioning, etc).
wat10000 1y ago
Why put the blame on renewables instead of on fossil fuels, which have been the majority for that entire time?
- wat9999 1y ago
  > Why put the blame on renewables instead of on fossil fuels, which have been the majority for that entire time? I can't even begin to understand your logic here.

softwaredoug 1y ago

A lot of people on this thread don’t seem to realize that solar and wind now work fine without government subsidies. The Biden-era subsidies have been about accelerating decarbonization, not about propping up the market. If you let the market choose, it would choose a lot of wind and solar. > Despite facing macro challenges and headwinds, utility-scale solar and onshore wind remain the most cost-effective forms of new-build energy generation on an unsubsidized basis (i.e., without tax subsidies). So the admin just needs to get out of the alway and let the market solve this problem. Not try to centrally manage the economy like the Soviet Union. 1 - https://www.lazard.com/news-announcements/lazard-releases-2025-levelized-cost-of-energyplus-report-pr/ https://www.lazard.com/news-announcements/lazard-releases-20...

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> lot of people on this thread don’t seem to realize that solar and wind now work fine without government subsidies This isn’t about subsidies. Orsted, for example, is being blocked on national security grounds using environmental regulation [1]. Power producers are in on a fix. [1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-orders-orsted-halt-offshore-wind-project-deepening-industry-woes-2025-08-22/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-orders-orsted-ha...
- softwaredoug 1y ago
  Yes it’s about naked obstructionism now. Which is horrible for the US economy as it insulates our companies from market pressure, preventing them from adapting.
  - delusional 1y ago
    It's also quite bad for US "allies". My country, Denmark, is (in my own opinion, this hasn't been discussed by the media yet) going to have to bail out Orsted.
- Spivak 1y ago
  Ah yes Republicans, the party of strong environmental regulations and impeding business. "You betrayed everything you believe in, and for what?" "To own the libs."

mensetmanusman 1y ago

Lots of states are still supporting renewables, that’s the great thing about a republic.

softwaredoug 1y ago
Exactly. Solar / wind on land, on private property rarely needs Federal approval Even stats I find are from a friendlier permitting regime. And now I bet all the money will be poured into projects not needing federal approval. And we might hope something good comes out of the nuclear this admin wants to build. The US has a lot of room for approval there.

losvedir 1y ago

It frustrates me that neither party is about energy abundance. The Democrats have clamped down on coal, fracking, nuclear for various largely climate reasons. And now the republicans want to reverse it and restrict renewables mostly in a "turnabout is fair play" kind of way. I wish the current administration had just cut regulations and enabled more fracking or whatever and left it at that. Taking the environmental hit for lower energy costs is understandable at least, even if those who are more financially stable would prefer not to. But whatever this is makes no sense and is just puerile revenge.

ruined 1y ago

conversely, china has installed more solar than the US has in total capacity - every year for the past several years https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/07/10/1119941/china-energy-dominance-three-charts/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/07/10/1119941/china-en... https://apnews.com/article/china-climate-solar-wind-carbon-emissions-ab119c39f226cfbeb2f5c1449747cae9 https://apnews.com/article/china-climate-solar-wind-carbon-e... https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65064 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65064

linotype 1y ago
Amazing what you can do when you don’t have elections. Edit: I’m 100% for renewables. Unfortunately half my country is against them and they won last time.
- softwaredoug 1y ago
  Solar and Wind are some of the most popular forms of energy generation https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2025/06/05/americans-views-on-energy-at-the-start-of-trumps-second-term/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2025/06/05/americans-vie...
  - Kye 1y ago
    Representative democracy in name only, for it is neither.
- ruined 1y ago
  the central committee is actually trying to slow it down https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/07/07/china-moves-to-curb-solar-overcapacity-stabilize-pricing/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/07/07/china-moves-to-curb-s...
- ZeroGravitas 1y ago
  Climate action and renewables has always been very popular with voters. Since political action has consistently lagged popular support I'd suggest that you'd need to look outside elections to see what is holding the west back on this.

bArray 1y ago

In the UK the push towards renewable energy has so far been disastrous for energy prices and stability. There have been days in the UK where the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, and we came extremely close to blackouts [0]. We were forced to buy energy for eye watering prices. After the initial shock from the Russia-Ukraine conflict gas prices moved slightly, but electricity prices are not really recovering well and are projected to rise [1] [2]. According to government figures, 11% of electricity costs goes toward green initiatives, and 5% to VAT, which is also earmarked for green initiatives. The government has promised that as we become greener, we should see the prices come down, but the opposite has been true [3]. The green energy sector is currently largely subsidised by fossil fuels, as we transition more and more to green energy, the true costs are realised. Our Energy Secretary (failed prime minister candidate) says: > Responding to the 6% price cap rise, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said it was due to "our reliance on the fossil fuel markets" and added: "We're acting to bring down bills for everyone with our mission for clean, home-grown power that we control." The irony is that we don't make our own wind turbines or solar panels, so our grid is still precariously dependant on foreign actors. We're breaking away from the likes of Russia to become dependant on China - great. Bare in mind, all of this effort for the UK which produces less than 1% of global emissions, but outsources its manufacturing to Countries such as China that have not even started to attempt to reduce their emissions (recent drops are due to economic collapse). [0] https://watt-logic.com/2025/01/09/blackouts-near-miss-in-tighest-day-in-gb-electricity-market-since-2011/ https://watt-logic.com/2025/01/09/blackouts-near-miss-in-tig... [1] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9714/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-... [2] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9491/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-... [3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkep1vx3mro https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkep1vx3mro

ajoseps 1y ago
One difference with renewables and traditional fuel sources is that once renewable infrastructure is built you don’t need to continually import from another country. Maintenance is definitely an issue and on going expansion and upgrades as well. I do think long term renewables wouldn’t have the same issues as oil dependency on another country though. The UK does still need to build more on shore nevertheless.

euroderf 1y ago

1) Elect stooge 2) Sabotage 3) PROFIT!

more_corn 1y ago

Idiots who ignore evidence cause avoidable harm to selves and others. Again.

duxup 1y ago

The scale of stupid and unnecessary from this administration is bizarre. President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho was smart enough to rely on people smarter than him. But Trump and Co just aren't that smart...

owenversteeg 1y ago

It's amazing how out of nearly 300 comments here, only one person mentioned how the article is bullshit - Trump can't do much because the overwhelming majority of solar does not rely on federal approval.