US Blocks All Offshore Wind Construction, Says Reason Is Classified (arstechnica.com) 134
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: On Monday, the US Department of the Interior announced that it was pausing the leases on all five offshore wind sites currently under construction in the US. The move comes despite the fact that these projects already have installed significant hardware in the water and on land; one of them is nearly complete. In what appears to be an attempt to avoid legal scrutiny, the Interior is blaming the decisions on a classified report from the Department of Defense.
The second Trump administration announced its animosity toward offshore wind power literally on day one, issuing an executive order on inauguration day that called for a temporary halt to issuing permits for new projects pending a re-evaluation. Earlier this month, however, a judge vacated that executive order, noting that the government has shown no indication that it was even attempting to start the re-evaluation it said was needed. But a number of projects have gone through the entire permitting process, and construction has started. Before today, the administration had attempted to stop these in an erratic, halting manner. Empire Wind, an 800 MW farm being built off New York, was stopped by the Department of the Interior, which alleged that it had been rushed through permitting. That hold was lifted following lobbying and negotiations by New York and the project developer Orsted, and the Department of the Interior never revealed why it changed its mind. When the Interior Department blocked a second Orsted project, Revolution Wind offshore of southern New England, the company took the government to court and won a ruling that let it continue construction.
Today's announcement targets those and three other projects. Interior says it is pausing the permits for all five, which are the only projects currently under construction. It claims that offshore wind creates "national security risks" that were revealed in a recent analysis performed by the Department of Defense, which apparently neglected to identify these issues during the evaluations it did while the projects were first permitted. What are these risks? The Interior Department is being extremely coy. It notes that offshore wind turbines can interfere with radar sensing, but that's been known for a while. In announcing the decision, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum also noted "the rapid evolution of the relevant adversary technologies." But the announcement says that the Defense Department analysis is classified, meaning nobody is likely to know what the actual reason is -- presuming one exists. The classification will also make it far more challenging to contest this decision in court.
The second Trump administration announced its animosity toward offshore wind power literally on day one, issuing an executive order on inauguration day that called for a temporary halt to issuing permits for new projects pending a re-evaluation. Earlier this month, however, a judge vacated that executive order, noting that the government has shown no indication that it was even attempting to start the re-evaluation it said was needed. But a number of projects have gone through the entire permitting process, and construction has started. Before today, the administration had attempted to stop these in an erratic, halting manner. Empire Wind, an 800 MW farm being built off New York, was stopped by the Department of the Interior, which alleged that it had been rushed through permitting. That hold was lifted following lobbying and negotiations by New York and the project developer Orsted, and the Department of the Interior never revealed why it changed its mind. When the Interior Department blocked a second Orsted project, Revolution Wind offshore of southern New England, the company took the government to court and won a ruling that let it continue construction.
Today's announcement targets those and three other projects. Interior says it is pausing the permits for all five, which are the only projects currently under construction. It claims that offshore wind creates "national security risks" that were revealed in a recent analysis performed by the Department of Defense, which apparently neglected to identify these issues during the evaluations it did while the projects were first permitted. What are these risks? The Interior Department is being extremely coy. It notes that offshore wind turbines can interfere with radar sensing, but that's been known for a while. In announcing the decision, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum also noted "the rapid evolution of the relevant adversary technologies." But the announcement says that the Defense Department analysis is classified, meaning nobody is likely to know what the actual reason is -- presuming one exists. The classification will also make it far more challenging to contest this decision in court.
How many jobs were lost? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aside from the bullshit "security" issue, how many jobs are now gone because of this? I thought this regime was all about creating jobs and "making American great again".
If you're killing jobs left and right, that doesn't sound like making anything great other than unemployment.
Re:How many jobs were lost? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well surely the people impacted won't figure out who has a raging hate-on for wind power because it's classified. Right?
Reasons? (Score:2)
A guess here
- Offshore wind components made in certain countries
- Offshore wind turbines far enough offshore to be open to what's happened to undersea internet cables used by Northern Europe
- Politically rewarding less green industries
Re:How many jobs were lost? (Score:5, Informative)
Aside from the bullshit "security" issue, ...
This administration has figured out that "National Security" are magic words to skip (or forestall) legal scrutiny, like here with his ballroom: Trump administration says White House ballroom construction is a matter of national security [apnews.com]
The Trump administration said in a court filing Monday that the president’s White House ballroom construction project must continue for unexplained national security reasons and because a preservationists’ organization that wants it stopped has no standing to sue.
The filing was in response to a lawsuit filed last Friday by the National Trust for Historic Preservation asking a federal judge to halt President Donald Trump’s project until it goes through multiple independent reviews and a public comment period and wins approval from Congress.
Also noting this humorous bit: Trump Admits No One Wants to Build Him a Monument [thedailybeast.com]
The Fox News host [Jesse Watters] then delivered Trump’s admission as a punchline: “He said, ‘Jesse, it’s a monument. I’m building a monument to myself because no one else will’.”
Re:How many jobs were lost? (Score:4, Insightful)
"National Security" is thought terminating. Like pedophile and terrorist
Re:How many jobs were lost? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Conveniently, trump is the trifecta of a national security threat, a pedophile, and a terrorist.
