| ▲ | US govt pays TotalEnergies nearly $1B to stop US offshore wind projects(lemonde.fr) |
| 149 points by lode 2 hours ago | 71 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | Ajedi32 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| HN title (currently reads "US govt pays TotalEnergies nearly $1B to stop US offshore wind projects") is editorialized and it's unclear to me whether it's accurate. The article says: > We're partnering with TotalEnergies to unleash nearly $1 billion that was tied up in a lease deposit that was directed towards the prior administration's subsidies What's the deal with this lease deposit and how does "freeing it up" equate to the US govt "paying" TotalEnergies that amount? Is this a situation where TotalEnergies put down a 1B deposit to lease the seashore from the government and the government is now canceling that agreement and giving them their money back? |
|
| ▲ | adriand an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Fortunately, fossil fuels are a stable and geopolitically risk-free source of energy. |
| |
| ▲ | TheOtherHobbes 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | They're a relatively stable and risk-free source of money for a certain kind of politician. The energy part is incidental. | | | |
| ▲ | MikeNotThePope 22 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They are also organic, all-natural, and fat-free! And renewable on geological timescales. | | | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This will not be a learned more robustly in the US until one or both of the only two (edit: major) gas turbine manufacturers in the world (GE Vernova, Siemens Energy) suffer a tail risk event causing their failure. Backlog for new gas turbines is ~7 years, as of this comment. Continued production capacity is a function of how fragile those two companies are. The White House’s Bet on Fossil Fuels Is Already Losing - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-10-28/white-... | https://archive.today/vpvch - October 28th, 2025 Gas-Turbine Crunch Threatens Demand Bonanza in Asia - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-10-07/gas-tu... | https://archive.today/z4Ixw - October 7th, 2025 AI-Driven Demand for Gas Turbines Risks a New Energy Crunch - https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-bottlenecks-gas-turb... | https://archive.today/b8bhn - October 1st, 2025 (think in systems) | | |
| ▲ | bluGill a minute ago | parent | next [-] | | Both of those are big wind tubine manufactres as well. | |
| ▲ | skywal_l an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Isn't there Ansaldo Energia too? | | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yes, but their production volume is limited (imho) compared to the two companies I mentioned. Good callout regardless. I'll have a post put together to share here enumerating and comparing. (i track global fossil generation production capacity as a component of tracking the overall rate of global energy transition to clean energy and electrification, but some of my resources are simply an excel spreadsheet) |
|
| |
| ▲ | rapnie 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And clean. Really, really clean. Just look at coal. A no-brainer. Go for it. | | | |
| ▲ | ecshafer an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The US (with Canada and Mexico) is self-sufficient with fossil fuel energy. | | |
| ▲ | jwr 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Unfortunately, we share the planet and the atmosphere with it. | |
| ▲ | eecc 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I’d wager the US is self sufficient also in terms of renewable energies. | |
| ▲ | Mashimo 21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But it gets traded globally. That means if the price goes up in Asia, it also goes up in NA. | |
| ▲ | krige an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The US (with Canada and Mexico) is self-sufficient with fossil fuel energy. Oh boy can't wait for the reenactment of third reich intervening peacefully in czechoslovakia, for their own safety and wellbeing of course, and not at all for the resources they're hoarding, the filthy hoarders. | |
| ▲ | idle_zealot an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sure, if we build out refining capacity for the next ten years. Then we're golden until we run out of the finite well of combustible dead algae. So if you think we can revitalize American manufacturing and resource processing starting now, and you're okay with those investments being worthless in a few decades, and you don't give a shit about rendering the planet significantly less habitable to human life, then yeah, we're totally self-sufficient with fossil fuels. Or we could, you know, pull energy out of the air and sun, a strategy which will be viable until our star dies. | | |
| ▲ | bryanlarsen 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Alberta tar sands have hundreds of years worth of reserves. They're also expensive and incredibly dirty to extract and emit significantly more CO2 during processing than a light oil well will. (The tar is usually melted by heating with natural gas). I'm quite confident cheap renewable alternatives will make the tar sands inviable far before they run out. | |
| ▲ | saidnooneever 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | another option is not to shit on all countires who do have resources driving the prices up for everyone. |
| |
| ▲ | HDThoreaun 9 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | The US is unable to implement export controls so consuming less than it creates doesnt mean theres enough since producers will export if international prices are better |
|
|
|
| ▲ | seydor 17 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I feel like Total could have pushed for more, much more. It's very important that Windmills and 5G antennas do not spray Covid19 on proud patriotic americans |
