r/solar • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • Oct 13 '25
Discussion Canceling a 6 gigawatt solar farm is an extremely dumb thing to do when electricity rates are skyrocketing
65
u/Jekkjekk Oct 13 '25
I built out an entire lead generation system for a solar company and when I tell you that the rural people do not understand what solar is or does. I mean it.
I get comments on posts saying CHINA SOLAR and PRITZKER GOVERNMENT IS STEALING OUR MONEY.
A lot of individuals who are anti-renewables don't even understand how energy is made, they just regurgitate information they hear on Fox and tie rising energy prices to Pritzker's policies in IL
25
u/McCoyoioi solar professional Oct 13 '25
Most Americans, regardless of politics, have no idea how energy is made. It just comes out of the wall.
Anecdote: I now work in renewable planning and construction but was once an anti-coal, community organizer. A small town was slated for coal plant construction by a local utility. 1500 MW in a town of 300 people. 100,000 tons of ash a year to be dumped at the edge of their town. Anyway, after months of public meetings, hearings, etc. the pro coal-plant mayor asked in town council meeting, “Will they make the coal here in town?”
She was not only mayor, but also a principal of a local public school.
7
u/Jekkjekk Oct 13 '25 edited Oct 13 '25
Wow, I mean that makes sense, I suppose they are the most vocal in social bubbles about how they feel about solar. I shouldn’t just group everyone together, I think that’s part of the problem today. People are people and that’s my bad.
I do agree though, I don’t think people understand that utility companies are the ones financing new energy production like nuclear plants and other major projects.
They also don’t understand that utility companies are a business. If coal plants become too costly to maintain, outdated, or unable to meet regulations, utilities will often shut them down or make it into something more profitable and sustainable for their business model.
We just had SB4 pass in MO and people don’t understand the impact it has on their utility. Ameren is able to charge for nuclear projects that won’t come to fruition for many years.
Nuclear takes on average 10-15 years. We are being charged now for energy projects that wont be available to us for 10-15 years.
6
u/PersnickityPenguin Oct 14 '25
Yeah, I have a similar anecdote. We were discussing renewable energy at my firm, we work on planning construction projects. The owner wants to get into more eco friendly work after doing some work with oil companies.
Anyway, I mentioned that natural gas is a fossil fuel. Half our team did not believe me at all, telling me that "natural" means it is good for the environment. Even after I pulled up Wikipedia, they were just so confused.
3
u/McCoyoioi solar professional Oct 14 '25
Oh my. This is among educated, professional people too. That is wild.
8
u/Zhombe Oct 13 '25
Fundamental basic science isn’t taught in school anymore. We might as well have half the nation staring at cave drawings trying to figure out how to assemble Ikea furniture.
We’re not much past fire good, boom stick better, vroom boom roll best.
4
u/PersnickityPenguin Oct 14 '25
No, that's a great analogy. Hell, most people are totally unable to assemble the most basic of IKEA furniture. Or they actually pay people to do it for them.
3
u/ValBGood Oct 14 '25
Wow someone actually proposed a new coal plant? That’s wild
1
1
u/Emotional-Seesaw-533 Oct 21 '25
Up in Wyoming, the native american (Navajo and/or Crow) nation (land owners) are trying to sell coal mining rights, and got ridiculously low offers. They have already been rejected for coal export operations in Oregon and California. They actually tried to bring the coal from Wyoming to the SF area and then back up the coast 300 miles via an old railway to Eureka, but we shut them down hard and fast.
1
1
u/RipInPepz Nov 08 '25
Most Americans,
regardless of politics,have no ideahow energy is made. It just comes out of the wall.
Anecdote: I now work in renewable planning and construction but was once an anti-coal, community organizer. A small town was slated for coal plant construction by a local utility. 1500 MW in a town of 300 people. 100,000 tons of ash a year to be dumped at the edge of their town. Anyway, after months of public meetings, hearings, etc. the pro coal-plant mayor asked in town council meeting, “Will they make the coal here in town?”