As well as greedy, narcissistic, insecure, uncaring, etc... - a multifecta. :-)
Re:How many jobs were lost? (Score:4, Informative)
This is nothing but a direct lie. All "national security" and other impact will have been carefully evaluated before the permit for this construction was issued. Well, I guess the taxpayers will have to pay for the damage the rapey windbag-in-chief is doing there.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Aside from the bullshit "security" issue
So, if this holds up in court, does this essentially mean any executive action predicated on classified national security is completely immune from judicial scrutiny? Could Trump say that all Hispanics and Asians will be stripped of US citizenship based on classified national security, which then precludes all judicial review? If so, that essentially strikes down the entire Constitution and allows the president to do anything he wants, as long as he says the magical words, "classified national security."
W
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's what it means. And the Republican SCOTUS will continue rule in this way exactly as long as a Republican is in the White House.
Re:How many jobs were lost? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not just jobs. Without cheap, clean electricity, the economy as a whole is going to suffer. Some of the damage will be offset by passing the costs on to you, especially the pollution, but it can only do so much.
I expect he will announce tariffs on China for "cheating" by building so much cheap energy soon.
Re: (Score:2)
"The U.S. has lost a lot of manufacturing jobs. So now let's DESTROY our entire science, research, and educational sector, too - in revenge!!!111!111!"
Meanwhile, we haven't created any manufacturing jobs, either.
So now we have TWO major sectors where we're being the eight ball.
It's the same "logic" as, "coal has been destroyed by those nasty librals, so let's destroy wind, too - in revenge!!111!!1111"
It's doesn't bring coal back. It
Re: (Score:2)
As a European engineering manager this is great for us Just our company has >10 offshore wind projects happening at the moment. Labour is insanely tight so we don't need any more labour competition!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How many jobs were lost? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Trump order applies ONLY to wind power. Oil platforms are not banned for any reason. If that seems illogical well... Trump.
Re:How many jobs were lost? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Trump order applies ONLY to wind power. Oil platforms are not banned for any reason. If that seems illogical well... Trump.
Searching for logic is a very pre-Trumpian thing to do in political commentary.
Previously, a politican needed to at least feign strategy in order to maintain support. In the modern era it is more like celebrity fandom. The polulus just looks for distraction and bonding, and prefers oddity and excitement to anything else. It's not so much about numbers as ratings.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Oil platforms don't have large rotating parts generating radar returns. You must have noticed the sudden increase in the capabilities of drones in the last few years.
Your comment is the one that lacks logic.
Re:How many jobs were lost? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oil platforms don't have large rotating parts generating radar returns.
Ok, I'll give you that, but as far as it goes, what is your point? Because it isn't as if drones inbound will use the blades as a waypoint. GPS would be much more useful and others have constellations that are not controlled by the US. Or simply use the technology perfected by Germany with the V2 and use inertial guidance, sort of like what ships (including boomers and fast attack subs do). And while we're on that topic, it's not as if China (indeed, anyone with a sea chart) doesn't know within a few feet where those wind turbines are. They can't dodge into or out of the way you know.
As far as detecting inbound drones, they'd be flying nap of the earth (or ocean in this case) and wouldn't present a radar cross section for earth based radar (25' only gets out about 11.9 miles before the horizon grounds your ping.)
There are look down radar in orbit that would detect drones over minimal size.
Could it be that Trump simply doesn't like wind farms and is trying to shut it down? He's complained about it bitterly on two or three of his golf course. And then there's the drone imports form China Trump also just imposed. Surely that can't have anything to do with the fact his son Don Jr. has significant holdings in US based drones.... or that his tech bros (both Sr. and Jr.) don't also have an interest in it.
Second to last if China really wants to destroy the USA, they don't need to use military force. They can simply cut off all exports to the US. The economy will panic in about three billionth's of a second.
Last, if you think that China can't use ICBMs effectively, then consider how easy it is to slip drugs into the USA, then ask how much harder would it be to smuggle in 50 or 100 pre-planted thermonuclear bombs.
Coda: You should go read Eisenhower's Cross of Iron speech. The pertinent part is this:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
Contemplate my signaure line from William Pit the younger. I've never had another one and I'm a long time reader.
Re: (Score:2)
All those things could be true, but there is a threat that needs to be evaluated. Satellites are very easy to dodge as everyone and their mothers knows where they are and where they are going at any given time. The Soviets moved entire divisions while the satellites were elsewhere, and did massive war games when the satellites were overhead only to tow the broken down tanks to new locations for the next pass. They were masters of the art of satellite spoofing.
Anyway, given a few Ukrainian drones have proven
Re:How many jobs were lost? (Score:4, Informative)
All those things could be true,
Then please point to anything you may have a doubt about. I'm not perfect. I also change my mind when I have information I didn't.
but there is a threat that needs to be evaluated.
I just did. The threat of wind farms to threat detection is zero based on what I know now.
Satellites are very easy to dodge as everyone and their mothers knows where they are and where they are going at any given time.
