6 ms·
Insane. Over the last year, wind - mostly offshore - has generated more than 35% of electricity here. Gas is down to 27%. It's really, really good. And it look
by juntoalaluna 2mo ago
Insane.
Over the last year, wind - mostly offshore - has generated more than 35% of electricity here. Gas is down to 27%. It's really, really good. And it looks cool.
- _joel 2mo agoNot great for the wildlife during drilling but it's better than the carbon rich alternatives.
- dschu 2mo agoGlobal warming is also killing wildlife. And by many magnitudes more than drilling some holes for offshore wind parks.
- _joel 2mo ago[flagged]
- virgildotcodes 2mo agoIs the game you're playing "see if I can be subtle enough to get away with undermining renewables through misleading statements on social media without people calling me out on it"? If so I think you're down 1 - 0 so far in this thread. Best of luck on the next round though, really cool and awesome game!
- _joel 2mo ago[flagged]
- Jumpstylish 2mo ago[flagged]
- carlosjobim 2mo agoThank you comrade for your alert senses! You correctly identified that anybody who pretends to be a "moderate" voice or utters any kind of even light criticism towards the Party program is always a detractor or enemy spy which is trying to sabotage and undermine our internal cohesion. The individual has promptly been dealt with and put in a reeducation camp. I will talk to your local commissar so that your brave act of psychological self defence in this message board is rewarded with +50 extra social credits.
- constantius 2mo agoI think it was your reading that is faulty, the commenter wasn't subtle and didn't undermine anything. Can you stop playing the game of owning people with teenager level zingers based on you yourself being too thick?
- bfmalky 2mo agoYou don't seem to understand the meeting of the word 'literally'.
- _joel 2mo agoYou don't seem to be able to read the "better than carbon rich alternatives" that literally in what I originally wrote.
- yxhuvud 2mo agoIt is really great for the wildlife after the drilling is done though, as the windmills tend to make the area safer against fishermen.
- mrguyorama 2mo agoThis is a problem though, because those fishermen vote.
- TeMPOraL 2mo agoNothing is great for wildlife, including leaving it alone and undisturbed, because nature doesn't care if animals are happy, or even if they exist.
- josh-wrale 2mo agoI’m thinking you mean that nature does not possess the ability to care at all.
- neuronic 2mo agoNature does have the ability to care unless you postulate that humans aren’t part of nature.
- neuronic 2mo agoNo energy source producing the required amounts to run civilization will be non-disruptive to wildlife and the environment. But perfect is the enemy of good. Renewable energy sources heavily reduce this factor, make countries more independent from imports (other countries) and slow down the catastrophic effects of increased atmospheric energy due to greenhouse effect of carbon-based energy sources. Conservatives should be the top number one supporters of renewable energy because of more independence from other governments and better conservation of the environment. But alas, the only thing they like to preserve is their personal greed.
- mrits 2mo ago[flagged]
- DFHippie 2mo ago> Texas which are covered with turbines Is "Texas" the plural of "Texa"?
- defrost 2mo agoChevron’s Gorgon project LNG plants on Barrow Island also absolutely do not look cool.
- InsideOutSanta 2mo agoThere's a reason so many racing games put them on their maps. They look dope.
- thatwasunusual 2mo ago> Texas which are covered with turbines, and they absolutely do not look cool. Compared to coal plants, which are _extremely_ cool-looking. /s
- mrits 2mo agoI've never seen one here, which makes sense because we don't use much coal. I suppose if they were 200m high and scattered across half the state I'd have a similar opinion.
- ZeroGravitas 2mo ago
- lenkite 2mo agoUtterly Insane. I mean the saying "Truth is stranger than fiction" is proven true by this US administration again, again and again. If you put this as a plot point in a novel, you would get a 1-star rating with readers complaining about lack of realism.
- iammjm 2mo agoPeople were for years joking about us approaching Idiocracy but I think this reality is already dumber than that in some regards. Trump & co really turbocharged the idiotification
- ZeroGravitas 2mo agoIt's a cliche now to say we're past that as in Idiocracy they listened to the smartest person to solve their problem. We're now onto Captain Planet baddies. Ridiculously childish cartoon carictatures of greed and evil are now in charge
- CuriouslyC 2mo agoThey even look like Captain Planet baddies. Trump with his orange skin, purple sores and ridiculous hair, RFK jr. walking around barefoot looking like a scrotum on steroids, Pete Kegsbreath answering the question "What if a mob boss fucked a frat bro", etc.
- b3lvedere 2mo agoI wonder if the power of heart will save us then.
- glaslong 2mo agoIn Idiocracy, President Camacho recognizes that someone has scientific skills and expertise* he doesn't and puts them in charge to help his people. * even if it's just "feed plants water, not Gatorade." From that angle, Idiocracy is notably BETTER than our current situation.
