US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified | Hacker News Reader

US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified

arstechnica.com

612 pointsrbanffy520 comments

Yes, turbine blades can introduce radar clutter and affect certain military systems; but this has been know since the 1990s and has been engineered around for decades.

China, the UK, Germany, and Denmark operate gigawatts of offshore wind in close proximity to military-grade and NATO air-defense radar without much issue...

There could be new developments in the problem. For example, small scale drones using these areas as entry points. Not to say that's that, but I think it's not impossible that something new is being taken under consideration.

Under other circumstances I might be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. But when's the last time we saw any action from this admin that wasn't clearly self-dealing or ideologically motivated instead of science-based?

Yup. And Trump very specifically has had a very irrational obsession and hatred for windmills for years now.

The real takeaway is when a big project can be paused entirely due to one presidents very specific / frivolous whims - we won’t be able to do big projects in the current order. We need a shift in the constitutional order where the whims of one person isnt fused with the bureaucracy

> We need a shift in the constitutional order where the whims of one person isnt fused with the bureaucracy

Correct me if I'm wrong, though there are already protections there. It's just president, senate, congress, SCOTUS all agree on this.

IMHO - most effective constitutional change would be to get rid of first past the post election system, electoral colleges, gerrymandering, etc. I think USA's two party system made it to the place where it is right now, seemingly on the verge of turning into one-party system.

The US has had worse structural power imbalances in the past. It’s gotten over them (after a generation or more) by

- coalition shifts - every election, new groups going and out of each party

- demographic shifts - shrinking / growing / moving around of different groups

- external shock - war / depression / ?? changes incentives of governance (see Civil War, Great Depression)

- hegemons dilemma - the in power party over time goes through in fighting, over confidence, etc (see Republicans becoming corrupt in The Gilded Age)

Alternate constitutional order can mean a lot besides amendments - or even using Federal power. It can be about organizing economic power to reject illegitimacy. It can mean organizing the Democratic Party differently as more of a shadow set of social institutions that support people. It can mean leveraging state power, and building coalitions of blue states. Or other creative approaches to power.

Don't overlook the influence of global soft power and the non-profit sector.

Demographic shifts and a robust social safety net are also naturally reshaping the landscape

The laws exist, SCOTUS majority just doesn’t want to enforce them because their guy is in power.

Maybe but I think it’s more about they think in terms of unitary executive. So if there’s any discretion given the agencies - I don’t know in this case - SCOTUS lets the president decide.

In many ways this is more how a parliamentary democracy exists that a republic.

POTUS power has already extended well beyond even congress.

Half of the USA, or at least half of its voting population, now supports the idea that the role of government is simply to be an extension of the personality of the Chief Executive. Essentially, whatever Trump feels is the policy of the government and therefor is the law.

I guess you're being downvoted because either: 1) Too many conservative tech bros here or 2) independent voters may not be aligned with this crap yet many voted for him anyway.

Probably both.

Years ago, this very subject was an interview question at a national lab (at an undergrad level). The question was roughly:

> the ends of windmill blades look a lot like a jet on radar. If you were assigned to this project, what would your approach be to avoiding false positives?

This was in 2011/2012. I find it difficult to believe the problem is not solved.

Realistically, isn't it a known presence on radar? It's static - you can't just ignore signals from that area in space?

Yes, and more...

You can use different antenna designs for a more directional radar beam. Or tilt the beam upwards to steer it around obstacles.

You can also build a moving-target detector by looking at doppler shift to filter out objects that are moving too slowly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_target_indication

Curly blades makes it harder to lower its radar surface areas.

The enemy could be hiding precisely at the windmills /s

Perhaps if tip speed is X and radar installation is perpendicular to wind turbine, then an enemy can approach at speed X in the turbine's radar shadow. There would still be multiple pulses with timing differences but if there's a field of turbines then I'd guess there's enough interference/scatter to be a problem. Like using approaching from the sun causes problems for pilots.

The reflections from the turbines would pulse due to the blades so in theory their scatter could be cancelled out in processing?

Jets don't tend to fly around in little circles so there's that. And windmills don't move around a lot. I'm sure this is a solved problem.

It has been solved. Get rid of all the windmills. Easy.

Who raised you?

>It has been solved. Get rid of all the windmills. Easy.

You dropped this: /s

Meanwhile, we're in a multi-year shortage of turbines for thermal electrical plants. Electric bill beatings will continue until morale improves.

Are wind turbines remotely similar? I would have thought something mounted high up on an always-moving top would have to be smaller, lighter, and sturdier than something that sits on the ground in a controlled environment. I'm not sure the two are in competition for production.

No. Thermal turbines turn steam into spin, they're not quite jet engines, but they need 24/7 reliability under stressful physics for extended periods of time. Wind generators are just like big electric car motors, I would think?

https://www.spglobal.com/energy/en/news-research/latest-news...

I think it's more a shortage of electricity generation in general.

I asked Gemini if this was true and my city blacked out.

I looked into this a little because I was curious. I guess the ostensible "national security" rationale (which clearly is not the only reason!) for this is that turbines severely degrade the utility of radar surveillance along the coastlines.

This is particularly relevant for low-altitude incursions and drones.

Now, other large governments (UK) have resolved this in several ways, including the deployment of additional radars on and within the turbine farms themselves.

So clearly this is politically motivated, and they're using what seems to be a real but solveable concern as a scapegoat.

Result first (kill anything not carbon-based), find rationale later.

Same applies to how this admin forced layoffs at the green energy (hydro + nuclear) behemoth BPA [1] (which was funded entirely by ratepayers, not the federal government) then claimed an energy emergency to keep open coal plants serving the same geographies, coal plants that were already uneconomical and planned for shut down (or re-tooling to gas in the case of TransAlta's plant in WA). [2] Oh and they already re-hired some of the laid off staff at BPA because they overcut.

There is no point in taking these arguments at face value. It's an excuse generated after-the-fact, and in service of one outcome - kill renewable energy.

[1] https://www.columbian.com/news/2025/mar/12/letter-cuts-at-bp...

[2] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/climate-lab/doe-or...

>in service of one outcome - kill renewable energy.

Also killing all humans, what idiots.

Well not them, they're too old to die to that. The goal is to have a cushy life for the ~5-10 years they have left. After that, it's somebody else's problem.