Oh, for Frigs sake. We may not have 15cm resolution 100%, but bet the check we do have 50cm. Hell you can BUY 1m resolution (3 feet) from the French right now.
The Soviets moved entire divisions while the satellites were elsewhere, and did massive war games when the satellites were overhead only to tow the broken down tanks to new locations for the next pass. They were masters of the art of satellite spoofing.
1. The Soviet Union fell 32 to 39 years ago depending on what landmark in history you go by.
2. That was then, this is now. We have better coverage and I will grant that if an opponent is cleaver enough to simulate what their opposite number expects to see, and shows them that, then that is a successful tactic when their opponent falls for the ruse. It also works both ways if one has capable flag officers, which Trump and Hegseth just went to great effort to alienate and outright fire. Ask yourself "Who gains from a weak USA? Who gains from wasting USA resources on ineffective stratagems?"
3. Fails to show how wind farm and drone construction/import IN THE USA is a factor here.
Anyway, given a few Ukrainian drones have proven capable of sterilizing the Black Sea of surface ships I suspect the Pentagon isn't feeling very secure right now.
Keep your eye on the target at hand. What is the justification for WIND FARM cutoffs, and why will restriction DRONE PARTS IN THE USA going to achieve a strategic, tactical or domestic political goal? And the Ukrainians are not "sterilizing the black sea". No point to that. Here's a shipping map. [marinetraffic.com] (Note the lack of shipping near Ukraine, that's not Ukraine's doing, that's the Russians.) They are sinking some Russian targets that are worth the expenditure of effort and resources. Pretty standard tactic in war.
The Houthis chased off an aircraft carrier last year. Drones had better have the military brass spooked.
AGAIN: keep your eye on the target at hand. How will banning wind farms or drones in the USA do one damned thing with the Houthis who are not IN the USA? And the Admiral was right to withdraw the carrier from a threat vector. That's why we build carriers - to project other forces into the threat area, not to soak up hits.
One solution could be to put a radar unit on the towers just under the lower blade height to provide an uncluttered view to sea.
Other technologies meet that need; you were in the situational awareness of the boat and you know what those are if you'd think about it. I'm not going to tell the guy that did it how to do his own job.
But hanging military hardware on civilian infrastructure makes it an instant target not that it isn't already.
I'm old. I get in to thinking old habits if I don't watch myself. One of those habits are assuming an opponent will follow the "rules of war" and attack only valid military targets. They will not. Civilian targets are much less well protected and are of higher value in asymmetric warfare. AGAIN: keep your eye on the target at hand. How will banning wind farms or drones in the USA do one damned thing?
Another question, do you really want and important part of your energy generation way out
Re: (Score:2)
"Keep your eye on the target at hand. What is the justification for WIND FARM cutoffs,"
You missed the point. Wind farms obstruct the radar horizon. There is your justification. The rest was me admittedly rambling a bit just as your original post did. Things have changed and the last time things changed that fast battleships sank in large numbers before people realized the rules had changed. Something similar is happening now.
Your faith in satellites is touching. The Russians have lots of satellites. They a
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the point. Wind farms obstruct the radar horizon. There is your justification.
I did do something with it that starts with a "D". I demolished that point.
Radar horizons on the sea are short range unless your target is flying high. Drones and cruse missiles fly no more than 50 feet above the waves. If you were involved with tactical awareness on a boat or ship you'd have that wired into your nervious system so deep you would even be capable of not thinking about that.
Again, other technology is more useful in radar detection at sea level, and even a wind turbines will not completely sha
Re: (Score:3)
Oil platforms don't have large rotating parts generating radar returns. You must have noticed the sudden increase in the capabilities of drones in the last few years.
Funny the foreign enemies with their fancy drone capabilities don't seem to have an issue with offshore wind. That and the "national security reasons" have not at any point been shown to demonstrate any scientific backing beyond Leavitt saying "trust me bro".
Your comment lacks any and all thought on the topic, but it's showing plenty of gullible ass licking.
Re:How many jobs were lost? (Score:5, Insightful)
Third explanation: Putin's pawn is continuing to damage the United States at Putin's behest.
Putin has the Epstein files (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Third explanation: Putin's pawn is continuing to damage the United States at Putin's behest.
Do you actually believe this ? or, what chance do you think that this statement is true: "Pres. Trump banned off shore wind at Putin's behest in order to damage the United States" or maybe differentially w/ and w/o the "to damage the United States" part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How many jobs were lost? (Score:2)
Read the Mueller report. It's even available in audio format.
Re:How many jobs were lost? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Administration irrationally hates wind, no matter who is making money off it.
Don't doubt it and to them it's quite rational. To acknowledge wind power is to acknowledge climate change and that's lib shit and Trump must be opposed to liberals at every turn. The fact Democrats support it is enough for Trump to remove it, especially if Biden or Obama had supported it.
Seriously, it's that simple. That lens has a lot of predictive power.
Re:How many jobs were lost? (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact Democrats support it is enough for Trump to remove it, especially if Biden or Obama had supported it.
I'm reminded of ancient Egypt, where each new Pharoah's first order of business was to destroy the monuments created by (and for) his predecessor, and then to start building new ones by (and for) himself. Have we reached that level of narcissism?