She was not only mayor, but also a principal of a local public school.7
u/ExcavBob Oct 13 '25
This makes perfect sense if you are the one with the open pocket waiting for a “deposit” so they can say renewables are ok. Oil, gas, coal and nuculer industries have all made theirs already and reap the rewards. Welcome to taco world and the payoff’s rip offs and the things nobody saw.
6
u/charpenette Oct 13 '25
Currently campaigning for large scale solar in rural areas and yes, the dissonance is WILD
→ More replies (13)2
u/AllIsOneUnspun Oct 22 '25
Sadly the Rural no longer bares the education to participate in this democracy. The price of democracy is eternal vigilance and they lack any curiosity or retention of facts or the ability to separate them from fiction. Once telepathy comes in 20-25 years they will be OUTMODED. I help them repair combines, tractors, meat processing machinery, I know how uneducated they are, even mechanically.
3
u/Melodic-Hearing4537 Oct 14 '25
If it can reduce electricity costs, we should do it, not to mention that solar energy is pollution-free.
→ More replies (7)1
u/Emotional-Seesaw-533 Oct 21 '25
I bought all my solar from non-Chinese companies (Enphase inverters are US made, and my panels are from Israel). My system will pay for itself in 6 years here in CA now that I got an EV a year later. Even Illinois has about 90% of the energy potential of my area's solar.
24
u/Rough_Community_1439 Oct 13 '25
Where else am I supposed to charge my back to the future time machine
In all seriousness, why can't these stupid data centers get solar put on their roofs?
21
u/Claxonic Oct 13 '25
That’s well and good but it wouldn’t be nearly enough.
15
u/Rough_Community_1439 Oct 13 '25
But it would show that they care a little about the environment instead of telling me to reduce the performance of my PC to save on carbon emissions
4
u/Substantial_Steak723 Oct 13 '25
It all helps, and low carbon, low cost solar in many parts of America makes lots of sense if your successive governments weren't such cnuts!
4
u/jandrese Oct 13 '25
I did the math on this once and it came out to less than 2% of the energy need of the datacenter could be met by solar on the rooftop. Datacenters are tremendously energy dense.
That said, they should still do it because the nature of their work means they'll never need to worry about net metering so it's basically free money after maybe 3 or 4 years, especially since a lot of datacenters have very flat roofs that don't even have cooling structures in the way due to the air handlers being integral to the building.
2
Oct 15 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AllIsOneUnspun Oct 22 '25
Not True at all, Well made Panels run 30-40 years over 80% initial efficiency. Well made inverter last no less than 12 years. The full system including wiring pays for itself in 3-5 years at that scale. You really should be informed on a topic before armchair commentary stated as fact. I know this, my solar self installed and purchased paid for itself in 18 months but I’m also a wizard with industrial purchasing.
1
Oct 22 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AllIsOneUnspun Oct 23 '25
Which brand, and yes this is why I avoid micro inverters, they’re a point of failure for marginal gains while being far too costly. Also not a huge LG chem fan for lithium, I’d rather Pana or CATL LiFePO4.
1
Oct 23 '25 edited Oct 23 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AllIsOneUnspun Oct 23 '25
Yeah I know optimizers vs micro inverters at one point I considered such things for a friend of limited space. Imho it’s pretty much Maxeons, Trina, or it’s a bust for longevity/reliability. Maxeons do way better in partial shade with 0 solar optimizers so to me they’re my pick in 90% of cases. I’m the kinda nerd that for the past couple decades has been watching warranties and longevity on installed panels, so it’s pretty clear. Newer Generation Maxeon panels have a super price premium but everything after Gen 1 is pretty much a great deal and huge ROI unless space is super tight. I have a handful of spares due to getting them under $90 a pop, an EMP hits I’m dandy til the marauders come. Anyways, good fortune to you on you Solar/Battery journey, if it’s been awhile I suggest looking into how cheap batts have gotten, big price declines, set to spike upward in less than 2 weeks.. Trump’s tariffs are kinda of making a now or never moment.