Not all humans, just the ones that can't afford buy property in low risk areas, start companies to help people move, etc. and for those who can, appreciating investments galore!

they're not idiots. they're sociopaths.

Boggles my mind a bit given much of the oil companies own the new renewable tech too. Why not keep investing in the future.

They might be the "wrong" oil companies. (In the case of Empire Wind, the administration is probably at best indifferent about screwing over the Norwegian state oil company.)

Atlas shrugged

Should we understand this to mean that you are suggesting productive citizens should go on strike against a current dystopian United States administration?

BPA is a federal agency. The Trump administration has been very supportive of zero carbon nuclear i believe they have promised $80 billion dollars to build new nuclear plants. Staff cuts dont mean they oppose using those energy sources.

US deploys nuclear energy at over $10/watt meanwhile solar and wind are deployed around $2/watt (for levelized cost of electricity) including battery storage which means they are deployed for roughly the same cost as natural gas (so, direct competitors).

Don't let comments like this fool you, nuclear is far from being competitive with natural gas. Even in countries like south korea that can deploy nuclear the cheapest it's still $3/watt roughly.

Good news? Net new solar and wind plants can come "online" in less than two years. Net new natural gas takes four years. Part of why 95% of new energy deployed last year were renewables in the US, not just the subsidies.

on the nuclear front, the administration has cut investment and reduced action in exchange for cheap promises. judge actions, not words.

So why make the cuts in the first place? There are so many things that could have been changed like getting rid of ALARPA for actual scientifically backed methods other than pointless gratitude's of X dollars for X industry. If the Trump admin truly believed in move fast and break things why is nothing moving

More power is always good (see china being 1# in solar, nuclear and wind lol), and it's known that the cost of energy directly correlates with growth right now there is no excuse for cutting any federal workers in the energy industry.

Promises are cheap with this admin, don't count any money until it's actually being paid out. Used to be I'd say until it's in a bill but this administration claims the unilateral right to cut any funded program.

Seems like "national security" has become a phrase that can be used to circumvent many laws, facts, and balance checks. Just like the word "terrorist." It seems like if these ever get challenged to the Supreme Court the current judges will rule with something like it being at the president's discretion.

So obviously the government can spend some of that $1T military budget on fixing their coastal radar.

I thought Massachusetts just won in court to get their money or construction resumed, wonder if this means they have to go back to court.

> Seems like "national security" has become a phrase that can be used to circumvent many laws

By has become, you mean always has been, right?

I guess I think it used to be more believable that it was used for security, but maybe I wouldn't if I knew better history.

Since 2001 at least.

Don't forget "war on" something that isn't a nation state.

I think the Washington Generals have a better record than the USA on “wars on” non nation states

>It seems like if these ever get challenged to the Supreme Court the current judges will rule with something like it being at the president's discretion.

Given that this is the same Supreme Court that ruled Biden (or Trump) could have them all shot[1], it seems near-certain that you're correct.

1. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf (JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR dissent, pages 29-30)

Here in Sweden a bunch of offshore wind farm project and even residential PV installations are blocked by the military for unspecified reasons that everyone assumes is that it blocks radar and other signal intelligence.

Even though you can partially work around the issue with better onshore equipment or just placing the stuff on the other side of the interfering equipment it is still a step down from not having any interference in the first place. Especially if you want to keep your listening equipment secret.

The best part is that Danish, German and Polish parks are planned mere kilometers away from the denied Swedish ones.

The military will need to figure out how deal with off-shore wind no matter what.

I did the same thing in Sim City: put my coal plants in the corner of town

I'm surprised residential PV even interacts with radar -- or is that the other signal intelligence part?

Big flat conductive panels make good reflectors.

It probably has more to do with the fact that solar that far north is a non-starter. Any PV installed there will actually make AGW and carbon emissions worse, not better. Basically, the amount of carbon emitted due to manufacturing is greater than the carbon savings over the lifetime of the panel in those locations.

Since it’s all classified o honestly don’t have a clue. But passive radar is also a thing and something that the Swedish defense industry is fairly good at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar.

Even if it is a pretense, it is pretty obvious that this would allow ship-borne drones to use the wind farms as an effective screen. Putting radar platforms beyond the wind farms that are as capable as the existing land-based radars would be quite expensive in both capex and opex. Some of the existing land-based radars would likely need to be moved, ideally. No one was really thinking about this type of threat a decade ago.

That said, Democrats have also been trying to stop offshore wind farms for years (e.g. Vineyard Wind), so there is probably bipartisan support.

The construction on some of these windmill farms started years ago. Before that permits & legal has been in the works for a long time. This surely included security clearances.

The orange shrimp pulling the “national security” card now, on the same day as he also creates a new Greenland debacle, is very clearly simply an attempt to strong arm the danish govt into Greenland concessions (in turn simply to please his fractile lille ego)

They were approved before the invasion of Ukraine and before our politicians could see how devestating drones can be. Just because the orange dictator did something does not mean it necessarily was wrong. Even a broken clock is right two times per day.

This reply doesn't address any core point.

When these wind farms were permitted many years ago, shipborne drones were not part of the threat matrix. It was considered purely hypothetical even a decade ago because it was not an imminent capability for any country even though e.g. the US DoD had studied it. In the last few years shipborne drones have emerged very quickly as a substantial practical threat, largely due to the Russia/Ukraine war. Governments around the world are struggling to adapt to this new reality because none of their naval systems are designed under this assumption.

Whether or not this is convenient for Trump doesn't take away from the reality of the security implications.

The problem is that we have a Congress that cares more about in-group loyalty than they do about idiocy.

Meanwhile, we even have Michael Burry pointing out the obvious: we're losing to China because we're not building up every bit of energy capacity that we can. But, sure, why not just ban windfarms in a location perfectly suited to them:

https://x.com/michaeljburry/status/2002285483158569147

Why is whatever Michael Burry’s opinion is particularly notable?

The argument, not the man is important.

Bringing up a map of wind power deployments tells the story; what you will see is a hot vertical strip in the center of the US. That is where it actually makes sense to deploy windmills, and people will continue to put them there even if subsidies end. It makes sense for the area, the amount of wind, the serviceability of the deployments, etc.

Off shore has always been politically contentious because it's much more dependent on subsidies, it's a battle for/against rent-seeking. One party is in favor of this particular kind of rent-seeking and the other party isn't (they will be in favor of a different kind, no doubt). The subsidies are necessary for these deployments to make financial sense, and if they went away, then it would just be a bad place to put a windmill.