Re:How many jobs were lost? (Score:5, Funny)
Bender: Citizens of me! The cruelty of the old Pharaoh is a thing of the past!
[crowd cheers]
Bender: Let a whole new wave of cruelty wash over this lazy land!
[crowd cheers, then is confused]
Re:How many jobs were lost? (Score:5, Informative)
The fact Democrats support it is enough for Trump to remove it, especially if Biden or Obama had supported it.
I'm reminded of ancient Egypt, where each new Pharoah's first order of business was to destroy the monuments created by (and for) his predecessor, and then to start building new ones by (and for) himself. Have we reached that level of narcissism?
Trump has anyway, though I'm also guessing the next (Democrat) administration will remove all decorations he's done - useless gold trophies and filigree plastered everywhere, pointless signage ("The Oval Office"), the Presidential wall of fame (currently deriding past Democrat Presidents), his name on the Kennedy Center (which is probably unlawful as the old name was set by law), etc... Hopefully the Mar-a-Lago patio and ridiculous ballroom will go too. I will admit, though, that the signage is probably useful for now so Trump knows where he is and what room he's in. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact Democrats support it is enough for Trump to remove it, especially if Biden or Obama had supported it.
I'm reminded of ancient Egypt, where each new Pharoah's first order of business was to destroy the monuments created by (and for) his predecessor, and then to start building new ones by (and for) himself. Have we reached that level of narcissism?
Trump has anyway, though I'm also guessing the next (Democrat) administration will remove all decorations he's done - useless gold trophies and filigree plastered everywhere, pointless signage ("The Oval Office"), the Presidential wall of fame (currently deriding past Democrat Presidents), his name on the Kennedy Center (which is probably unlawful as the old name was set by law), etc... Hopefully the Mar-a-Lago patio and ridiculous ballroom will go too. I will admit, though, that the signage is probably useful for now so Trump knows where he is and what room he's in. :-)
If the US is to have any hope of recovery, the next president regardless of political stripe, needs to go a hell of a lot further than that.
At the very least, Trump, Vought, Miller and the tame supreme court judges (Alito and Roberts at the very least) need to be arrested and jailed awaiting trial for treason. New rules regarding media bias and disinformation need to be introduced given almost all are now owned by Republicans and will lie out their backsides. Rules with real teeth (as in criminal charges
Re: (Score:2)
A brutalist redesign of the ballroom
Re: How many jobs were lost? (Score:2)
To acknowledge wind power is to acknowledge climate change
See, I don't get that step of the reasoning. I think you're right but I don't understand the logic of it. I can very well imagine believing that climate change is a hoax and, at the same time, using wind to generate power. Because it works: wind turbines generate power. I agree that wind turbines are a scar on any landscape, but so are oil platforms, solar panels, nuclear plants, hydroelectric plants, basically anything that generates enough power. So I just don't understand the reasoning of the people beli
Re: (Score:2)
The logic is much more base and basic: Trump hates wind power because he wasn’t able to stop turbines being built near one of his stupid Scottish golf courses, and that’s that. There’s no more logic to it than that.
Re: (Score:2)
See, I don't get that step of the reasoning. I think you're right but I don't understand the logic of it. I can very well imagine believing that climate change is a hoax and, at the same time, using wind to generate power. Because it works: wind turbines generate power.
I have been making that same argument to conservatives for two decades, they do not care, they are dug in on the anti-climate change. Now sometimes they acknowledge it in the free market type of things, like how Texas has a fuckload of wind power but the party platform and Trump have to do it with a wink and a nod to the hoax because a lot of their base still thinks it's a hoax.
It is a huge issue that we can't understand each other because we are living in two different realities, we cannot agree on a real
Re:How many jobs were lost? (Score:5, Informative)
The Administration irrationally hates wind, no matter who is making money off it. (I doubt this, ...
Uh... seriously, have you listened to Trump at all during the past decade? It's pretty obvious that Trump irrationally hates wind energy, no matter who is making money off it. He has spouted, over and over, all sorts of nonsensical batshit-crazy ideas about why wind energy is bad.
Of course to be fair, Trump spouts all sorts of nonsensical batshit-crazy ideas on all sorts of topics...
Re:How many jobs were lost? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh snap I did forget that Trump has a grudge after he lost a lawsuit to Scotland about an offshore wind farm within viewing distance of his golf course so it's personal to Trump which is the most rational thing to him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
... which is the most rational thing to him.
Actually, I can't argue with that take.
Re: (Score:2)
There really is some national security reason. One credible thing I have seen is the turbines interfere with radars and sonars used to watch for low flying enemy aircraft and subs.
You really are a sucker or a stan, https://apnews.com/article/tru... [apnews.com]
Re:How many jobs were lost? (Score:4, Interesting)
There are more explations, including the likely correct one. Both wind projects mentioned were blocked by the department of the interior before they ever mentioned national security. The Empire Wind project is off Long Island and the other one is off Martha's Vinyard. Both places are where rich people have seaside estates and both projects have had NIMBY opposition from people who don't want windmills spoiling their view.