- budsniffer952 2mo agoWhat's insane is that one person will cite something this in one place, but the rest of the people in the thread say "why aren't we building wind and solar????" We are building lots. Of everything.
- estearum 2mo agoBut... you're commenting on an article in which we are stopping the "we are building" part?
- sbarre 2mo agoWho is "we" here? This is about one company bending the knee, not an entire industry or population.
- estearum 2mo ago"We" is referring to the US federal government, elected by the US population, and which has (and is using) massive levers to kneecap development of renewable energy sources. Some internet commentators may wish to unhelpfully point out that no matter the US federal efforts, renewable development will always be above literal zero, and so "we haven't stopped." But it's not a very useful contribution to the conversation. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/stalled-us-permits-threaten-121-bln-wind-solar-investment-report-2026-06-29/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/stalled-us-permits-... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-08-26/us-renewable-investments-fell-36-on-trump-s-policies-bnef-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-08-26/us-renewa... There are dozens of similar articles about dozens of different projects and mechanisms used to stall those projects. Yes, I concede the level will almost certainly remain above zero and so "we haven't stopped." Good-faith adults know what the conversation is about and can either engage in it or opt out of it instead of resorting to excessive pedantry.
- SubiculumCode 2mo agoI want to know whether Trump has legal authority to this money for this purpose. If it was money directed by Congress for clean energy, then no.
- s_dev 2mo agoWhat's more mental you talk to any Germans about deprecating their Nuclear power stations they will bang on about their plan for renewables and then you read these sorts of headlines. What the hell is happening over there? Why can't they get 'energy' despite being a scientifically literate nation. France has a far superior energy policy so it's not like you even have to travel beyond a few miles to see a wildly different price for electricity. At this rate French electricity will be half the price in a few years compared to German electricity. Germany is making mistake after mistake on energy. From Russian dependence to Nuclear scepticism to now accepting money to not build renewables.
- mcintyre1994 2mo agoThis is about a German company that was going to make a renewable project in the US. Germany itself has a huge offshore wind industry, which is probably how they have companies that planned to do the same in the US.
- myrmidon 2mo agoGermany is already way ahead of the US in switching away from fossil electricity (also ahead of China). Sure, keeping the entire nuclear fleet from ~2000 would have maybe helped, but would have required very costly (economically and politically!) investments over the last few decades, and those basically went into renewables instead which turned out fine. See: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?stackMode=relative&country=USA~CHN~DEU~ESP https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s...
- 1234letshaveatw 2mo agoIs all of their energy consumption met by domestic production?
- gman83 2mo agoThis is the exact reason it's happening. Offshore wind is cheaper than gas /kWh and would therefore kill Trump's fossil fuel donor's profits. So kill offshore wind and the grid is forced to go to more expensive fossil fuel sources, which increased the grid price and means extra profits go to those companies. All this raises energy prices.
- consumer451 2mo agoThe oil industry is full of really smart people, but this all appears to be so stupid. Why don't the fossil fuel companies just expand their investment portfolios to include off-shore wind? This is all in their wheelhouse: mega-scale construction, off-shore ops, dealing with the government in favorable ways, and such a simpler and lower-risk business! It must be that they are just afraid of the entire idea of a competing sector? Or, they are addicted to the power they have controlling a more centralized energy distribution system? Or, what could it be? Again, I know these are not dumb people.
- simongray 2mo ago> The oil industry is full of really smart people, but this all appears to be so stupid. Why don't the fossil fuel companies just expand their investment portfolios to include off-shore wind? Some of them do, e.g. Ørsted here in Denmark is a former gas and oil extraction company which then became the biggest developer of offshore wind in the world. Trump has, by the way, been fighting the wind farm that they're setting up in the US currently ever since he came into office.
- senectus1 2mo agoits insidious that Trump gets to use tax payers money to pay a green energy solution to go away at the benefit of big oil/gas... "no skin off his nose" but a dreadful inflationary weight on future tax payers.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- globular-toast 2mo agoIt doesn't look cool. We should use less energy. But the turbines make the cost of the energy too obvious, we'd rather keep pretending there is no cost.
- 4ndrewl 2mo agoThey know what they're doing. The next administration will give them 1.2bn to start deploying offshore wind. Money for nothing!
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2mo agoI suspect wind investment is going to take a decade to recover. Nobody wants to deal with a legal fight if they can avoid it. Offshore wind takes a lot of planning and engineering to deploy. These projects were halted midway, forcing the companies to eat a ton of costs while the construction was sitting idle.
- barfingclouds 2mo agoWhere is “here”?