|
| ▲ | mandeepj 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The guy is unhinged, hellbent on denial, just to appease his base, who are going bankrupt because of his policies. Would he pay Sun as well to stop shining over the US? |
| |
| ▲ | tombert 19 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The overrated and very annoying "sun", the so-called "star" that our planet goes around has been going unquestioned for too long! Many people have been asking for a long time, perhaps even before Obama, to remove the sun from the sky and replace it with our beautiful clean coal towers! | |
| ▲ | armada651 12 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's even stupider than that, it's not even to appease his base, it's a personal grudge. Trump sued a wind energy company to prevent them from building an off-shore wind farm in view of his golf resort in Scotland. He lost that case badly and he has been railing against wind energy specifically ever since. So far Trump hasn't done much to prevent solar farms from being built, it's only wind turbines that he's exacting his vengeance on like some sort of modern day Don Quixote. | |
| ▲ | kelseyfrog 20 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | https://fee.org/articles/the-candlemakers-petition/ This feels relevant |
|
|
| ▲ | gmueckl an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Do I have it right that the two projects that this deal kills off haven't seen any construction work yet? These aren't among the projects that the stop work orders were issued against in December, right? |
| |
| ▲ | 0cf8612b2e1e 41 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | My quick skim, I think you are right. This is getting them to halt new development, by buying them off with the equivalent of the subsidies the current administration cancelled. | |
| ▲ | Mashimo 13 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | These ones no construction had been started yet AFAIK. If AI summery is to be trusted, a few other windparks got stopped that where almost done, but got completed anyway after a legal battle. Vineyard Wind 1, Coastal Virginia (CVOW), Empire Wind 1, Revolution Wind, Sunrise Wind. Again, got it from AI, make of that what you want. | | |
| ▲ | cwal37 9 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The feds have dropped their attempts to stop those from ongoing construction for now, but only one of those projects is complete. CVOW is supposed to flow first power this month, but won't be done for ~a year, Empire Wind is also end of '26/early '27, Sunrise later in 2027. Vineyard was completed this month, and Revolution is delivering power and targets completion over the next few months. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | BigTTYGothGF 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm reminded of Reagan taking down the White House solar panels. |
|
| ▲ | paxys 9 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Serious question, but not entirely related to the topic - how are “smart” people in the US preparing for the next 20-30 years? - Assume everything will be fine and America will remain a global economic superpower. - Plan an exit to a more serious, stable country. - Some option in the middle of the two to hedge your bets? |
| |
| ▲ | onlyrealcuzzo a minute ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm investing in property in places that will allow me to get permanent residency without jumping through too many hoops. | |
| ▲ | shepherdjerred 5 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'd leave the US if the tech jobs didn't pay so much better here. I mostly like the US but the years since Obama have been rough | |
| ▲ | tsunamifury 4 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Please list the more serious and stable country if America collapses. I’ll wait. On a serious note; I’m looking at my billion dollar neighbors and they all just are citizens everywhere now. No allegiance to anything but their own pleasure. |
|
|
| ▲ | steveBK123 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| We truly live in the bad place |
|
| ▲ | sameergh 15 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If this is accurate the US is making itself look unreliable for major energy investment |
| |
|
| ▲ | harmmonica 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I know this US government is fully-committed to fossil fuels and about as rabidly anti-renewables as can be, but I'm still shocked to see things like this. And I'm fully aware of Trump's Scotland experience and how that contributed or directly led to this, but, still, shocked. And then I'm also shocked because I know that at least half, if not a good bit more, of US citizens are in agreement with this strategy. Not sure how I can still be shocked but here I am. And I say that not as some rabid renewables person. Just the insane binary thinking, regardless of the dollars and cronyism at work. There's zero room for nuance, which I guess is my biggest complaint about the world at large. Aside: people who think climate change will be the death of us all, and sooner than later, I get it, and I fully appreciate you pushing for a cleaner and more livable world. At this point I'm just going to sit in the corner and hope you, and China, figure it out and then it spreads quickly to the rest of the world, which I think at this point is pretty much a foregone conclusion barring a nuclear war (will refrain from commenting about how the likelihood of that has ticked up the past couple of weeks in an area teeming with (sarcastically shocked this time!) fossil fuels). |
| |
| ▲ | leonidasrup 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Don't underestimate the power of money spend by the U.S. oil,gas,coal industry.