Trump himself put it this way: "STUPID AND UGLY WINDMILLS ARE KILLING NEW JERSEY. Energy prices up 28% this year, and not enough electricity to take care of state. STOP THE WINDMILLS!" and has said similar things about a windfarm that's visible from his golf course in Scotland.
Does he irrationally hate windmills? I doubt he really cares. But some of his rich buddies care very much, so....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How many jobs were lost? (Score:2)
Especially when that property is his Turnberry golf course. I love that this is in another country and he canâ(TM)t do anything about it.
Re:How many jobs were lost? (Score:5, Informative)
One credible thing I have seen is the turbines interfere with radars and sonars used to watch for low flying enemy aircraft and subs.
SOSUS monitors the waters around the USA. Wind Turbine noise is easily factored in. And if noise is an issue for that, then drilling would be horrible and even production platforms are not silent. (I used to work for a Dresser subdivision more years ago than Carter's go little liver pills.) And petroleum production was not impacted. Therefore the sonar component is proven BS.
Radar: Is depended on horizon lines. At 25 feet, it's 6.1 miles away, figure detection on someone's mast also being 25' and you get a grand total of 11.9 to 12.2 miles depending on waves. Look down radar (air or orbit based) would be more useful. Thus proving the radar argument is also BS.
In other news, Trump also cut off import of drones, batteries, motors. Guess what business Don Jr. has a huge stake in? Oh, remember Trump's bitter complaints about the wind farm off of his Scotland golf course and his New Jersey one?
There really is some national security reason.
And if you buy that, I've got some Trump Crypto coin to sell you, but you also have to buy that bridge in Brooklyn and some land down by Mar-a-Lago. The recognition code is "Trump Vodka", Da Gospodin?
Highlander Maneuver (Score:5, Funny)
I believe this is called the 'Highlander' maneuver. "There can be only one" windbag and that would be our wonderous dear leader.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason is classified? (Score:2)
Re: The reason is classified? (Score:2)
I'm sorry, that information has a purple classification. Are you a mutant, by any chance?
Ignore the order. (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO, given the amount of money involved and the patent absurdity of the government's behavior, the only rational thing to do is ignore their order and continue to build the wind farm anyway. The government has no legitimate legal right to take back a long-term contractual agreement like that. Once they signed on the dotted line, the lease is valid. Any national security concerns, if legitimate, should have been settled before the government entered into the agreement. Now, it's too late. Tough s**t, Donald Duck.
The government has only one option at that point, and that is to take the wind farm company to court. At that point, keeping the reasoning secret from the judge will not be possible, and the judge will see right through the farce and order them to do what the judge ordered them to do before — live up to their agreements. Realistically, national security concerns are implausible, and more to the point, even if a national security concern does exist, that's the government's problem to figure out how to prevent it from being a national security issue. They have no legal right to coerce a corporation to act on their behalf in doing so, absent a law being passed by Congress, which they have not done.
The only alternative is to waste years in court trying to get a judge to overturn the executive order and then wait for them to file another one in six months, resulting their use of the land being a constant yo-yo. The only rational thing to do, IMO, is to force the government's hand by making it clear that you won't be bullied, and making it clear that every future interaction along similar lines will end the same way — with you continuing to operate under the terms of your existing agreement and the government repeatedly and expensively failing to compel you to do otherwise.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
did you argue the same when the Obama administration approved Keystone XL pipeline only to then unapprove it. Going so far as to veto a bill on the subject?
On January 20, hours after swearing his oath of office, President Biden took unilateral action to rescind a presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. ...For years, the Keystone XL pipeline project was held up by the Obama administration, aided by Democrats in Congress. In January 2014, the Obama State Department issued a final environmental impact statement for the project, finding the pipeline would have no significant impact. In early 2015, Congress supported the project on a bipartisan basis through legislation, which President Obama then vetoed. Ultimately, President Obama denied a permit for the project in November 2015. President Trump approved a permit in July 2020.
(https://web.archive.org/web/20250309133053/https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/biden-resurrects-failed-obama-energy-strategy )
You may well have. But after reading about these kinds of things for decades and green tech and loggers vs owls (remember those?)
overall no particular project is a hill worth dying on. Just try to positio
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ignore the order. (Score:4, Interesting)
did you argue the same when the Obama administration approved Keystone XL pipeline only to then unapprove it. Going so far as to veto a bill on the subject?
On January 20, hours after swearing his oath of office, President Biden took unilateral action to rescind a presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.
Pulling that permit might have been legally questionable, but the real story is way more complex than that, because the legality of the permit was in question and had been under scrutiny by the courts for the entire period in question. Their decision to start building in spite of the permit potentially being illegal was a mistake, and the losses from such a mistake were entirely their responsibility.
...For years, the Keystone XL pipeline project was held up by the Obama administration, aided by Democrats in Congress. In January 2014, the Obama State Department issued a final environmental impact statement for the project, finding the pipeline would have no significant impact.