There is no national security issue, there is no real case for energy infrastructure either. This use case needs government money to make sense, and is therefore sensitive to political fluctuations.

> Bringing up a map of wind power deployments tells the story; what you will see is a hot vertical strip in the center of the US

Idk what you mean by that. I pulled up a map and saw dots all over the place. They are concentrated on the east coast because you can’t build fixed on west coast (has to be floating) but they are pretty much anywhere on the east coast.

Why do you say it's rent seeking? Offshore wind is efficient, turbine blades can safely be much larger giving 3x the output, turbine arrays have unobstructed space giving twice the capacity factor. It's more efficient than onshore.

You appear to be starting from a premise that wind turbines don't generate profits?

> Why do you say it's rent seeking?

Because that's what economists call it when you get something for nothing, as is the case with any subsidy. I'm not going to argue this point; interested readers can look up how these energy projects are financed. Windmills that are privately funded, including debt and risk show you where it actually makes sense to put a windmill.

> Offshore wind is efficient, turbine blades can safely be much larger giving 3x the output, turbine arrays have unobstructed space giving twice the capacity factor. It's more efficient than onshore.

Not going to argue with any of this, although you left out maintenance costs, and larger blades means more value at risk. I'm not convinced that your efficiency calculation is measured in dollars and not windmill hours.

I would caution any engineer types reading from pressing their nose too close to the details of a particular energy technology. Instead, it's better to focus on the business plan or economic shadow that a particular energy project leaves. Dollars go in and energy comes out. A bunch of money has to go in up front, then trickles of money slowly over time, and occasionally spikes of money have to go in randomly. In exchange there is a modest, predictable flow of money out, which eventually is larger than all the in-flows in the bull case. The question to ask is: how much in and out of dollars and of Joules at each point in time? How does that compare to hamsters on wheels, people on bicycles, and lighting things on fire?

> You appear to be starting from a premise that wind turbines don't generate profits?

This was never a stated premise, and my post starts with the opposite sentiment.

Taiwan strait is filled with offshore wind turbines from both sides. This is not an issue for PRC nor Taiwan.

Either it is not, or is a huge issue. Those windmills could be deployed on purpose

Yea... I don't trust the motivations, but can confirm that on AA radars looking low (Where you might find UAS or just low-flying aircraft), wind farms show up as clusters of false hits.

It's not like they're moving around though.

Yea; it will be obvious if you've accidentally locked into one, then look at it with eyes or other equipment. And the 0 ground speed. But UAS could hide in them effectively I speculate?

But if they're just false hits it's easy to filter them out, right?

It is more difficult than you may be assuming. How do you know the hits are false? These "hits" are collections of samples at points in time, not continuous tracks. The "tracks" are reconstructed by making inferences from the samples.

Determining whether any pair of sequential samples represents the same entity or two unrelated entities is an extremely difficult inference problem with no closed or general solution. If there is too much clutter, it becomes almost unresolvable. Aliasing will create a lot of false tracks.

History has shown that any heuristic you use to filter the clutter will be used by your adversary as an objective function to hide from your sensors once they know you are using it (e.g. doppler radar "notching").

For this reason the inference algorithms are classified but they will degrade rapidly with sufficient clutter no matter how clever. It is a limitation of the underlying mathematics.

Yes, but it increases the difficulty of finding an aircraft moving near them.

> So clearly this is politically motivated, and they're using what seems to be a real but solveable concern as a scapegoat.

I approve of this, because they were going to come up with an excuse one way or another, but "it's classified" has been a BS excuse that has received far too much deference to cover for all kinds of nonsense going back many decades, and being sufficiently flagrant about it is exactly what it takes to create enough of a backlash to finally do something about it.

So clearly this is politically motivated

Trump has been charging at windmills ever since he was defeated in UK courts in a case where he didn't like that wind turbines (that provide enough power for 80,000 homes) could be seen from his golf course.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c15l3knp4xyo

Combination of he's vindictive and he's making an example of what happens when you don't preemptively pay him a bribe.

It's well known ol' Don Quixote doesn't like windmills, I mean wind turbines.

This administration is entirely founded on lies. Irrespective of any merits, of any, of its actions it has zero credibility.

> So clearly this is politically motivated

The oil price is too low. Venezuela and now this, it is all part of selling fossil fuels.

These things are also probably really loud if you happen to have a sensitive set of sonar buoys. I'm not entirely sure how you solve that one, because putting them in deeper water would also make them less effective.

This seems like maybe the least BS answer. Sub detection.

Should be easy enough to use some form of active noise cancelling for that.

Deployment of radars on the turbine farms themselves? I don't see how that's supposed to be a good idea. In the scenario we're talking about, war, electricity is one of the first targets. And those relatively defenseless turbines themselves are going to be targeted, and not only by air. The enemy getting to knock out military quality radar setups (which tend to be absurdly expensive), at the same time, is just icing on the cake.

Wind seems like a waste of money compared to solar. We aren’t the UK where they are a tiny island holding on.

We have a massive land area on which we can build solar and plug it into existing power lines or build that part out. Probably way more feasible and better power generation results than building wind out in the ocean.

> I guess the ostensible "national security" rationale (which clearly is not the only reason!) for this is that turbines severely degrade the utility of radar surveillance along the coastlines.

Could it be that they just feel that offshore wind infra is difficult to defend militarily?

No, they aren't any more difficult to defend than any other offshore platform. They do interfere with long-range land-based radar in a way that is problematic with the emergence of shipborne drones.

Are they shutting down offshore oil drilling too?

Order of magnitude increase in difficulty to defend a wind farm vs an oil rig. Wind farms are dispersed, not continuously manned, harder to monitor/enforce a 500m maritime safety zone of exclusion, have a greater attack surface (subsea cables, substations), and are easier to sabotage with plausible deniability

This may be the major reason, but I can think of another. How will you protect far away sprawling wind fields from attacks in case of war? They can be attacked by ships, aircraft and subs. You can expect them to be taken out almost immediately imo.

https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/14/3541/2021/

There is data on what wind turbines do to radar.

UK has a much smaller coastline, so it might be more cost efficient for them to install extra radars. Also I'm sure the wind turbines interfere in acoustic submarine detection due to the noise they generate.

I feel like the defense against drones is denser, sharper turbines.

This. Also, drones can be jammed pretty easily so making jamming stations on those platforms would be something too.

