US Will Not Approve Solar or Wind Power Projects, President Says (cnbc.com)
- Reference: 0178806812
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/08/21/1224252/us-will-not-approve-solar-or-wind-power-projects-president-says
- Source link: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/20/trump-says-us-will-not-approve-solar-or-wind-power-projects.html
> "We will not approve wind or farmer destroying Solar," Trump, who has complained in the past that solar takes up too much land, posted on Truth Social. "The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!"
>
> The president's comment comes after the administration tightened federal permitting for renewables last month. The permitting process is now centralized in Interior Secretary Doug Burgum's office. Renewable companies fear that projects will no longer receive permits that were once normal course of business.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/20/trump-says-us-will-not-approve-solar-or-wind-power-projects.html
[2] https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/25/08/19/2347235/electricity-prices-are-climbing-more-than-twice-as-fast-as-inflation
"Small Government" (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the "party of small government" at work, getting out of the way of business, correct?
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
> This is the "party of small government" at work, getting out of the way of business, correct?
POTUS has quite limited authority on what happens on state and private land. If people want to put up windmills then they still can, just not on federal land. That is unless I'm missing something.
I can expect some authority still remains in federal control. One example might be windmills tall enough to interfere with FAA recognized airports. There's some altitude in which the FAA has considerable authority for structures even on private land, but would any windmill get that high? If there's glare from
Re: (Score:3)
> POTUS has quite limited authority on what happens on state and private land. If people want to put up windmills then they still can, just not on federal land. That is unless I'm missing something.
The concern here isn't what the feds choose to do on federal land, which as you say is totally up to them. It's also not necessarily about what the feds choose to invest in, which again is up to them. The concern (because like most things coming from a POTUS tweet, it's not clear) is that because Wind and Solar projects require certain permits, even when being built on private land, those projects may be frustrated by a government that will refuse to issue those permits for purely political reasons as oppos
Re: (Score:2)
> POTUS has quite limited authority on what happens on state and private land. If people want to put up windmills then they still can, just not on federal land. That is unless I'm missing something.
Yeah I thought the same thing. I'm just unsure if the Feds need to approve permits for large scale energy projects. It doesn't make sense that they would have that power over states and private companies though.
Re: (Score:1)
True, but no one does anything green without getting government subsidies to pay for at least some of it. You're not really allowed to DIY it, so there are costs all over the place.
Re: (Score:2)
This is about permitting, not funding.
There go your AI data centers (Score:4, Interesting)
It takes much longer to bring other forms of power online. So all those AI investments are doomed.
he's rattled (Score:2, Insightful)
this big fat loser is taking L after L
losing optics war with gavin newsom? L
got jack shit done despite prostrating himself to russia? L
still dodging those epstein files? L
electricity prices going up? L
beef and grocery prices up? L
the guys a losing machine, no surprise hes literally saying no to energy. LITERAL LOW ENERGY BEHAVIOUR
Re:he's rattled (Score:4, Insightful)
...but still the Democrats are unable to raise any effective opposition.
I know a farmer that has leases on three wind turbines on his land; he said the income was roughly equal to his average net profit from farming operations. Oh, and his crops are worth less than his break-even point with the tariffs. Still a loyal Republican.
I'm curious just how bad it would have to be for the Republicans to lose at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
> But covering a source of food? That's just dumb.
Are we in that desperate need of land for agriculture? Where I live in Oregon, there is so much land that is not being used for anything at all.
Re: (Score:3)
>> But covering a source of food? That's just dumb.
> Are we in that desperate need of land for agriculture? Where I live in Oregon, there is so much land that is not being used for anything at all.
I mean, I can poop in my driveway. That doesn't mean that's the best place for it.
Re: I see both sides of this (Score:2)
Is the land near you in Oregon already flattened and cleared? That is why we have been using farmland; it is ideal already.
Re: (Score:3)
> Is the land near you in Oregon already flattened and cleared? That is why we have been using farmland; it is ideal already.