I find it difficult to imagine how they could have come to such a dubious conclusion. Oil sands are some of the dirtiest oil you can get, and encouraging the use of oil sands refining before other, cleaner sources of oil is not sound environmental policy. And making that oil easier to import into the U.S. would doubtless encourage more extraction.
In early 2015, Congress supported the project on a bipartisan basis through legislation, which President Obama then vetoed. Ultimately, President Obama denied a permit for the project in November 2015. President Trump approved a permit in July 2020.
A permit, once denied, isn't generally eligible for being reinstated without correcting the issues noted in denying it. They did not correct anything. Instead President Trump issued a permit himself outside of normal regulatory channels, overriding the decision of those regulatory channels, with a complete lack of environmental review, likely violating dozens of federal laws. The legality of such a presidentially issued "permit" is dubious at best, and that legality was being actively contested in the courts at the time, precisely because there's no precedent for a president having any legal authority to circumvent regulatory authority and issue a permit that violates environmental protection laws just because he wants to.
There's a reason that the oil companies did not bother to fight the Biden administration's decision to rescind the permit, and simply shut down the project. They knew that the legality of the entire project was highly questionable, and that they had spent money building parts of it with full knowledge that the permits were being challenged in court and could be found invalid, at which point they would have to tear it all down. They baked that risk into their calculations and decided to go forward anyway in hopes of a windfall, and they lost.
Nothing like that is the case for offshore wind farms, to the best of my knowledge. They were permitted through the usual regulatory channels, and there was no plausible reason to expect that such legally issued permits would be illegally rescinded on the whims of a wannabe dictator.
So it's not really the same thing. It's not even close.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really not. The vast majority of lawsuit were bourne by environmentalists challenging with laws that were effectively EPA fiat (which change with a favorable administration, or by spending additional time addressing deficiencies). None of them were insurmountable (which is why the project continued on, even in light of the lawsuit
Re: (Score:2)
It's really not. The vast majority of lawsuit were bourne by environmentalists challenging with laws that were effectively EPA fiat (which change with a favorable administration, or by spending additional time addressing deficiencies). None of them were insurmountable (which is why the project continued on, even in light of the lawsuits). The permit rescinding by a hostile administration, however, was insurmountable.
Any one of those cases could potentially have been insurmountable if a judge had found in their favor. Like I said, there were fundamental questions of law regarding whether that permit was lawfully issued in the first place.
The project was never shut down; it was suspended: https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
They took apart the portions that were already built. It was shut down. Spin it however you want; the project was dead at that point.
And I don't understand why you think they would fight it. The President clearly wasn't going to let the permit through. His words had nothing to do with legality and everything to do with ideology ("Obama said his decision was in agreement with the State Departmentâ(TM)s assessment that the pipeline âoewould not serve the national interests of the United Statesâ): https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
They would fight it if they thought that him rescinding the permit was unlawful, because the only alternative was losing the money they had already spe
Re: (Score:2)
But ... the USA is now in the fascist era: corporations do the government's bidding.
Recent example: The Ellison owned CBS cancelled the airing of an investigative report on treatment of immigrant detainees.
And the Congress has a majority that acquiesce to the executive branch ... no spine at all ...
Sad, but that is where the US is now ...
National security: Obscures radars (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
So mount new radars on the most distant wind turbines. Then they'll get an even earlier warning on the incoming Belgian drones.
Re: National security: Obscures radars (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless of the politics, its still a legit prob (Score:2)
Yeah maybe, but this has nothing to do with stopping these projects.
You mean other than "national security concerns", which a coastal blind spot would be. ;-)
This was an issue being raised before Trump. One administration dismisses the problem for political reasons, another administration embraces the problem for political reasons. Regardless of the politics, it's still a legit problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Now only if there was some way they could mount something besides radar on the turbines themselves to use for confirmation if you're getting signal of something that shouldn't be there. Like some cameras that use light instead of sound to detect things.
Re: (Score:3)
Even more importantly, all the potential impact will have been evaluated before construction was allowed. This is just another lie.
Re:National security: Obscures radars-Sweden (Score:3)
Last year, Sweden blocked the construction of new wind farms [defensenews.com] over concerns they could interfere with military radar, amid heightened tensions between the European Union and Russia. But experts have noted the design of wind farms can be adjusted to account for the issue, and it’s something US government officials have been aware of for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Last year, Sweden blocked the construction of new wind farms [defensenews.com] over concerns they could interfere with military radar, amid heightened tensions between the European Union and Russia. But experts have noted the design of wind farms can be adjusted to account for the issue, and it’s something US government officials have been aware of for decades.
And if the civilian project is not interested in redesigning things to adjust for military concerns, what might the government do next?
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly only a subset of air surveillance radars have problems with windfarms.
Secondly the problem only creates a minor blind spot close to the shore. If this is a national security concern then your national security is outright fucked from the onset.
Re: (Score:2)
Most air surveilance radars have problems detecting stuff flying over wind parks: You cant filter the wind turbines by doppler as the blades move with 75m/s and have radar cross section similar to airplanes and drones. And the old radars have very low spatial resolution so a collection of wind turbines is just a blur of clutter, where detectability of air planes is very low.