The Brit’s have the right approach, just put radar on them so now you can see past them.

Jamming drones has gotten much harder. Ukraine and Russia have worked hard at defending against jamming.

The drones could fly over them.

You could mount interceptor drones on them though. Like https://youtu.be/bsy5xzdKahU?t=80

I'd imagine subsurface detection faces issues with the large electromagnetic fields from generation and transmission too.

This administration is all about wielding any form of executive power that they can get an unscrupulous lawyer to cook up.

Only reason is that orange mussolini does not like seeing wind turbines. That's it.

He sees them on Scotland's shores while flying to his resort - like a child he needs to have a personal vendetta on something he does not like, especially now when he has power to do it. God forbid he will need to see such monsters on God loving free country of US of A.

Yep. I worked with France's EDF on their offshore turbines https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/inventing-the-future-of-... .

This rationale by the U.S. is total BS.

yes i found that take as well, i also found it interesting that potential for an industrial colony, and early warning infrastructure is undervalued.

That you could come up with one reasonable-sounding explanation while they offered nothing makes me wonder if the administration is too lazy, or too inept.

Anyone can land upon a good strategy -- especially because these strategies get honed by evolutionary processes. For them, this is a good strategy. Enough people, especially their supporters, have been trained to not be suspicious when they are non-specific. From my armchair, I don't see any downside to being non-specific in their current environment. Yet the extra delay gained allows so many advantages, if you're the type to use them.

Also look at how defensible having your power generation outside your coastline is. This is creating a big vulnerability in your power grid.

It's entirely because Scotland put a windfarm off the coast of his golf course. Trump is a child throwing a tantrum.

It's to reapply pressure on Denmark with respect to Greenland.

I'm surprised this isn't mentioned more. Denmark is big in the wind industry and blocking this construction keeps money out of the Danish economy. Another pressure move to get Denmark to give up Greenland.

Local news (Australia) is reporting this as extra pressure on Denmark relating to the rhetoric around Greenland

https://aapnews.aap.com.au/a/XVWrainrX

haha, amateurs. California is way ahead of the game here. We've been blocking our own offshore wind fields for years, using our own environmental regulations, and we're going to keep doing it for the foreseeable future.

Next step is invade Venezuela and pump as much oil as possible

The theory that the US government does those wars to keep oil prices high fits the timing way better than the opposite.

I still thinks it's missing important details, but the US making wars to get more oil doesn't fit reality at all.

Agreed, and it's easy to understand why the US is doing what it is doing in Latin America by reading the new national security strategy.

You're assuming they want to sell the oil in the US markets, they don't. Corporations want to sell it to other countries but they want the US to do the heavy lifting with minimal risks.

I still find it very curious that after Russia invaded Ukraine, now Trump is using rhetoric that makes it look like the US is ready to invade some other country, too, they just have not decided on the victim yet.

And of course "start a war with another country" is an excellent example of how to control your country in case you have to, because, say, elections are coming up and you may loose.

Trump seems to have been following Russian advice throughout his political career. It started in 1987:

> Moscow at the invitation of Soviet ambassador Yuri Dubinin, in a private jet accompanied by “two Russian colonels”

and then after he ran full page ads attacking NATO. Not much has changed there really.

I'm surprised that all he has to do is say "russia russia hoax" and then the voters forget about it. I think maybe people have some similar failure modes to LLMs.

trump literally said he wants venez to return the oil it 'stole' when it nationalized.

Venezuelan oil is more about US refineries that can only use very heavy oil, and US wells for such oil running out. Those refineries decided it is cheaper to bribe Trump than to invest into converting their factories. They are using US tax payer dolars (in a war with Venezuela) to avoid having to invest into their own conpanies.

That makes no sense. Any US refinery that can process heavy sour can also process any other kind of crude. It isn’t the 1950s.

The US has very advanced refinery tech that can adaptively refine everything from heavy sour to light sweet. The reconfiguration for the customer is highly customizable and largely automated. It is why so many countries send their crude to the US for refining. The US refiners make money no what kind of crude you send them.

Yet this is yet another attack that happens while the oil price falls, successfully making it stop falling.

Again, I don't think the explanation is linked to oil prices.

Of course they'll classify the actual reason - government corruption.

It's a matter of national security that the public not know the government is illegitimate.

Is there a similar ostensible classified reason why OCO-2 and OCO-3 are requested to shut down operations? 700+ M invested in space based observatories with ~ 15M yearly operating cost. Just doesn't make sense to disable perfectly working observatories to save less than ~75M in a timespan of 5 years while losing a 700+M investment.

The reason is observatories are woke, apparently

Machines and instruments can be woke? How does one establish if a machine is woke?

What would be the most woke thing for machines to do? To protest and demand machine rights?

I've been wondering all year about what happens when an executive-branch office issues orders that it is not legally qualified to issue; by and large everybody has just... followed them. This may be another example (I don't know quite enough of the legal specifics in this case, though there are certainly others that are more slam-dunk-y in this respect).

What are the enforcement mechanisms here if the states in question---MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, and VA---just said "no go ahead, keep building"? What happens to the companies if they just keep building? I'm not saying they should but at this point rule-of-law has fallen apart so badly that I literally don't know what happens when the government invents a new rule and people just... disregard it. (Particularly if state-level enforcement decides not to play along.) Do they bring in the FBI? Military?

Short term punishment for states: ICE and the National Guard get sent into cities to make people feel unsafe, under the guise of an ‘immigration emergency’. Perhaps also Marines!

To punish more fully, just illegally withhold federal funds for whatever is most hurtful. Highways? Education? Healthcare?

And to your direct point, I’m sure someone could whip up a reason for the military to take over and shut down the sites if they don’t comply - this _is_ a national security matter after all.

Court system stops any of that? Just comply (or pretend to) with the letter of the ruling and try another barely-distinguishable but arguably different illegal method for the next few months while the gears of the court system grind.

What is _meant_ to stop the executive branch (meant to ‘execute’ the will of Congress, not just follow its own desires) going rogue is impeachment by Congress, but that seems like a far off prospect.

Midterms are coming up next year.

Don't worry, there is a plan. CNN will be in new hands by that point. Reddit's r/all will be, or already is gone from the app's defaults, and much more to come!

> just said "no go ahead, keep building"? What happens to the companies if they just keep building?