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_network#Climate_change_an... | |
| ▲ | throwway120385 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This might surprise you, but only a minority of eligible voters vote. So while it looks like 50% of people believe this is a good strategy and we should do it based on the percentage of people who voted for Trump, in reality a minority of people in the US believe this is good. The problem is that few of those people vote. So in all seriousness, if we could get a significant fraction of the young people who are negatively impacted by these policies to actually vote against the people enacting them we could see real change. But if we keep telling them everyone believes in this stuff and your vote doesn't count and so on then nobody will do anything about it until it's too late and we're shooting at or throwing rocks at each other. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > if we keep telling them everyone believes in this stuff and your vote doesn't count and so on I don’t know if you can fix lazy. Turning out new voters basically happens once a generation. The rest tell themselves tales that their vote could never matter, and in doing that, subtly endorse the status quo. | | |
| ▲ | tombert 12 minutes ago | parent [-] | | This is kind of why I ultimately find cynicism to inherently lazy. This is coming from a very cynical (and often lazy) person. It takes no effort to be cynical, I can tell myself "everything sucks and I shouldn't care because nothing matters anyway" and justify not doing anything I want. I can justify not voting, I can justify not helping someone if I see them struggling on the street, I can justify not even improving myself. In the last couple years I have been trying my best to override my cynical tendencies because ultimately I think that they are bad for me. I vote in every election I am able to because even if it's infinitesimal, I at least tried to do something to avoid whom I deem bad people getting into office. |
| |
| ▲ | root_axis 21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > in reality a minority of people in the US believe this is good. I'm not convinced. The reason why many of these people don't vote is because they don't think Trump is that bad. They probably don't agree with everything, but that's true no matter who is in office. | |
| ▲ | tokai 20 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | 63.45% voted last time. Thats not a minority. |
| |
| ▲ | tasty_freeze 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm always gobsmacked when Trump says things like, "We need to get rid of all the wind turbines! They are killing all the birds! Look at the foot of any tower and you'll see nothing but dead birds!" Is there a single person who things Trump gives a single damn about the birds? It is obviously just a pretext. | | |
| ▲ | tdb7893 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Wind turbines are also miniscule compared to issues like pollution, land use, windows, and cats. Also you can track migration and turn them off at key times if it's a huge issue (this is part of the motivation for research I'm going to do later as part of my master's). Wind turbines are an issue but approximately 0% of the 30% decline in US birds since the 1970s | |
| ▲ | harmmonica 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Never thought about it, but that's a great point and comparison. From quick Google search: 365 million and 988 million birds die every year from window collisions (that's US alone). Windmills/turbines: 140,000 and 679,000. Then if you do per windmill vs. per building obviously the windmills are going to "win," but it's the absolute that would seem to matter in this case. As you said, that has nothing to do with the actual preference for fossils vs. turbines, but a great point nonetheless. | |
| ▲ | foobarbecue 28 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | And whales, don't forget the whales https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/26/trump-whale-... and the noise causes cancer |
| |
| ▲ | kakacik 26 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | People voted in repeatedly a visibly primitive person (plus quite a few other things but lets not go there now), then they get primitive behavior. An honest question - what the heck did you expect? Some sophisticated rational discussions instead of dumb ego tantrums? |
|
|
| ▲ | einrealist an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Simply insane. |
|
| ▲ | jmclnx an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Sorry, I do not know how else to say this: Well hopefully when Trump is gone NY remembers this and tells Pouyanné to screw when they put out bids to restart the project. |
|
| ▲ | throwaway5752 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The US, should it survive this administration, will be a case study in history. I expect Taiwan will make a treaty with China by the end of this year at this point. Doesn't anyone understand how much soft power we lost in the last 7 days? The US just killed the leadership of a country it was negotiating with, failed to have a plan for after the attack for a scenario that has been known for 50 years (the Hormuz chokepoint), has lost the faith of regional allies who cannot risk losing oil and desalination infrastructure, has alienated its allies. The US is worse off than before the action, is paying Iran and Russia to 10x more than before without further security guarantees, have alienated the Iranian public, have cementing Iran as the regional power, and have given the CNY a major toehold in energy markets. The US is essentially an empty husk right now. It can't run airports. |
