3 ms·

So TotalEnergies agreed to invest 1 billion is offshore wind during thr last Administration. The current Administration doesn't want any investment in renewable

So TotalEnergies agreed to invest 1 billion is offshore wind during thr last Administration. The current Administration doesn't want any investment in renewables so they attempted to block it. A judge said the attempted block was unlawful. So then immediately the admin said something new and that instead there were "national security concerns" with building wind plants - (Which doesn't pass the smell test to me at all) and the project would be held up while untangling those. My assumption is the company started getting upset at being toyed around and having their 1 billion investment completely stalled for so long. So the admin said we'll kill the wind if you do our fossil fuels instead. So shift your investment away from wind (we kill it and pay you back for what you investws) if you instead do fossil fuels. And that's what's being done. So previously the company was spending 1billion on wind and getting some subsidies. Now they spend 2 billion, and get paid 1 billion from the tax payer. For them it's at best a wash, though likely a loss since I haven't heard they get subsidies with the fossil fules. And the tax payer instead of paying for tax credits or low interest loans or other subsidies that were part of wind power portion of the Inflation Reduction Act instead pay a full 1 billion dollars to the company. > The Trump administration will pay $1 billion to a French company to walk away from two U.S. offshore wind leases as the administration ramps up its campaign against offshore wind and other renewable energy. 1. https://apnews.com/article/trump-offshore-wind-energy-climate-totalenergies-interior-092eeeacc5d09730d4e20a95d7df7de1 https://apnews.com/article/trump-offshore-wind-energy-climat...

carlosjobim 7mo ago
[flagged]
- jondea 7mo ago
  Could you give some sources for this? I can't seem to find anything with a cursory search, but I'd be interested in reading.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 7mo ago
    https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2024/11/avslag-pa-13-havsbaserade-vindkraftparker-i-ostersjon/ https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2024/11/avslag-pa... The Swedish government is not blocking all offshore wind, but it is blocking a lot of it, specifically wind parks in areas of the Baltic Sea that could cause trouble for trying to detect Russian military activities. I don't know what the situation looks like for Finland.
  - carlosjobim 7mo ago
    > Firms struggle to cope with Finnish military's wind turbine ban > More than 200 wind energy projects have been canned in south-east Finland due to concerns that they could disrupt military radar. https://yle.fi/a/3-10374540 https://yle.fi/a/3-10374540 Since then the military has just become stricter.
    - digitalPhonix 7mo ago
      There's a big difference between a) Finland needing fast & accurate RADAR tracking across their 50km gulf and restricting activity in the gulf as a result. Not just wind farms, other commercial activities are restricted in the Gulf of Finland including shipping. b) USA restricting wind farms on it's east coast (NC and NY/NJ) where the nearest land is thousands of km away and no other commercial activities are meaningfully restricted. (If the US can't field a RADAR for early warning off the east coast that can handle wind farms on the coast, we have other problems)
      - carlosjobim 7mo ago
        Offshore wind farms have been stopped by the Finnish and Swedish military in many parts of the Baltic sea which aren't the gulf of Finland. If wind farms are a problem for radars in the US, then it's quite a small price to pay to block them offshore. Especially since the country is gigantic and has plenty of room inland. Any attack on the US will be through sea or space. Both are voids and very difficult or impossible to surveil. There's a historical example in Pearl Harbor. So why you are bringing up nearest land I have no clue? The point is that the US is exposed to the oceans.
        digitalPhonix 7mo ago
        > Baltic sea Still don’t see a problem making this comparing? Atlantic ocean: thousands of miles to the nearest land from the NE coast; unrestricted commercial activity Baltic sea: Belligerent nation on the coast (Kaliningrad Oblast) ~100 miles away; heavily patrolled and monitored commercial activity > If wind farms are a problem for radars in the US I’m asserting they are not because they magically weren’t 2 years ago and the airspace on the NE coast of the US has some of the largest and most aggressive ADIZ in the world since 2001. If wind farms were a problem for RADAR/early warning systems we would have heard about it in the last 25 years. > So why you are bringing up nearest land I have no clue? The point is that the US is exposed to the oceans. Er yes... I’m sure the military groups responsible for early warning didn’t just realise that in 2025. 10 years after offshore wind farms in the area were fully operational. Edit: I want to say that learnings from recent conflicts (especially around drones) would be a compelling argument for why we only just realised these issues, but no one has articulated that or why it’s an issue on the Atlantic coast.
- casenmgreen 7mo ago
  Sweden has been blocking offshore farms on the east side of country, where they would be fighting Russia. West side farms are fine. USA hardly has the same problem, and the current admin are frankly a bunch of low-brow vicious thugs, who in my view wouldn't know a genuine security problem from a large hole in the ground.
- ericfr11 7mo ago
  Read some real news
  - carlosjobim 7mo ago
    Read official decisions from the defence forces of Finland and/or Sweden. Huge offshore wind projects have been stopped recently. Or be a reality denying hacker if you prefer.
    - brookst 7mo ago
      I can’t make heads or tails of your point. Are you saying that because Sweden has to worry about Russia invading from the east, the US shouldn’t build any wind farms anywhere? That can’t be right. What do you really mean?
      - carlosjobim 7mo ago
        They don't want another surprise attack from the sea like pearl harbor.
        tempestn 7mo ago
        You're saying offshore wind farms would prevent the US from detecting an intercontinental attack crossing the ocean?
        hedora 7mo ago
        Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%27lyeh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%27lyeh
        carlosjobim 7mo ago
        From where else would an enemy be able to attack? There's two options: ocean or space.
Ajedi32 7mo ago
This seems plausible. Though I find "pay a full 1 billion dollars to the company" to be a very confusing way to frame this if this just returning a deposit the company put down in the first place. Would be more accurate to say the company spent 1 billion, canceled that and were refunded the 1 billion, then spent that billion on a different U.S. project instead. Though it's still a significant impact to the tax payer if the new thing they're spending 1B on is private industry and not a government-owned lease.