As the article also touches upon, this already happened in the particular case of Revolution Wind: There, work, was forced to stop in August, then in September a federal judge blocked enforcement of the block, and work continued:

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/22/judge-orsted-revolution-wind...

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/offshore-wind-develo...

And “what happens” seems to be that rather than appeal, the rule-of-law deniers apparently choose to not care? Work has stopped again:

https://orsted.com/en/media/news/2025/12/revolution-wind-and...

I would imagine that most if not all will comply with illegal orders out of fear of retaliation, which is a very valid fear.

These things take large amount of money from upstream, if the money is cut they can "say" what they want, nothing is getting done, from my understanding

Power of the purse, given to the executive

Don't expect any sort of mass disobedience here. Doing anything in offshore wind requires a large, highly-skilled organization and lot of time. One firm "ahem!" from the Coast Guard, Navy, or Treasury, and that kinda org will back down.

If things fall apart so badly that the CG, USN, and Treasury don't matter - then who's paying the bills for any offshore construction, and who's protecting anything that is built from looting or seizure?

What orders is the executive branch legally qualified to issue?

If they ordered sloppy joes in the white house cafeteria a federal judge would stay the order by noon the next day.

Just something to keep in mind - the actual site of these wind farms is offshore in federal waters, and construction is subject to federal (as well as state) permits.

The Saudis have enormous influence over Trump through business deals. So does Qatar through the jet they gifted Trump, and the UAE through crypto deals.

These oil rich countries are no fans of clean energy.

Is it merely coincidence, then, that Trump is canceling wind and solar projects in the United States?

Previously Trump also canceled the largest solar project in the United States. Known as Esmeralda 7, the project planned in the Nevada desert would have produced enough energy to power nearly two million homes.

It's more the Scottish that caused this than the oil princes, the windmill stuff is all about petty hatred from losing a court case and now one of his precious golf courses has windmills visible out on the ocean for a few of the holes

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c15l3knp4xyo

But he didn't just cancel wind projects. He cancelled solar. He cancelled EV tax credits.

Then Trump went a step further: He is using tariffs to pressure other countries to relax their pledges to fight climate change and instead burn more oil, gas and coal [1].

The oil princes are getting their moneys worth.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/27/climate/trump-internation...

the rest are more "a bonus" than the RCA, which is pettiness at his core and a constant seeing anything and everything as a slight against him

how and why the republican/maga party wholeheartedly adopted Trump's grievances as their own is beyond me

The Arab Gulf states have also been pumping billions into Jared Cushner investment vehicles.

https://www.newsweek.com/jared-kushner-says-15bn-qatar-uae-c...

It's actually the other way around; the Saudis are only able to sell their oil because the oil money is flowing into US treasuries and other financial instruments, and it has been like this since the 70s.

> jet they gifted Trump

The jet was gifted to the American people. There's no reason why he should be allowed to fly on it. It goes in the library with the rest of the state gifts.

Stop giving him ideas. He’s gonna put a hangar right next to the east wing ballroom and shove it in there like the Spruce Goose

oh, so it'll be added to a public fleet for the American populace to use, free of charge? sounds like socialism to me(!)

not just that. Fossils are/were the guarantee of US dollar dominance. Huge $ are made purely by the fact most fossils transactions are in $. It's not in the interest of US to reduce the influence of fossils, especially now when it's the biggest exporter. Trump is ... trump... his actions can be anyway between personal biased hate or US strategical decision...

It’s always personal hate, or personal grift. There is no strategy here

i have the feeling the real reason is "drill baby drill". The actual administration does not hide it's love for carbon based energy

The $445 million campaign contribution / bribe from Big Oil is clearly paying off.

It's interesting that people are very incredulous of there being a legitimate defense reason for this when we have had unilateral unanswered drone incursions all over Europe and the US.

There's obviously some sort of arms race occurring and some of it is public.

The world in on the precipice of many technologies advancing at an all too rapid pace. The idea that technology will become tightly regulated isn't inconceivable.

FYI Sweden did the same thing last year. There is likely a (drone) reason, it's all but completely clear.

This is part of the problem with having an administration that so obviously corrupt and so frequently tells the most obvious lies and consistently acts with such obvious, naked partisanship. You can't trust them about anything.

> unanswered drone incursions all over Europe

But thats nothing to do with turbines. Its not like russia are hiding behind wind turbines launching drones between them.

They are just sitting there, well within radar range launching away. they also have AIS on, so its not like they are hiding.

Also if you look at where they are: https://openinframap.org/#8.13/51.48/1.67 there is plenty of overlap for existing radar to overlap.

Also they are the perfect platform for extending your radar network. they are tall, well connected and widely spaced.

It could in principle be legit. But there's a trail of previous bad faith behaviour around the same windfarms.

No, Sweden did not ban all offshore wind projects last year.

Is that the strawman framing of my argument that you want to stick with?

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/11/11/why-swe...

You framed it that way. This is an article about how the US shut down every offshore wind farm project. People are here discussing the fact that the us shut down every offshore wind project. You came in and said Sweden did it too. Setting aside the fact that they did not do that, they blocked some projects, not all - you don’t even know what “it” is because the US did not give a rationale.

They've been crying wolf for nearly a decade now, they aren't suddenly going to have a change of heart and be honest now.

There's obviously transparently political antipathy from the Trump administration towards offshore wind development in the US. It's far more likely this is gross political interference by an unserious and vendetta-driven administration.

Pure idiocracy.

Control over oil and gas keeps monetary values high.

Green energy is much harder to control because you can’t force the market into artificial scarcity and re-inflate the value of gas to drive the economy back up (and keep rich people rich).

The US doesn't want to piss off all the USO's zipping around underwater.

Yep, this is what I was thinking. It was part of the detente negotiated to end the "drone" hysteria about this time last year.

As one who worked on over the horizon radar (OTH-B), ground clutter is a major impediment to accurate detection, identification, and correlation of an object.

Same principle applies for water as it is in air.

Trump Media merging with a fusion energy firm.

The weirdest part was that it increased share value, when realistically it should have decreased it…

Not sure why this was downvoted. This was announced last week.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-media-fusion-power-company-...

Trump doesn't like windfarms since they built some off the coast of his Scottish golf club.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_International_Golf_Club_...

I suspect this is the true reason. He is not known for being a strategic thinker.