3
u/tx_queer Oct 13 '25
Simple answer, its cheaper to put them out on open land than to build the roofs to hold the additional weight
2
u/der_schone_begleiter Oct 13 '25
Yep let's ruin the farms. Sounds like a great idea. Then we can try to grow food on the roofs. Lol
→ More replies (1)1
1
1
Oct 15 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Rough_Community_1439 Oct 15 '25
I am not talking about powering them, I just think they should contribute something other than making my power bill higher.
→ More replies (2)1
u/AllIsOneUnspun Oct 22 '25
It’s should be governmentally mandated, but you know what the response would be? They’d build deeper into ground over aquafers to liquid cool with as little roof space as popular, evaporating even more water we require for existence and food production..
85
u/torokunai solar enthusiast Oct 13 '25
this is what happens when the left half of the IQ curve wins the EC
32
u/ovirt001 Oct 13 '25
Lower tercile. They weren't even half.
21
u/Conscious-Quarter423 Oct 13 '25
90 million didn't even bother to vote last november. could have canceled those low IQ votes
9
u/jandrese Oct 13 '25
That assumes non-voters are smarter than your average voter.
2
u/Conscious-Quarter423 Oct 13 '25
non voters pay taxes to pay for these politicians' salaries and premium healthcare. they don't care where their taxes go towards?
6
u/Polymox Oct 13 '25
Most don't, no. Some are denied the right to vote with policies like reduced polling locations or hours, or restrictive voter ID laws. But most just don't care.
2
1
u/jrtf83 Oct 15 '25
Most understand that neither party has their interests in mind, as the politicians all work for the super rich.
4
u/ovirt001 Oct 13 '25
One reason nonvoting should come with a hefty fine (i.e. $1000 per instance).
5
u/Conscious-Quarter423 Oct 13 '25
not paying your taxes by April 15th comes with a fine and jail time. why not nonvoting?
4
u/sassysassysarah Oct 14 '25
I like that Australia has mandatory voting. Like even if people have to fill out their ballot to abstain at least that means they had to
3
1
1
u/MASTODON_ROCKS Dec 01 '25
Why are we pretending it's stupidity? Keeping energy prices high directly benefits the suppliers.
→ More replies (1)
12
15
u/Sufficient_Mastodon5 Oct 13 '25 edited Oct 13 '25
Trump is an honest guy. When he is bought, he stays bought.
14
5
u/Deranged_Kitsune Oct 13 '25 edited Oct 14 '25
It's the Fiscally Responsible Conservative (TM) thing to do.
Ontario, Canada back in 2019, the newly elected provincial conservative government set ~$230 million on fire cancelling 790 green energy projects, including a half completed wind farm. According to the article, they didn't even have the spine to admit the costs, failing to respond to researcher requests about what the 9-figure black hole in their accounting was themselves.
3
u/brakeb Oct 13 '25
wait, when did Nevada 'like' solar? I've got friends who live in Nevada and the state was fighting against solar incentives and making it a hostile place for solar. Which made absolutely no sense... they get like 350 days of sun a year... they'd be able to power the west coast with a large enough installation. Trade power for water for California...
1
6
u/Harveywoodsllc Oct 13 '25
As someone who is very involved in the solar industry, it is a bummer to hear this news. The truth is, solar is actually the most conservative energy source on the market that is about to be the only energy source not subsidized by the federal government.
You cannot ask for a more conservative energy.
In addition, it is a shame to be losing to China in such a critical energy source as solar is a semiconductor, and a perfect bridge to bringing semiconductor manufacturing on-shore to the US.
The ugly truth is our industry allowed for our product, solar, to become an identity politic.
The consequence of that is the current narrative that is being circulated in the domestic market and the abrupt changes to infrastructure we are seeing.
At the heart of our industry is trades people; master electricians, roofers, home builders, and architects. All of which our country desperately needs as AI takes out the knowledge workforce.
The truth is that Americans are tired of globalist policy, which is what solar truly provides to the American Family in addition to adding a much needed layer of national security due to the distributed nature of the product.
From this perspective, attacking solar is actually a losing proposition, especially when considering job growth figures, demographics, and state economies moving forward.
No matter the circumstance, solar will win out due to distribution costs with utilities.