carlosjobim 7mo ago

[flagged]

jondea 7mo ago
Could you give some sources for this? I can't seem to find anything with a cursory search, but I'd be interested in reading.
- TazeTSchnitzel 7mo ago
  https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2024/11/avslag-pa-13-havsbaserade-vindkraftparker-i-ostersjon/ https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2024/11/avslag-pa... The Swedish government is not blocking all offshore wind, but it is blocking a lot of it, specifically wind parks in areas of the Baltic Sea that could cause trouble for trying to detect Russian military activities. I don't know what the situation looks like for Finland.
- carlosjobim 7mo ago
  > Firms struggle to cope with Finnish military's wind turbine ban > More than 200 wind energy projects have been canned in south-east Finland due to concerns that they could disrupt military radar. https://yle.fi/a/3-10374540 https://yle.fi/a/3-10374540 Since then the military has just become stricter.
  - digitalPhonix 7mo ago
    There's a big difference between a) Finland needing fast & accurate RADAR tracking across their 50km gulf and restricting activity in the gulf as a result. Not just wind farms, other commercial activities are restricted in the Gulf of Finland including shipping. b) USA restricting wind farms on it's east coast (NC and NY/NJ) where the nearest land is thousands of km away and no other commercial activities are meaningfully restricted. (If the US can't field a RADAR for early warning off the east coast that can handle wind farms on the coast, we have other problems)
    - carlosjobim 7mo ago
      Offshore wind farms have been stopped by the Finnish and Swedish military in many parts of the Baltic sea which aren't the gulf of Finland. If wind farms are a problem for radars in the US, then it's quite a small price to pay to block them offshore. Especially since the country is gigantic and has plenty of room inland. Any attack on the US will be through sea or space. Both are voids and very difficult or impossible to surveil. There's a historical example in Pearl Harbor. So why you are bringing up nearest land I have no clue? The point is that the US is exposed to the oceans.
      - digitalPhonix 7mo ago
        > Baltic sea Still don’t see a problem making this comparing? Atlantic ocean: thousands of miles to the nearest land from the NE coast; unrestricted commercial activity Baltic sea: Belligerent nation on the coast (Kaliningrad Oblast) ~100 miles away; heavily patrolled and monitored commercial activity > If wind farms are a problem for radars in the US I’m asserting they are not because they magically weren’t 2 years ago and the airspace on the NE coast of the US has some of the largest and most aggressive ADIZ in the world since 2001. If wind farms were a problem for RADAR/early warning systems we would have heard about it in the last 25 years. > So why you are bringing up nearest land I have no clue? The point is that the US is exposed to the oceans. Er yes... I’m sure the military groups responsible for early warning didn’t just realise that in 2025. 10 years after offshore wind farms in the area were fully operational. Edit: I want to say that learnings from recent conflicts (especially around drones) would be a compelling argument for why we only just realised these issues, but no one has articulated that or why it’s an issue on the Atlantic coast.
casenmgreen 7mo ago
Sweden has been blocking offshore farms on the east side of country, where they would be fighting Russia. West side farms are fine. USA hardly has the same problem, and the current admin are frankly a bunch of low-brow vicious thugs, who in my view wouldn't know a genuine security problem from a large hole in the ground.
ericfr11 7mo ago
Read some real news
- carlosjobim 7mo ago
  Read official decisions from the defence forces of Finland and/or Sweden. Huge offshore wind projects have been stopped recently. Or be a reality denying hacker if you prefer.
  - brookst 7mo ago
    I can’t make heads or tails of your point. Are you saying that because Sweden has to worry about Russia invading from the east, the US shouldn’t build any wind farms anywhere? That can’t be right. What do you really mean?
    - carlosjobim 7mo ago
      They don't want another surprise attack from the sea like pearl harbor.
      - tempestn 7mo ago
        You're saying offshore wind farms would prevent the US from detecting an intercontinental attack crossing the ocean?
        hedora 7mo ago
        Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%27lyeh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%27lyeh
        carlosjobim 7mo ago
        From where else would an enemy be able to attack? There's two options: ocean or space.

Ajedi32 7mo ago

This seems plausible. Though I find "pay a full 1 billion dollars to the company" to be a very confusing way to frame this if this just returning a deposit the company put down in the first place. Would be more accurate to say the company spent 1 billion, canceled that and were refunded the 1 billion, then spent that billion on a different U.S. project instead. Though it's still a significant impact to the tax payer if the new thing they're spending 1B on is private industry and not a government-owned lease.