| |
| ▲ | morkalork 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Kidnapping the leader of a sovereign nation to put them on show trial and plotting to steal the country's natural resources. Blockading and strangling an island country to the point of economic collapse. Opining out loud about annexing their northern neighbours. The list goes on and on.. | | | |
| ▲ | jeffbee 32 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The United States has already been destroyed. It is no longer in question, or in the future tense. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | This is comfortable doomerism. But it isn’t accurate. Moreover, it’s dangerous since the numpties who tend to believe it then politically disengage. | | |
| ▲ | jeffbee 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | None of the institutions function, or do the thing that we used to explain to children what they do. The whole thing demonstrably does not exist. You're welcome to describe my view with whatever pejorative you prefer. |
|
| |
| ▲ | MaxHoppersGhost 36 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | >The US, should it survive this administration This level of doomerism is absurd. Of course the US will survive this administration. I blame the news for making every breathe by whichever opposition seem like the next WWIII. | | |
| ▲ | specialist 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Pax Americana is doomed. What the USA looks like post-hegemony is TBD. | | | |
| ▲ | kakacik 13 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The land will be there. (most of) people will be there. What parent probably meant is losing everything good and positive United States of America represented in past 80+ years, internally and globally. That is gone my friend, with the wind like a sulfuric fart, for good. US is becoming a global terrorist and enemy #2 of free world and certainly whole Europe (right after its biggest and only 'friend', russia which coincidentally keeps trying to make you a thing of the past). This comes from somebody who strongly believed in your role in global hegemony despite your numerous well documented fuckups in the past. All on the whims of one visibly mentally sick man, with absolutely nobody standing up to him despite nobody really believing in any of that bullshit. No principles, just plain greed and firm fuck-the-rest approach. Right now, if Europe needs a strong big ally it will be #1 China, and then... nothing. The fact you voted him in, and he still has massive support, and there has been 0 overthrow attempts of the biggest traitor to US in its history tells me and everybody else in the world many things, but nothing positive. Even if next election, if they will happen, will have 98% win of the democracts with that ridiculous unfair and undemocratic system of yours, it won't change a permanent shift that started and keeps happening. US has no real allies, in same vein russia or China has no real allies. Empires rise and fall, inevitably, there was never a reason to think US would be an exception. | |
| ▲ | buellerbueller 22 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The US is dead; it is now a Trumpian shithole. | |
| ▲ | throwaway5752 27 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Your optimism is absurd. And your ridiculous literalism. Obvious the space in North America between Canada and Mexico will still be there. The rights the citizen's enjoyed have drastically changed and are likely to get worse. The quality of life and wealth of the country have already been extremely damaged. Those were based on various international treats and trade patterns that have been unilaterally ended by the US. The reputation of the US will not recover within 20 years. China is ascendant and, realistically, has already overtaken the US in capability. You are the one that is being illogical, afactual, and emotional. You are rejecting accurate assessments because of a cognitive bias. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | fn-mote 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| At least it doesn't seem like a direct payoff. So in that sense the title is clickbait. > redirect those funds towards fossil fuel production [...]
> US interior secretary [says] the deal was worth "nearly $1 billion The rest of the comments here... yep. |
|
| ▲ | exabrial 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I believe this has a lot to do with Coastal Radar IIRC. I believe that fact will be lost in the myriad of identify politics and finger point which the comment section is about to delve into. |
| |
| ▲ | tencentshill 31 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | This was a known risk for decades on every coastal wind project, and would have been a part of the earliest risk assessments for this project. The people building these projects are generally not as stupid as the administration trying to tear them down. | |
| ▲ | etchalon 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It doesn't. | |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 24 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | IIRC it does not. There has been some discussions by folks around it, but so far no evidence has pointed to it being a primary motivation. The evidence we do have is that republicans have had a party vendetta against clean energy for decades, and their current leader has had a personal vendetta specifically against wind turbines, also for decades. |
|