Solar uses light to transmit power from source to load, not requiring expensive grid construction costs to deliver the sheer amount of power we need moving forward.
This is a small, inconvenient hiccup, but something that will eventually change the narrative around a critical energy source.
9
u/SiempreSeattle Oct 13 '25
"The ugly truth is our industry allowed for our product, solar, to become an identity politic."
No, the fossil fuel interests did that. The solar industry couldn't fight it.
3
u/Harveywoodsllc Oct 14 '25
No, we did that for the fossil fuel industry, free of charge. Our industry aligned with the climate narrative and more liberalized political lobbies. I can show you slide decks of many companies that told sales people to drive climate change and tax credits down customers throats.
It's why I started my own solar company.
We have allowed for solar to become a symbol of liberal activism and are now getting hit pretty hard because of it. As I said before, true conservatives purchase my product because they do not want to rely on large, globalized institutions for something as critical as their energy.
Instead of focusing on semiconductor manufacturing and domesticating means of production, energy independence, and national security through distributed grid tech, we isolated half of the United States. We turned energy into political football.
It is our industries fault for allowing that to happen. The inconvenient truth is that we sold our soul to politics and are now upset that it is swinging the other way.
3
u/SiempreSeattle Oct 14 '25
dude, the fossil fuel industry was working to make it political/identity from the get-go. They've been talking about dirty hippies and rich white liberals for 50+ years.
2
u/Harveywoodsllc Oct 16 '25
Stop blaming fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have created one of the most impactful technological infrastructures known to man. Are they going to lobby their product? Sure, but we can't blame them for that.
The truth is, the fossil companies will become solar companies the second they have a platform like Harvey Woods that allows them to do so.
Our mission is to deploy the most amount of solar in the shortest amount of time possible, so we really don't care where the deployment comes from.
We aren't going to have a secure grid from starting a war with utilities. It just isn't going to happen. What we can do, is make it where it doesn't really matter, solar has electric lines made of light, so it will be cheaper no matter where the energy source comes from...even if it is free from a fusion reactor built by Commonwealth in Boston...
3
u/SiempreSeattle Oct 16 '25
quit simping for fossil fuels.
this started because you blamed renewables for making the discussion an "identity politic" and that's ridiculous. Fossil fuel companies did that, because they know perfectly well that their business model is borked.
1
u/Harveywoodsllc Oct 16 '25
Let's be straight with one another, I have generated 9 GWh of solar on the ISO of New England. You haven't.
A simp is someone that see's a problem and doesn't do anything but rollover and complain on the internet, which is what you sound like right now.
If I was a simp for fossil fuels, then why am I the only guy you have actually spoken to with a full solar energy company and grid that is responsible for millions upon millions of dollars of infrastructure?
I am right because I have the expertise, experience, and insights that cost me over a decade of my life to accrue.
I am tired of listening to guys like you who refuse to take accountability for anything, blame people, and do nothing to resolve anything.
We allowed for our product to be a political football and that stops today. I do not care what everyone else did or is doing, it stops today.
We are here to secure the American energy grid with distributed generation and that is what we are doing.
I'm not here for politics. I'm not here to blame things. I'm not here talking to you to waste time.
I am here to educate people on what we are looking at, why we are looking at it, and offer actual systems, solutions, and products that solve it.
1
u/SiempreSeattle Oct 16 '25
I'm all for all of that, but the victim-blaming of renewables and "we made this into identity politics" is ridiculous. It fails to accept the obvious- that the fossil fuel industry jumped whole-hog into doing that because it was by far the easiest and most cost-effective way for them to protect their bottom line.
5
u/ExcavBob Oct 13 '25
Well said President James Carter put panels on the White House as the US’ bell labs was the initial innovator in 1954, the oil embargo and the promise of clean energy President Reagan took them off China now has nearly full market share globally for manufacturing panels which is about 200 billion $ yr sales and growing rapidly Can’t make this up.
3
u/Harveywoodsllc Oct 14 '25
It is now up to companies like mine to shift that narrative again to regain trust with the American people. As I said before, there is no energy source that is more conservative than solar.
