Don Trump Tilts at Windmills: Rescinds All Offshore Wind Energy Areas in the US; current leases up for review

[essentialsaltes]

The offshore wind industry had projected $65 billion in investments by 2030, supporting 56,000 jobs, with significant benefits for U.S. shipbuilding and maritime operations. The current administration’s actions mark a significant departure from the previous Biden-Harris administration’s goals of deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030 and 15 gigawatts of floating offshore wind by 2035.

While the order doesn’t affect existing lease rights, it mandates a comprehensive review of current wind energy leases for potential termination or amendment and extends to both onshore and offshore wind development pending environmental and economic review.

 

[SimplyMe]

Why generate clean energy when we can burn more oil?

 

[Nithavela]

The sentinment is appreciated, but we are already on the path to extinction, so there really isn't much point to fighting for acceleration so hard. I'd rather the suffering be drawn out some more.

 

[ozso]

Don't those things cause cancer?

 

[Desk trauma]

Why generate clean energy when we can burn more oil?

Oil? Out of here with that new fangled malarkey, coal!

 

[DaisyDay]

Don't those things cause cancer?

It's a national crisis on the level of black lung and asbestosis!

 

[Richard T]

The offshore wind industry had projected $65 billion in investments by 2030, supporting 56,000 jobs, with significant benefits for U.S. shipbuilding and maritime operations. The current administration’s actions mark a significant departure from the previous Biden-Harris administration’s goals of deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030 and 15 gigawatts of floating offshore wind by 2035.

While the order doesn’t affect existing lease rights, it mandates a comprehensive review of current wind energy leases for potential termination or amendment and extends to both onshore and offshore wind development pending environmental and economic review.

The article does not really say why but i suspect it is because those living right on the coast dont like a windmill view from their beach houses. This occurs for oil platforms too in some areas.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Let's take a look, shall we.

• • Secretary’s Order 3437: This order, titled “Ending Preferential Treatment for Unreliable, Foreign Controlled Energy Sources in Department Decision-Making,” directed agencies to stop favoring wind and solar energy in regulations and policies.

Interior Ends Preferential Treatment for Unreliable, Subsidy-Dependent Wind and Solar Energy​

​

https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2025/jul/31/boem-rescinds-lease-areas/​

​

• • Political Ideology: The administration framed the decision as a rollback of what it called the “climate extremism” of previous policies that prioritized renewables over fossil fuels.

Why not continue with Nuclear Energy - which is safe and much more reliable?

 

[Richard T]

Let's take a look, shall we.

​

Why not continue with Nuclear Energy - which is safe and much more reliable?

Nuclear is very expensive. It has a waste problem and still can be catastrophic. You can plan for many things but earthquakes floods an wars make it susceptible.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Nuclear is very expensive. It has a waste problem and still can be catastrophic. You can plan for many things but earthquakes floods a wars make it susceptible.

Nuclear is 300% more reliable and effective than wind and doesn’t take up 15% of land needed for wind.

When was the last time in the United States that an earthquake, a flood or a war affected any of our nuclear plants?

By the way, the same can be said for wind. All you have to do is knock them over.

 

[Nithavela]

Nuclear is 300% more reliable and effective than wind and doesn’t take up 15% of land needed for wind.

When was the last time in the United States that an earthquake, a flood or a war affected any of our nuclear plants?

By the way, the same can be said for wind. All you have to do is knock them over.

The last nuclear accident in the USA that caused radioactive polution was in 2022.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant accident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 2010 there was one that cost 700 million dollars to clean up.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Always in His Presence]

The last nuclear accident in the USA that caused radioactive polution was in 2022.

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant accident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That was a leak in a pipeline. Not earthquake, flood or war

In 2010 there was one that cost 700 million dollars to clean up.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Again a maintenance issue

I’ve driven from Berlin to Frankfurt. Seen the kilometers of wind farms.
Why does the country still have need of 72% of their electricity come from nuclear or coal fired sources?

Why did the wind electricity drop from 32% to 24% this year? Here is a hint - not enough wind.

Granted, it’s a novel approach to the problem. But a nuclear facility does so much better with so much less.

 

[Larniavc]

It's a national crisis on the level of black lung and asbestosis!

 

[Fantine]

There are far too many conservative politicians who generate too much wind from their own pronouncements, from the top on down.

I'd rather have clean wind energy than their polluting pronouncements any old time.

 

[DaisyDay]

That was a leak in a pipeline. Not earthquake, flood or war

That makes it even worse that this occurred while in normal operation. Is this your point?

Again a maintenance issue

That doesn't make it better, but worse. Unfortunately, deferred maintenance often results from budget initiatives with terrible results.

I’ve driven from Berlin to Frankfurt. Seen the kilometers of wind farms.
Why does the country still have need of 72% of their electricity come from nuclear or coal fired sources?

Transitioning takes time, money and resources.

Why did the wind electricity drop from 32% to 24% this year? Here is a hint - not enough wind.

It didn't - it dropped in 2024.

Granted, it’s a novel approach to the problem. But a nuclear facility does so much better with so much less.

Nuclear is novel? Have we solved the problem of the disposal if nuclear waste? In some cases, nuclear may be the best solution and in other cases, such as an earthquake prone area, clearly not.

 

[Always in His Presence]

@DaisyDay

The subject is wind - that is what is novel - re-read the sentence please.

How are windmills any better in Earthquake prone area's?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Interior Ends Preferential Treatment for Unreliable, Subsidy-Dependent Wind and Solar Energy​

Nuclear is also heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. (as are fossil fuels)

 

[DaisyDay]

@DaisyDay

View attachment 367978

The subject is wind - that is what is novel - re-read the sentence please.

It was not clear to me what "it" in your sentence was - thank you for clarifying. I don't understand what you mean by "with so much less".

How are windmills any better in Earthquake prone area's?

Broken windmills are less lethal, much less factoring time, than broken nuclear facilities. Is that really a question?

Fukushima nuclear accident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[essentialsaltes]

DoE is having some oddly specific fantasies.