US bribery system eh I mean fossil fuel lobby strikes again

drones are invisible to radar.......or clearly russia(or ukrain) would not be dealing with strikes far from the front lines also, hypersonic missles are now a thing, and the hit faster than any radar or interceptor can register but yes if you were worried about Portugal trying a sneak attack, then clearly they would use the wind turbine shielding attack vector from weaponised shipping cans placed on container ships

They are not (necessarily) invisible, that depends on size & many other variables.

Also, hypersonic missiles are perfectly vusible on radar.

Drones are regularly intercepted in the Ukraine war. Patriot batteries have intercepted kinzhals.

Kinzhal is ballistic missile flying on high altitude trajectory, so it is easily visible and somehow interceptable.

Drones and cruise missiles often fly very low, which makes them much harder to detect and intercept.

This is dumb. We are in the midst of an energy shortage that will only get worse.

Between MAGA blocking wind and Progressives blocking nuclear, the US is left with solar and carbon.

Solar is fine, but it needs a 24/7 base. Unfortunately it increasingly appears that base will remain carbon.

> energy shortage that will only get worse

Worse? An energy shortage is an opportunity to increase prices and make more money! Think about the hyuge profits!

If fent is a WMD then so are turbines!

I found this article interesting as someone still learning about how energy policy and renewable projects interact with government decisions. It’s surprising to see how national security concerns are being used to pause offshore wind construction, and I’m curious how this will affect both the industry and broader energy goals. Thanks for the clear overview!

What the... It seems we crossed into the realm of intentionally doing damage. I'm reminded of threatening tariffs to successfully derail global carbon levy on ship emissions.

Meanwhile China runs away with all the clean energy tech (solar, wind, batteries, etc, etc.) while we hold to fossil fuels to save less than 200,000 jobs.

> Meanwhile China runs away with all the clean energy tech (solar, wind, batteries, etc, etc.) while we hold to fossil fuels to save less than 200,000 jobs.

If you're talking about coal miners, David Frum joked / observed that there are more yoga instructors in the US than coal miners:

* https://www.sfgate.com/columnists/article/Yoga-teachers-vs-c...

And that was in 2017! The population of working coal miners shrank by 20% in the last decade, from 50k to 40k

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CEU1021210001#0

That headline really deserves a literary prize.

Yoga instructors, assemble!

Also coal mining is a shitty ass job. Those people would be much better served working in green energy.

We've been in the realm of intentionally doing damage for a while now. But we got these cool red hats.

Intentionally doing damage started with DOGE. So, roughly day 1.

you forgot this is part 2

there are at least two reasons trump is pushing for oil:

1) the US has lots of oil reserves, which would lose lots of value if everybody was using renewables 2) oil is the main driver for dollar demand, as oil is paid in dollar, allowing the US to have lots of debt relatively cheaply

That's also the reason why he wants to tell Europe to stop using renewables, and that's the reason why he is threatening Venezuela - because they have the biggest oil reserve and started selling it in different currencies.

Now whether that whole genius strategy to gain wealth through geopolitics is worth an extinction event is a different story.

> That's also the reason why he wants to tell Europe to stop using renewables, and that's the reason why he is threatening Venezuela - because they have the biggest oil reserve and started selling them not in USD.

What's interesting is that the strategy you suggest (tell Europe to stop using renewables, attack nations that compete with US oil sales) only motivates other nations to move away from oil. It's a terrible strategy if the intent is to sell more US oil. Renewables are far more sustainable in many regards, and bolster national energy security while remaining on fossil fuels leaves them weak wrt energy security.

There is a third important reason--

For some reason, oil has masculine aesthetics but wind power doesn't. I don't think this is a calculated play

> oil is the main driver for dollar demand, as oil is paid in dollar

This stupid meme needs to die.

Maybe a third reason:

“Last week, Trump Media, the parent company of Truth Social that is majority-owned by the president, said it was getting into the energy business, announcing a merger with a fusion firm TAE Technologies.”

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd74lyr094vo

The intention is to make specific individuals a lot of money. It has been since day 1.

Do you mean the first day 1 or the second day 1?

Reminiscent of how most water which used to melt into the Great Salt Lake is now being used to farm Alfalfa, which only makes up 1% of their GDP and far fewer jobs than other industries. Of course if this continues for another generation, toxic arsenic dust will pollute and force the failure of Salt Lake City and surrounding regions. Luckily this will cause the agricultural industry to fail (after killing many people) and nature will heal itself.

> we crossed into the realm of intentionally doing damage

That occurred a long time ago with the destruction of USAID and arbitrary firing of large numbers of federal workers.

>while we hold to fossil fuels to save less than 200,000 jobs.

No, not for jobs. Profits, stock bumps, and bonuses for the execs at oil companies and friends of the admin.

china runs with everything. They are still expanding coal units for firming and they'll build a ton of new gas units too. But to ban deployment of wind turbines without any explanation is ... expected from current administration...

Being blind with bias is also expected. I don't like what is going on either, but please consider that if it was only about "damaging" as others have implied, it would not just be off shore wind turbines. I can assure you there are other reasons.

> What the... It seems we crossed into the realm of intentionally doing damage.

He's been doing that since January.

I hope you realize that China's coal and oil use for electricity is at an all-time high and increasing. They have installed more coal capacity since 2020 than the US has total. US coal usage peaked circa 2000 and has decreased for the last 2 decades.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...

> They have installed more coal capacity since 2020 than the US has total

80% or more of new electricity generation in China is renewable. They build coal capacity but they don't use more of it.

This year their absolute carbon emissions decreased.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108292

New coal data is out just a few days ago [1], it's plateaued globally and expected to start to decline.

China's consumption this year was about the same as last, and looking to drop a bit, so likely old coal plants were being retired at about the same rate as newer ones were built, and that will start to go the other way (more retired than built).

1. https://www.iea.org/news/global-coal-demand-has-reached-a-pl...

Article is about US blocking energy from wind. You are (correctly) saying that China is increasing energy from coal and oil.

What is your point? Can you elaborate how this is relevant?

> What the... It seems we crossed into the realm of intentionally doing damage.

That began almost the moment this administration came into power.

>It seems we crossed into the realm of intentionally doing damage.

"The Trump administration’s decision to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths from infectious diseases and malnutrition, according to Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health’s Atul Gawande ... The dismantling of USAID, according to models from Boston University epidemiologist Brooke Nichols, “has already caused the deaths of six hundred thousand people, two-thirds of them children,” Gawande wrote. He noted that the toll will continue to grow and may go unseen because it can take months or years for people to die from lack of treatments or vaccine-preventable illnesses—and because deaths are scattered." [https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hund...]