Have you ever been anywhere near the plains states? Flattened and cleared is the default for massive swaths of it. You'll see small clusters of trees around waterways, and outside of that it's just extremely gently rolling hills covered in scrub grass for miles in every direction.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Dude if you reduce the regulatory red tape for nuclear you get meltdowns. The reason Europe can do shit like that is their government is the one doing it not private businesses. It looks like private businesses because we all like to pretend communism bad so anything the government does bad even in Europe but they're not quite as freaked out by government action as we are so you have a lot more money flowing and resources flowing from the government so the private businesses don't have to pony up the cash t
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
I live 30 miles from a nuclear plant that's been there most of my life. No meltdowns to my knowledge, and Meta just cut a deal to extend its life and expand its capacity, presumably because it's way easier to do that than build a new one. The financial argument is there. There's discussion now, because that plant was originally designed for two reactors but only implemented on (because of additional regulation/licensing cost per my discussions with people there I know,) that they may do that very thing.
T
Re: (Score:2)
> No meltdowns to my knowledge
That is pretty much the point. That reactor is highly, highly regulated.
Gen4 reactors do not exist except in developmental or paper form. If you want a production reactor today its gonna be a Gen3/3.5 LWR or PWR and that's OK, those are quite safe.
Fact is OP is correct in that when you look at who is building reactors today or has plans to it's pretty much always via a State-Owned-Enterprise. China does it with 2 SOEs. France has EDF/Apeva. India has NCPIL. Russia has it's own, go on and on. The US di
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is they're pushing coal plants. Coal has died off in a lot of places because of its environmental issues, but also economically it's just not worth it compared to natural gas.
No company is going to invest in a new coal plant and all the associated infrastructure just to have it be more expensive
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear is just too expensive and time consuming. South Korea and the UAE couldn't even build a plant on time and on budget. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The USA is filed with acres and acres of flat roofs and asphalt parking lots. Completely free energy from the sun beamed down daily and it's wasted as absorbed heat.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant
Re: (Score:2)
We're losing a lot more land to unrestrained development than solar ever could achieve.
Re: (Score:2)
> It sickens me that some of the most fertile land in the country, if not the world, is being covered by solar panels.
If a shortage of corn becomes a problem in the future, the panels can be removed. In the meantime, if the extra electricity speeds the adoption of EVs, then we can *burn* less of our food in ICE cars. We're currently dedicating more than a third of all those cornfields just for that. There's no plausible scenario where a third of all the cornfields would be converted to solar arrays anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
> That said, I live in the corn-belt of the U.S. It sickens me that some of the most fertile land in the country, if not the world, is being covered by solar panels. Use them in the desert? OK, although I admit there are environmental impacts there too. But covering a source of food? That's just dumb.
Solar and wind power can be placed in agricultural areas without reducing crop yield. Moreover, some crops actually respond better when there is shade given by solar panels. The term is agrivoltaics [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/28/business/dual-use-solar-panels-agrivoltaics-blue-wave-power.html [nytimes.com] is a good article on it. There's a decent discussion on the DoE website but given the current government climate, I have no idea how long that is going to be up there [2]https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/agrivoltaics [energy.gov]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/28/business/dual-use-solar-panels-agrivoltaics-blue-wave-power.html
[2] https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/agrivoltaics-solar-and-agriculture-co-location
Re: (Score:2)
How much of that corn you see is being grown for ethanol? Likely almost all... as in a negative energy proposition. Grid scale PV on agricultural land is stupid, but smaller scale agrovoltaics makes sense. Really though the focus should be on rooftop solar and getting as much solar as possible on other imperviable surfaces.
Re: (Score:2)
> That said, I live in the corn-belt of the U.S. It sickens me that some of the most fertile land in the country, if not the world, is being covered by solar panels. Use them in the desert? OK, although I admit there are environmental impacts there too. But covering a source of food? That's just dumb.
I wouldn't put solar panels in a corn field, but that area is part of The Great Plains and is great for windmills (minus the occasional tornado). Windmills and agriculture go well together. That being said, solar and corn fields don't do so well as you say, but agrivoltaics is a growing thing (pun intended) and works well with some crops.
Your electricity costs are going to skyrocket (Score:1)
The only thing keeping it down was the constant flow of wind and solar hitting the grid and reducing the cost of electricity by adding new capacity.
Combined with AI data centers you can expect your power bill to go up by at least 50% by Trump's third term. And you will give Trump a third term because TV is going to tell you to do that and you always do what TV tells you to do.
It's infuriating the generation that grew up sneering at The boob tube has developed zero critical thinking skills.
What's
Of course (Score:2)
If it was implemented by a democrat then undo it.
