Trump's wind energy assault sinks permitting reform - Senate Environment & Public Works Committee
By sabotaging one of our cheapest, cleanest energy sources, the Trump Administration has made clear that it is not interested in permitting reform.
On the Senate floor, Senator Whitehouse makes clear that the illegal attacks on fully permitted wind energy projects must be reversed if there is to be any chance that permitting talks resume. - 01/07/2026.
= new reply since forum marked as read
...in comparison to the rest of Europe.
Let's see if I can be of help:
Source: EU, Eurostat Electricity Prices (Accessed 01/10/26)
The big lie sold by advocates of tearing the shit out of the natural environment for the wind and solar scam is to bury the cost of redundancy which is almost always provided by dangerous fossil fuels, about which advocates of wind and solar couldn't care less. (Their entire raison d'être has nothing to do with objection to fossil fuels; it is entirely about attacking nuclear energy.)
This redundancy, besides its odious and unsustainable dependency on excessive (fossil fuel powered) mining and the destruction of natural wilderness to make industrial parks, has profound climate implications as well.
One could also look at the climate gas intensity of electricity in that coal dependent antinuke hellhole of Germany and compare it to nuclear powered France, available at yearly, monthly and hourly figures at the electricity map.
Apologists for the so called "renewable energy" is "cheap and green" mythology, who again, couldn't care less about fossil fuels and so called "renewable energy's" dependence on them, actually should open their eyes and embrace reality, but experience teaches that they would rather just chant nonsense.
and therefore require redundant fossil fuel (or nuclear) back ups. Trump actually uses this in his war on windmills.
Nothing personal, but it's a frequent ploy of deniers to push the idea that climate activists want to immediately remove all fossil fuels or that renewables will require fossil fuels, forever. The real situation is not static.
Just as a commitment to using nuclear power requires an understanding that there will be a long period of transition during build-out, a commitment to renewables includes a transition before fossil fuels are completely eliminated. Currently, there may be redundant systems using fossil fuels but as renewable systems become more advanced, effective, and widespread there will be capacity for Power To X (P2X) converting wind/solar energy to an intermediate form for storage and use as a clean fuel in an electrical generation system. Conversion to hydrogen has already been demonstrated and China is building an offshore wind system that will produce hydrogen without desalination. This increases efficiency and eliminates brine waste. Japan has developed a liquid hydrogen carrying ship to transport hydrogen from a Coal fired hydrogen generating plant in Australia to Japan. This technology will be used just as well to transport from P2X Wind Farms that will export hydrogen to market. Recyclable turbine blades are being developed, too. If you are skeptical, you probably just haven't paid much attention to the tremendous amount of innovation in this fast growing industry.
An ultimate wind system appears to be a Floating Offshore Wind Farm located far from shore to mitigate NIMBY concerns and in strong wind ocean zones such as off the Pacific Coast and Hawaii (trade winds that I am joyously experiencing at this very moment. 
). Floating Offshore Solar Farms are being developed, too.
One reason for the fast growth of renewables is the flexibility of design, construction and location that makes the systems ideal in developing countries and island nations, and marginal spaces. The same advantage will allow some developing nations to become major hydrogen exporters in the future.
Of course, we are just observers but I think Trump is wrong in his war on wind. The hydrogen bus has left the station.
Here's some evidence that the so called "renewable energy" has not a fucking thing to do with climate change or addressing climate change or addressing fossil fuels:
It's called a "reference." The reference is to the World Energy Outlook, published annually by the International Energy Agency, usually in November, in this case November of 2025. In this edition it can be found on page 426.
For the record, I have been following the WEO for decades. I have in my files PDF copies of every issue in the current century, and several from the previous century. Because I've been following it so long, I have learned to distinguish between the two portions always present, the data and the soothsaying. The former is historical and based on measurement and the collection of data. The latter is crystal ball reading and is essentially meaningless.
For convenience, I have assembled the data from relatively recent editions of the WEO (comparing data from 2000), converting the energy units historically used (MTOE) to the SI unit, Exajoule.
What does the data say for the most recent edition, the 2025 edition? Well for one thing it says that the multitrillion dollar solar and wind scam is trivial compared to any of the three dangerous fossil fuels, that it has never kept pace with the growth in the use of dangerous fossil fuels, about which advocates of this expensive and useless scam, again, couldn't care less.
Combined, solar and wind have never, not once at any point in history, despite wild eyed cheering, and the absorption of sums of money greater than the GDP of India, a nation with more than 1 billion people in it, produced as much energy nuclear energy has been producing for decades in an atmosphere of contempt driven by fear and ignorance.
In the "percent talk" that the apologists for tearing the shit out of the planet's surface for wind and solar junk that doesn't last two decades before becoming landfill, wind or solar produces about 5% as much energy as dangerous coal, about which said apologists, again, couldn't care less, less than 5% as energy as is produced by oil, about which said apologists, again, couldn't care less, and about 6% as much energy as dangerous natural gas, about which said apologists, again, couldn't care less.
Combined, solar and wind, at 18 EJ combined total produce 3.5% as much energy as combined coal, oil and gas, 519 EJ.
Now let's be clear. Apologists for so called "renewable energy" - which by the way, because of it's land and mass requirements and short life times is not, despite the marketing term for it, "renewable," are only interested in bad mouthing nuclear energy. I've been here for 23 years listening to this set of benighted uninformed people who I regard as, despite their self descriptions, as uninterested in the environment, tell me all about how "renewable energy" will save the world, all the time attacking nuclear energy while ignoring (or at best paying delusional lip service to) fossil fuels.
The results are in: The planet is burning.
I joined DU in November of 2002, now over 23 years ago. In the week beginning November 17, 2002, the week I joined, the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide - about which apologists for so called "renewable energy" couldn't care less - was 367.89 ppm. For the week beginning 12/28/2025, the last full week recorded at the Mauna Loa CO2 observatory (to be updated tomorrow) that concentration was 428.78 ppm. The concentration has grown by 55.58 ppm while I've been here listening to poster after poster after poster tell me all about so called "renewable energy."
The data can be found here: Trends in CO2 NOAA Mauna Loa Observatory.
(This too, is called a "reference." )
I'm an atheist, for the record. I'm unimpressed by chanted slogans. I look at data and something called "reality."
Here's a reality: The planet, again, is burning, and the same damned slogans I've been hearing here for 23 year have not done a damned thing to change that outcome. I am thus extremely unimpressed with this series of delusional commentaries about "renewable energy." They played out. They didn't work. They made things get worse faster.
Do I make myself clear?
May I make a suggestion? It is not a "crime" to think. Thinking, however, involves interpretation of data, acting on the world as it is, as opposed to relying on a kind mysticism involved with the recitation and chanting of dogma.
I trust you're having the happiest of New Years.