What? They've been intentionally doing damage for a long time. Pardoning criminals is one that comes to mind.

Pardoning criminals is one that comes to mind.

Seriously, the pardons alone make this the most pro-crime administration in my lifetime. Probably ever.

All the more reason for me to invest in a personal windmill.

Sadly wind turbines don’t really scale down like PV panels. The energy produced by PV panels is a linear function of their surface area. For wind turbines, it scales with the square of the blade length.

This is true, but if you already have a battery, getting an extra 200-400w when the sun isn't shining is really useful. (for a UK based house. Not so sure about the USA.)

The cost isn't as good as solar though. a 1kw turbine is expensive.

They also need regular servicing and proper locating away from turbulence. Micro scale wind makes absolutely no sense economically.

Wow, that would take care of our usual home office base load (Germany, not using electricity for heating)

Doesn't the area described by a turbine's motion scale with the square of the blade-length, so given a circular area covered by a turbine, the power will scale linearly with that area?

Yes but you’re not paying for the area the blade covers - you’re paying for the blade. Simplifying (to an extreme) for the sake of illustration - a 20m blade costs twice as much as a 10m one but produces 4 times the energy.

Obviously, cost scales more than linearly with blade length but it’s a bit like big O - the n^2 factor dominates. This is why wind turbines have been getting bigger and bigger. And why the cost of domestic or small-scale wind turbines remains stubbornly high despite the dramatic fall in the average cost per MW seen for wind turbines - as the falls are largely driven by the ability to manufacture larger and larger turbine blades. While falls in costs for solar PV can be seen at every scale.

YMMV depending on where you live but for MOST people you get more bang for your buck with solar+batteries

Unlike solar, wind at the utility scale virtually always improves load factors, lcoe, and a host of other economics vs a personal installation.

Generally utility scale solar buys cheap panels that aren't as energy dense as those purchased by rooftop consumers, so you could make the argument. However, the efficiency and energy density of the ever-growing turbines installed by utilities, particularly off-shore, are far more efficient than anything you would install yourself. E.g. average annual wind speed typically improves with altitude, and having a taller turbine can reach those larger sustained wind speeds. Whereas, utilities and consumers almost always install solar near-ish ground level and see the same sky, perhaps the utility installs in a sunnier corner of geography. Consumers potentially benefit from the shading of panels, and lower distribution costs.

How many golf courses is he planning to build?

Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46355227

TBH the fact renewables haven't or can't cut big cheques to change Trumps mind is a little baffling. Surely he can double dip from big oil and small renewable.

This is a road to serfdom (and/or a road to 1789 France) situation with what's happening to energy prices in the past couple years[1].

The price of new solar+battery and wind should be pushing fossil fuel energy prices off a cliff right now, unless you live in a petrostate.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU000072610

That graph is not inflation-adjusted and basically says to avoid using it like this in the description:

> Average prices are best used to measure the price level in a particular month, not to measure price change over time. It is more appropriate to use CPI index values for the particular item categories to measure price change.

I’m not doubting that (inflation-adjusted) energy prices have gone up but this graph is misleading to represent it

FRED actually has a blog post about how you would go about calculating an inflation-adjusted priced graph here: https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2022/11/fred-gets-real-unles...

The UK has tons of wind power but prices there are exceptionally high. Offshore wind isn't as cost effective as solar, it's the poster boy for high-cost, low-value renewable energy

> Offshore wind isn't as cost effective as solar, it's the poster boy for high-cost, low-value renewable energy

Its not clear cut.

Part of the reason why electricity is so expensive in the UK is that its tied to natural gas prices. some of it is CFD, but most of it is because a lot of our power comes from natural gas.

We pay for gas on the open market because we aren't self sufficient for gas any more.

Yes solar is cheaper to deploy, but its not as useful on its own. Wind is far far better in the winter.

What we should be doing is getting nuclear plants built. Small ones ideally, but a few bigguns will do. Then we won't be so reliant on natural gas. We also need to get those extra transmission cables built.

(note we could have built 10 nuclear power plants, well EDF at 2002 power prices, but the present government balked because nuclear is bad yo.)

UK energy prices are set by the most expensive energy source in the mix that contributes to the National Grid, which happens to be gas.

Uk energy costs are high because the highest cost marginal producer sets the rate i.e. gas powered stations

Many of the new wind farms get a fixed price for energy and when the wholesale price is about that the excess gets channeled into a fund that is used to reduce consumer prices

energy development is complex, but it cannot be your idea, which boils down to, "whatever is cheapest," especially for government policy. it would be cheapest to not use energy at all, which is the exact opposite of the mercenary POV you are talking about, without having to use the word environment at all.

Now imagine if you paid for a giant wind project that never produced a Joule. Great for energy prices.

Putin's orders?

Can we summon the Trumphole licking HN users that spent their reputation insisting that us "libtards" were freaking out, and get them in here to explain how this fits in the MAGA 4D Chess?

Or is it against HN decorum to point out just how much of that shit-headery fart-huffing was allowed and transpired here, on HN?

The Water Folk put the kibosh on that shit.

can we setup a polymarket for the number of days until trump blames offshore windmills for hurricanes

Oh no! look Trump is doing exactly what he promised and everyone is shocked, again

https://www.project2025.observer/en?agencies=Dept.+of+Energy

I don't think anyone here is shocked.

He said he'd never heard of project 2025.

This is because King Pedophile wants to destabilize the American power grid in order to enrich his donors.

It was an explicit campaign promise that the tech industry completely endorsed and he is fulfilling it.

Prefer solar over wind

This happens all the time in my country. The navy has all kinds of gear deployed in the sea that could be interfered with.

Edit: Looks like they were a bit late to veto it here though.

This is obviously because Donald Trump notoriously hates offshore wind turbines.

Perhaps worth recapping that he hates them due to a specific personal event (the same is true for everything he does, if you dig deep enough to find the reason). In this case he developed a golf resort on the East Coast of Scotland. Meanwhile wind generators were also being deployed immediately offshore. He became enraged that the view from his new development was blighted by the turbines. So it isn't even due to oil industry bribery. It's personal.

I don't know why people think wind turbines are ugly... Someone who admires gold toilets, no less. I think the opposite.

In that case he would just approve wind farms that fuck with people he dislikes.