Wind farms themselves have a tendency to stop things from flying through wind farms.
more propaganda (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not surprising... (Score:2)
Trump.is in bed with the fossil fuel industry (especially the coal industry) and wants to destroy the things that are killing fossil fuels. Oh and the fact that all these turbines are almost certainly comming from China gives him even more reason to hate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me unclassify it for you: (Score:5, Insightful)
The sitting President is a know-nothing idiot who's primary motivation for basically anything is revenge and retribution.
He hates wind power because Scotland had the audacity to grant permission for a few windmills within site of his precious golf course. That's the "classified" reason he hates wind energy, and he's too fucking stupid to realize that offshore wind won't be seen by anyone that isn't in a boat, miles away from land.
The response is ... (Score:1)
Estoppel - legitimate expectation.
You should expect more tacos soon enough.
Any truth to radar claims? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would all have been evaluated before construction was signed off on by the authorities. This is a straight-up lie, nothing else.
Political decisions are not evidence of facts (Score:2)
That would all have been evaluated before construction was signed off on by the authorities. This is a straight-up lie, nothing else.
Not at all. Political bias extend in both directions. One administration would advance a green project over any military concerns. another administration would be hostile to the project for its own political reason. Any legit military concern a pretext. Either way, political decisions do not speak to whether the concern is legit or not.
FWIW, another poster pointed out Sweden has done this too, for military radar interference reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Real national security concerns are not political. You are hallucinating hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. Real national security concerns are not political. You are hallucinating hard.
You are having an A => B does not imply B => A moment.
Real national security concerns get subordinated to politics too.
Trump support does not make some wrong or right (Score:2)
This is most likely more of Trump's bullshit, but are there any radar experts here who can comment on the validity of the claim that the turbines interfere with military radar?
Another poster pointed out Sweden has done this due to interference with early warning radar too.
Trump supporting some existing argument does not make it wrong or right. It just means the argument coincidentally benefits him, for now. Its refreshing to see someone wonder whether an idea has its own merits.
Lie, damned lies, ... (Score:2)
... and then what these assholes claim. Obviously any strategical or tactical impact would have been evaluated when these were applied for. It is all just straight-up lying now. How repulsive.
Green projects get approved due to politics too (Score:3)
... and then what these assholes claim. Obviously any strategical or tactical impact would have been evaluated when these were applied for. It is all just straight-up lying now. How repulsive.
Not at all. Political bias extend in both directions. One administration would advance a green project over any military concerns. another administration would be hostile to the project for its own political reason. Any legit military concern a pretext. Either way, a political decisions does not speak to whether the concern is legit or not. FWIW, another poster pointed out Sweden has done this too, for military radar interference reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
On "national security" level? Bullshit! If there are real concerns, they would be very much non-political. This is 100% politics and 100% lies.
Re: (Score:2)
On "national security" level? Bullshit! If there are real concerns, they would be very much non-political. This is 100% politics and 100% lies.
Complete fantasy if you think real national security concerns are never subordinate to political concerns.
Re: (Score:2)
The most anti-environment president (Score:2)
Trump's Conflict of Interest (Score:2)
His stupid media company that owns Truth Social just merged with a nuclear fusion company. I imagine government regulation won't be any problem for that fusion company anymore.
So a US President whos just been made richer thanks to a fusion company decides to axe wind farms. That gives an image of bias.
The only thing that makes it not seem totally quid pro quo is that Trump already hated wind power, loudly and often. So he might have done this anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
>There is no possible way it recoups investment.
Are you certain of this?
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
You’ve just described industrial machinery. Congratulations, you’ve discovered physics.
Yes, wind turbines are big. Power generation, it turns out, involves mass, materials, foundations, maintenance, oil, brakes, roads, trucks, and time. This is not a scandal, it’s how literally every energy system ever built works. The difference is that after construction, a wind turbine’s fuel bill is zero, which is a concept fossil fuels never quite managed to grasp.
The “never recoups investment” claim collapses instantly under arithmetic. Modern onshore turbines repay their energy and carbon footprint in roughly 6–12 months, then run for 20–30 years. Offshore takes longer, still well under 2–3 years. If they didn’t pay for themselves, no private developer, insurer, or pension fund would touch them. Capital markets are many things, but they are not charities for spinning lawn ornaments.
The oil argument is adorable. A few hundred litres over years of operation, versus millions of litres burned continuously in fossil plants. If lubrication disqualifies something from being green, bicycles are cancelled and trains are a moral failure.
Blades not being perfectly recyclable is true, and also true of aircraft wings, boats, cars, phones, laptops, and basically everything you’re typing on. Meanwhile coal plants generate ash mountains forever, gas plants leak methane, and oil spills make ecosystems disappear. But sure, let’s panic about fiberglass.
“They replace them every 7–10 years” is simply wrong. Gearboxes and blades last decades, and repowering usually means swapping parts to increase output, not because the turbine “wore out”. Fossil plants undergo constant maintenance too, they just don’t get blamed for existing.
Farm access roads, fences, construction phases, brakes, lawsuits, delays, welcome to infrastructure. The same complaints apply to pipelines, refineries, power stations, railways, highways, and yes, drilling rigs. Wind is just the first energy source people expect to materialise magically without touching the ground.
