> This initial phase acknowledges the need to safeguard existing assets and ensures an uninterrupted and affordable supply of power. The United States must prevent the premature decommissioning of critical power generation resources
Yeah, they're going to do all they can to block cheap renewables and give handouts to fossil fuel companies.
It was approved in a flury of approvals between the election and inauguration. So that's not direct evidence. However, do you have direct evidence that the revocation was just based on it being renewable? Sure, there's circumstantial evidence of it. If there's circumstantial evidence for both positions, we need some hard evidence to support either one.
Do you have evidence of this? Maybe a list of all LPO approvals so we can look for increased frequency after the election? It would also help to know the average LPO timeline, so we could look at when the grain belt express applied and see if it was approved unusually quickly.
> However, do you have direct evidence that the revocation was just based on it being renewable?
Not exclusively, but there is evidence that opposition to green energy was one of the major factors. See Josh Hawley's statements, where he repeatedly highlights the "green" aspects and likes to call it a "green scam": https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-wins-cancelation-of-gra..., https://x.com/HawleyMO/status/1943408766629650779. The current Secretary of Energy is also strongly opposed to expansion of renewable energy, see this recent speech: https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-energy-chris-wrigh....
You could run the numbers to show if it's financially responsible or not instead of again using circumstantial evidence. We can also look at the other approved LPO grants, like the one for sustainable aviation fuel.
Here's an article about how they changed their methods to push more through due to their political concerns.
https://cen.acs.org/energy/US-cleantech-loan-program-sprints...
"Three Mile Island nuclear plant restart in Microsoft AI power deal"
Building new ones will take 10+ years, and the climate crisis is a today problem.
Also, at the rate technology is changing, building new nuclear plants seems silly.
Also, at the rate technology is changing, building new nuclear plants seems silly."
You're right, technology is changing quickly. There are plenty of new reactor options, including small modular types which would be faster to build. This doesn't seem silly.
"We are proposing the largest solar farm in the world, in order to capture the sheer magnitude and capability of the most powerful solar plant to date, we propose calling it the Grand Trump Energy Generation Field"
The dudes ego would prevent him from blocking it.
Many AI people in positions of influence have argued that AI will all but solve the climate crisis.
Viewed from that angle, it would make sense that you wouldn’t care about how dirty the sources of energy is on the way to AGI because once there, the climate crisis will be magically solved. Somehow.
They are anti-renewable, because renewable = woke. Tribal politics at its best.
Who is the “they” in your sentence?
Top level comment was referencing the energy policies mentioned in the linked site, which of course left out renewables entirely.