US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects
A BBC report that the Trump administration will pay German utility RWE $1.2B to cancel U.S. offshore wind projects and reinvest in gas, including an LNG terminal in Louisiana, triggers sharp criticism of U.S. energy policy. Commenters see the move as ideologically driven and deeply hypocritical, arguing it undercuts cheaper, low‑carbon power in favor of fossil fuels, worsens climate risks, and creates regulatory uncertainty, even as other countries accelerate renewables. Several also highlight the broader pattern of politicized rhetoric about “common sense” and subsidies, and worry about long‑term economic and environmental consequences.
Deal structure and what actually happened
- US Interior Department agreed to pay German utility RWE ~$1.2B to terminate offshore wind leases off California; a prior deal paid Duke Energy ~$129M to exit a Carolina Long Bay lease.
- Some commenters frame this as “paying to stop clean energy” and a de facto fossil subsidy.
- Others argue it’s legally a lease buyback / breakup fee: RWE had already paid >$1B for leases and development; once the government made permitting impossible, compensation was owed to avoid litigation.
- One detailed comment claims the project was already uneconomic (high lease cost, lost subsidies, turbine delays, higher rates), so Trump’s hostility mainly provided a clean exit.
Subsidies, hypocrisy, and costs
- Interior’s “no costly subsidies” rhetoric is widely mocked, since the payout itself is large and fossil fuels are said to receive much bigger explicit and implicit subsidies.
- Several note all major generation types (fossil, nuclear, renewables) are subsidized; singling out wind is called dishonest.
- Some argue offshore wind is relatively expensive and lease terms were poorly designed; others say even then it’s environmentally cheaper than gas.
Energy mix, economics, and reliability
- Broad agreement that a diversified mix is needed: wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, some gas, possibly geothermal and storage.
- Long debates on intermittency and storage:
- Pro-storage side points to batteries, pumped hydro, gravity schemes, and complementary wind/solar patterns.
- Skeptics argue large‑scale storage is geographically limited, extremely costly, or currently too small to matter.
- Disagreement over whether policy should prioritize ever‑cheaper energy (to avoid poverty) or higher prices to curb consumption and ecological impact.
Climate, environment, and wildlife
- Many see the decision as reckless amid worsening climate impacts (fires, heat).
- Some mention bats/birds and marine ecosystems harmed by turbines; others counter that climate change and fossil extraction kill far more wildlife, and offshore farms can create fishing exclusion zones that help marine life.
- Radar and national‑security interference from offshore wind is raised in passing; importance is unclear.
Politics, institutions, and global context
- Large faction attributes the move to Trump’s personal vendetta against wind (Scotland golf course fight) plus fossil‑fuel donors, calling it “cartoon villain” policy.
- Others say it is consistent with a stated national‑security strategy favoring domestic fossil and nuclear over imported wind hardware.
- Repeated worries about US democratic dysfunction: lobbying, money-as-speech, non‑voters, two‑party lock‑in, and erosion of checks and balances.
- Multiple comparisons to China, Europe and the Gulf states investing heavily in renewables and nuclear; commenters disagree on who is actually ahead, but trendlines abroad are seen as more coherent.
Emotional reactions and proposed responses
- Tone ranges from despair and anger to dark humor and resignation; Roman Empire analogies are common.
- Suggested responses: vote (especially non‑voters), pressure representatives, litigate if appropriations were improper, and pursue local solar + storage and microgrids regardless of federal policy.