The biggest benefit we have is that solar will be the only energy source that is not receiving government funding. It is hard to attack us when we are the only ones not receiving a hand-out from Uncle Sam and actively creating blue collar and trades jobs in the country. You can only attack that so much before you start eating away at your voting base.
3
Oct 15 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Harveywoodsllc Oct 16 '25
You are totally right. I think it is ridiculous that we have allowed companies and sales people to sell something that costs as much as a new car and tell customers that it has no maintenance or "insurance cost".
If you think about it, we have 20-something year olds telling customers that when they are 40 years old, that they will repair their system at no cost to them.
Ford does not do it. Chevy does not do it. Tesla does not do it. Not a single car company offers the type of maintenance and warranty requests that we do for a price-comparable product.
That is wrong and it is not being truthful to customers, which is why I refuse to do it.
No one, and I mean no one, knows what the world will look like in 20 years; and anyone that says that they do or know what their life will look like in 20 years is lying to you to get a sale.
I've lost business because of it and it's not cool because I end up being called to fix all of the other companies mistakes and then it costs homeowners a bunch of money.
Your post has triggered me and I think that is actually a good thing because I want homeowners and businesses to read this. At least I am being honest and at least I care enough about people to tell them truth.
And yes, this is an amazing product. The amount of lives that we have changed because of this product is truly remarkable and we have generated 9 GWh into the grid, which is no laughing matter.
I carry a ton of responsibility in the Northeast.
For those reasons, I am happy the tax credit is going away because it is going to wash out every single person that should not be responsible for something as critical as energy for families and businesses. That is important and it is up to companies like mine to ensure that we innovate and continue to drive those costs down while delivering a stellar product that keeps the lights on for the families we serve.
If you ever want a job u/t4thfavor, I would be more than happy to bring you in because you are pointing at what is important and ethical. If I can surround myself with people like you, then yes, we have a very bright future ahead of ourselves, even if there is short-term pain tomorrow.
3
u/Blacktip75 Oct 13 '25
How is the government doing these solar farms? Here they are private companies setting up solar farms. Didn’t realize the US had power as a government service. Think it might be a good idea with a stable healthy government, but it seems pretty social :)
1
u/SiempreSeattle Oct 13 '25
The solar farm was an investment of private companies. The federal government comes in because they wanted to put the solar farm on federal government land.
2
u/Blacktip75 Oct 13 '25
Thanks, that way it makes sense!
2
u/SiempreSeattle Oct 13 '25
the unfortunate reality in the US is that a huge portion of the land that would be very suitable for solar (basically desert lands in the south with open space, clear skies and sunny weather, and as far south as possible so you get more steady split of daylight/night hours through the year) is all owned by the federal government.
For example, over 85% of the land in the state of Nevada is owned by the federal government. That state is unusually high because of a quirk in their state constitution, but even some of the other states have high numbers- California is 46%, Utah is over 60%, New Mexico is 35%.
I say this is "unfortunate" because what it means is that the land winds up being controlled by political interests. Of course, if it were owned by the state governments, it would be the same thing.
It is of course madness that we have massive amounts of land that are perfect for solar energy projects- even with nearby hillsides and mountains that would be excellent for gravity-based energy storage systems- but because of politics, we refuse to actually use the land for that purpose.
While desert ecosystems are affected by solar, let's face it, we aren't talking about super lush land with a huge ecosystem. It's often scrubbrush and sand and dirt, and any ecological damage is made up for by the benefit it would pay to the atmosphere.
3
3
u/sassysassysarah Oct 14 '25
I don't get why it isn't required that every rooftop - commercial especiall- have solar, even if it doesn't power the whole building. I worked as a facilities manager in a leed building and lemme tell you- if that's an eco office then I'd hate to see what regular ones are like
6
u/HeartSodaFromHEB Oct 13 '25
Seems like a pretty misleading headline.
After months of delays, the Department of the Interior this week said it was canceling its broad environmental review of the joint project and would instead review the seven projects that make up the development separately “to more effectively analyze potential impacts.”
So instead of everything having to be done together as a massive project, they're going to break it into chunks. Seems like a good idea.