It seems to me this is very much intentional to keep oil demand up and prices high.

Much like a certain White House Correspondents' Dinner incident.

Global human populations are in decline; fossil fuel use will decline along with us.

If humans no longer use as much carbon (because they no longer exist in large numbers), doesn’t that alone adequately address the climate change concerns? Does it really make sense to overhaul the global energy generation infrastructure given these conditions?

> Global human populations are in decline; fossil fuel use will decline along with us.

That doesn't follow as the per capita consumption trends are still steadily increasing ... large numbers of people across the planet barely using any resources is far less of a problem than substantially fewer people all consuming like central north americans (which is increasingly the aspiration goal).

> doesn’t that alone adequately address the climate change concerns?

No.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is already problematic and will remain there for hundreds of years (unless removed).

The amount added each year by human activity is still increasing .. it needs to stop increasing, and to fall substantiatly, and probably something done about extraction or other mitigation.

> Does it really make sense to overhaul the global energy generation infrastructure

Yes .. and on the plus side that's already happening thanks to China, the EU, past US administrations, etc. THe current US administration isn't helping .. they appear to be doing very much the opposite of helping given the cosy relationship with existing fossil fuel companies.

Occam's Razor: offshore wind requires a lot of rare earths for their magnets and whatnot. US military-industrial complex needs the little remaining global supply not under China's export controls.

> offshore wind requires a lot of rare earths for their magnets

compared to the general motor market in the USA? I think thats out by a few orders of magnitude.

Radar shadow is vaguely plausible, if your radar is shit and needs replacing.

it also requires your hydrophone network to not be working that well either.

This could very well be the excuse they're using. The reality is almost certainly more petty than that given the great one's irrational hate of wind power.

Any electricity produced by turning generators will require rare earths. This includes, every current non-trivial electricity source with the exception of solar. Gas, oil, coal and nuclear all work by heating steam and running it through a turbine that turns a generator that makes electricity. For hydro, the falling water turns the turbine/generator.

So any source of electricity that may replace these wind turbines (other than solar) will require about the same amount of rare-earths. And lets face it, Trump is doing his best to hamstring solar as well. He has cancelled all solar subsidies and has hit solar with major tariffs.

I think Occams Razor would lead to a very different conclusion.

> Any electricity produced by turning generators will require rare earths.

AFAIK, not all kinds of rotating generators require rare earths; IIRC, induction motors don't need any permanent magnets.

So, let's halt projects for which most fabrication of components is already completed?

Occams Razor: Trump openly hates windmills and green energy

This feels extremely plausible. I don't see anyone else saying this yet, well done.

I actually believe the radar surveillance excuse (on a technicalities only), if that's what this is going to come down to. The ocean is a big empty place and prime for picking up radar reflections as the background is pretty quiet.

However... how on earth was this not identified like 10 years ago way before these projects were even started? Seems pretty obvious in hindsight.

Youre taking the bait.

Sounds plausible but it would have been identified 10 years ago which is why everyone in the thread thinks it's a dubious claim.

One I would have believed more is that they're worried about being too reliable on the offshore wind which can be easily attacked by a foreign navy or maybe a smaller group.

It's almost certainly the best excuse they could think up to placate the masses.

There is a Belgian company that can use temperarure & other fluctuations in underseas power & cimmunication cables to detect nearby objects etc. I'm sure they are willing to help the US navy if they can convince them the US is a solid NATO partner… ( oh, wait, that might have become difficult…)

We don’t need offshore wind or onshore. Wish the US focused more on Solar. Seems to be the smartest path forward.

China understands and is gunning for Nuclear and Solar. Geothermal and wind are nice but too location dependent.

Wind and solar are highly complementary. Wind tends to be peak during evening and morning, and is often stronger at night than during the day. Wind is cheaper than overbuilding solar and adding batteries.

Everyone hates living near the turbines. They are loud, an eyesore, kill birds in droves, and cause annoying flickering.

People don’t mind solar as much.

Wind cannot compete on solar for price especially with China reducing solars base cost each year.

China is building out immense offshore wind capacity - more than 41GW operational currently, about half of global capacity.

https://www.offshorewind.biz/2025/02/07/half-of-global-opera...

The big solar plant they made in between Cali and Las Vegas one, it wasn't online more than a few years? It shut down...

It shut down because it can't compete cost wise with ... solar. Specifically solar photovoltaic.

You're thinking of an actually quite small solar-thermal plant, which is bankrupt because solar-thermal is a dumb idea.

To be fair, there could absolutely be national security issues. One example might be undersea (or even surface) navigation. If the coastline is littered with windmills off shore, this might create a negative of submarine navigation routes. That's clearly information we don't want shared with adversaries. There might be undersea classified cables. There might be classified sonar stations. It might be hard to detect adversary subs within a windmill field due to extra noise, etc.

Sure. We can always imagine an excuse to avoid dealing with the obvious reality. I don't think it's productive though.

Yet Sweden did it too (https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/11/11/why-swe...) and they quote these defense-related reasons. Are they lying, do you believe that Sweden of all countries is under Trump's direct influence re: wind aversion?

A conspiracy is not the obvious reality.

They were approved by a prior administration that prioritized green energy over national security.

There are several other comments above that allege other countries have come to the same conclusion regarding offshore wind farms having a negative affect on radar.

If the US had a normal, rational Administration, then yeah, I'd probably accept the "national security" explanation. But when the Administration claims completing the White House ballroom is a matter of "national security", and Antifa is the current largest threat to "national security", then credibility for these claims is completely lost.

> But when the Administration claims completing the White House ballroom is a matter of "national security"

All other things equal, opening a literal breach in one of the white house's exterior wall seems like it would cause a "national security" issue if the construction project was not finished and the hole remained gaping afterwards.

If that were the case, why would they have been granted the leases in the first place?

Yeah, especially enemy submarines. A windmill farm presents opportunities for defense: as a platform to mount and power sonar, radar arrays or other early warning systems, the power cables are actual decoys for comms infra, the farm itsrlf is an obstacle for drones and enemy subs.

>To be fair, there could absolutely be national security issues.

Which is precisely why US defence agencies are heavily involved in the permitting and design of these wind farms from the start, to account for these valid issues.

Are the areas that we are placing windmills regularly navigated by submarines? And wouldn't windmills cause as much, or more, issues for an adversary submarines?

I smell BS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com