This is what he campaigned on and people are still shocked.
Re: (Score:2)
"Shocked" isn't the word.
Re: (Score:2)
If only there was a company out there that was pushing batteries for your house similar to the batteries in their cars. If only there was a company that did that...
Is their approval needed? (Score:2, Troll)
Is the Republican Left (MAGA) now asserting the government has gained the power to control how The People generate electricity? I know transitioning from Free Markets to a Planned economy is a stress for everyone, but before We The People fully accept that stress, are we sure they can really force it on us?
I think we ought to at least wait and make SCOTUS agree that the 10th amendment does not exist. Until they say so, let's keep pretending the constitution is the law. Anything that will help to slow down
Make America Second Rate Again! (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump continues to be a gift to the foes of the United States that just never stops giving.
Project Entrumpy (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldn't be surprised if Trump wasn't a plot by Putin and Xi to destroy the USA without a military attack.
Re: (Score:2)
For every win Trump has there's 5 L's that drag the country down farther. I had no idea winning looked so much like punching ourselves in the dick.
Trump continuing to demonstrate why you should- (Score:1)
Never go full retard.
Nobody gets paid? Hell no we won't allow THAT! (Score:2)
This is all part of the big corporate hatred of things that are free. Nobody has to pay for wind or solar power, beyond the cost to get started.
There's no monthly bill and THAT worries the utilities and their investors. If consumers got used to free, they would gradually flee the money-minting utility bills that keep $20bn reactors funded. Free cannot be allowed. Freedom cannot be allowed.
The utility companies are terrified of anything that gets people out of the habit of paying those bills. This is o
Let the market decide... (Score:3)
Government shouldn't pick the winners and losers...
I'm old enough to remember when the GOP believed that government shouldn't interfere with the market.
Also I just got my driver's license.
Professor Dingleberry (Score:2)
> farmer destroying Solar," Trump, who has complained in the past that solar takes up too much land
All that corn growing in Death Valley dies due to lack of sun, the horror!
And they often provide an area to shade cattle from heat. One has to build covering anyhow or else you get instant jerky on hot days, but with solar they pay for themselves.
solar is anti farmer? (Score:2)
Solar being anti-farmer is wild. Mr. Let's Inject Bleach thinks deserts and all dry land would be farmed if not for solar, gotcha.
Too bad! (Score:2)
Although the Trump administration ain't bright enough to provide power via solar panels, they spew enough hot air to keep a few square miles' worth of wind turbines running full-tilt 24-7. Not to mention producing enough bullshit to supplant a significant amount of GG-producing fertilizer manufacturing...
"The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!" (Score:5, Insightful)
Big whoppers should be at least remotely plausible.
Re: (Score:2)
One would think so, but in fact the more ridiculous the whopper is, the easier it is to pass off. "No one would tell a lie THAT big."
Re: (Score:1)
All that matters is whether it distracts people from Trump's name being all over the still un-released Epstein files.
Re: (Score:2)
He's moved on from stupid to moron, but still has room to continue along the path.
> Idiots. - Those so defective that the mental development never exceeds that or a normal child of about two years.
> Imbeciles. - Those whose development is higher than that of an idiot, but whose intelligence does not exceed that of a normal child of about seven years.
> Morons. - Those whose mental development is above that of an imbecile, but does not exceed that of a normal child of about twelve years.
>
> - Edmund Burke Huey, Bac
Re: (Score:2)
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."
Re:"The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!" (Score:5, Insightful)
We're about to have an MMA event at the Whitehouse [1]https://www.espn.com/mma/story... [espn.com]
This is literally Idiocracy playing out before our eyes.
[1] https://www.espn.com/mma/story/_/id/45954717/dana-white-says-ucf-fight-night-white-house-going-happen
Re: (Score:2)
Just another day in Dumbfuckistan.
Re: (Score:2)
The Christian Taliban have arrived with their new Orange Jesus! Halleluiah! 1800's or Bust!
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to Costco, I love you.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you have against Costco?
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. This one makes no sense. At minimum solar, wind can compliment oil, coal and nuclear. Regarding nuclear, every country in Western Europe can figure out how to safely deliver a nuclear plant a price far lower than ours. Maybe we need to look at these countries as a role model. We should also look at Japan as a lesson as to where not to put a nuclear plant.