The funniest part is calling wind “the biggest lie” while defending fuels that require mining, drilling, shipping, burning, cooling, waste handling, pollution control, subsidies, and geopolitical wars just to keep the lights on. Wind skips the fuel, skips the smoke, skips the import dependency, and that’s what actually bothers people.
Wind isn’t perfect. Nothing is. But the idea that spinning steel poles producing power for decades are some kind of scam only works if you ignore math, markets, and the fact that they keep getting built because they make money. Physics doesn’t care about vibes.
Re: (Score:1)
this guy totally supported trump but thats ok, this is good. the rats are jumping ship.
keep a look out, you're gonna see a lot of "both sides" and "but this part was good" but once this admin in out and under control we can get back to rational people with a grasp on reality and not have to entertain drivel like "The construction takes 3~5 years and then they have to replaces in 7~10 years." which is off by like 4x in both directions and they got this "fact" from IER which is a another Kock Bros tank whic
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, much better to invest in electrical production which... *checks notes*... does not utilize concrete foundations, metal or glass, and doesn't take years to plan and build. I don't know what that is but I'm sure the engineers who are not experts on the subject like I am will figure something out.
And we certainly must think of those poor farmers out there in the ocean having to move their sea fences.
But hey, I also hate the Pedofuhrer so that means everyone agrees with me, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey this is the internet and you are wrong!. ... It is spelled Pedoführer. Or Pedofuehrer if you can't type an umlaut. ;-)
Re: Good (Score:5, Informative)
Get a little perspective. If that was diesel run through a generator it would generate just over 4MWh of power (about 14kWh/gallon). Pay back on that oil is literally 30-120 minutes at nameplate capacity for modern turbine. Even on a relatively bad day you've recovered it in less than a day.
Even small farms likely have a tank of fuel larger than that for topping off the tractor and other equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, anything you don't understand must be bad.
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, anything you don't understand must be bad.
It might be simpler than that.
There was a UK TV comedy panel show in which a German comedian gently teased the others about Germany's success over the years in the World Cup. An English comedian responded, mimicking an archetypal football fan, with - But England is the best because ... WHEY-HEY!
In the future, when historians pore over this period and try to determine the causes of support for Trump, it won't be that Trump supporters failed to see the logical problems in his strategies. It is likely to be so
Re: (Score:2)
They cannot be recycled
They can be recycled. I've cited a waste management paper two weeks ago, here it is again:
Life cycle environmental impacts of waste management strategies are dependent on background energy systems, with
* incineration a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly when displacing low-carbon grid mixes.
* Cement kiln coprocessing achieves net zero emission by converting waste into energy and raw materials for the cement.
* Mechanical recycling can achieve substantial reductions in primary energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions but achieving financial viability would likely require substantial regulatory support.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Well this should be fun:
Wind power is the ultimate waste. There is no possible way it recoups investment.
The upfront investment can be substantial—a single 3.5 MW commercial turbine costs over £3.13 million to build. However, those turbines can generate between £2.79 million and £7.1 million per year in revenue. Source [lumifyenergy.com]
Strike One.
solid metal center column that is encased in composites (fiber glass or carbon fiber). The blades are composites too. They cannot be recycled and are replaced every 7~10 years, with the old ones going to landfills.
Here's an article [energy.gov] on the US DOE's own web site about advances in recycling turbine blades and composites.
Strike Two.
Farmers have to move fences and restructure farms to allow the trucks to enter.
I've heard of farmed salmon, but I don't think that's what you are referring to. These are OFFSHORE wind farms. No farmers, no fences, no trucks. Please stay on topic.
Each turbine takes 300 gallons of oil!
Jumpin Jesus! Holy cow!
How many gallons of oil does a coal plant use for lubrication and all the diesel equipment to move coal around, and move the waste ash around? How many gallons of oil does a diesel generator use over it's lifetime, and how many kW of energy does it create with substantially more oil used?
THE TURBINE DOESN'T BURN THE OIL TO MAKE ENERGY. You apparently know this, since you hinted that it's used for cooling. It's not used in evaporative cooling, so that same 300 ga. of oil will be there until the decommissioning of the turbine.
Strike Three.
You then go on to make a bunch of baseless assumptions that are loosely correlated to the above, which I've already shown to be monumentally stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
And then we have people like this blithering idiot ...
Do you REALLY think these things get build without a careful cost evaluation, profit prediction and business plan? Seriously? Here is news for you, moron, that analysis is REQUIRED before you get permission to build a wind farm.
Re: (Score:2)
There's literally no wind turbines being replaced every 7-10 years. The design life is 25 years, the actual service life is in excess of 30 years. The reason we are talking about wind turbine blades being replaced now in 2025 is because only now are the first turbines from the late 80s to early 90s being decommissioned.
It consumes massive amounts of energy just to constructor the infrastructure.
Wind is the worst. Except for all the others.
Re: (Score:2)
This is AI Propaganda.
Wind turbines recover their investment in 99 days. Yes they are big - because the size increases their efficiency.