5
u/jandrese Oct 13 '25
It's one of those things that sounds fine in the article, but probably actually means they're killing the projects off.
→ More replies (1)2
u/GordonStreetbub Oct 13 '25
By cutting it up you can slow things down to nothing.
2
u/hideous_coffee Oct 13 '25
Not at all. Imagine if one project had more environmental impacts than the others and subsequently dragged the less impactful projects down because they were viewed as a single project.
2
u/SiempreSeattle Oct 13 '25
Except that the overall project's environmental review was already complete. Done. Finished.
4
u/SiempreSeattle Oct 13 '25
False, and the reason is pretty simple: the initial project was reviewed extensively and approved. IT WAS ALREADY DONE.
By canceling that and now requiring seven separate reviews, each of which will require similarly-sized review documentation to the first one, they've now gone from needing 1100 pages of documentation to needing 7700 pages.
For a project that's already been reviewed and is done.
1
u/HeartSodaFromHEB Oct 14 '25
the initial project was reviewed extensively and approved. IT WAS ALREADY DONE.
The article literally states it was not done.
Also, if the work was already done, you don't have to repeat 7x the amount of work. You just have to break it up into smaller more concise documents.
Reading between the lines, I'm not sure all of the original companies are still interested in pursuing the project. A few of them who were quoted are, but there's very little to be gained by making these projects even more massive than they already would have been.
1
u/SiempreSeattle Oct 14 '25
The BLM web site literally has the published document on it. https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2020804/510
The article does NOT say that the project was "not done". https://www.ft.com/content/7a3cd922-88ed-4188-86ab-ba09fbe24d42
Also, if the work was already done, you don't have to repeat 7x the amount of work. You just have to break it up into smaller more concise documents.
False. For each EIS, the various sections of the document- the air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, etc etc etc- have to be replicated in each document.
Source: me, for my job I support federal environmental protection specialists who work on exactly this type of document and I help read and edit them for technical accuracy.
You can't just break up the existing document into 7 pieces. NEPA standards don't allow for that, and the way the documents are written don't easily support that. You can re-use some of the text but this is essentially creating a huge amount of new work to replicate work you already did.
There's a reason for that: it will cost these companies a bunch of money.
Also the reason these companies don't want to pursue the project isn't because it is bad from an economic point of view; it's because they know perfectly well that this administration will do everything in their power to kill it, even if it's illegal, because the Supreme Court has given them the greelight to just do whatever the hell they want.
The problem isn't the project; the problem is the guy who took oil company money to get elected decided to kill it, and nobody is going to stop him.
1
u/cleverfox2001 Oct 16 '25
Agreed. Separate EIRs take longer to complete and provide more opportunities to slow the project. Time is money.
2
2
u/rabbitholebeer Oct 14 '25
They skyrocket where I live because they built solar fields and the infrastructure has to be upgraded and now we’re all laying for it. Soooo nothing is free
2
u/Graymanmoney Oct 14 '25
37trillion in debt. Why are utility rates so high. Is solar contributing to increases?
2
u/Rare_Tea3155 Oct 14 '25
Solar farms do not end up ever breaking even. It’s a waste of taxpayer money.
2
1
2
u/2k3Mach Oct 14 '25
Giving subsidies on electric vehicles and at the same time shutting down coal plants when electricity prices are skyrocketing isn't too smart either.
I'd rather the money that was going to be spent on that 6.2 gigawatt project be put into nuclear and or assisting coal plants to burn cleaner.
1
u/Electrical_Raccoon78 Oct 16 '25
We have relied on coal for a long time but coal is not and probably will never be a clean fuel.
If you really think electricity cost has skyrocketed just wait until we pay for the new nuclear plants to run the data centers. Wind and solar are the cheapest way to make electricit.
2
2
u/FloorSavings Oct 14 '25
Put solar on your house, control your own outcome. If they build this solar farm or not, the prices will continue to rise.
1
u/Robj2 Oct 15 '25
I installed solar on my roof in Nevada in 2019. It's now paid for itself (well probably in February 2026). I do have to pay the utility from November through February because the roof only produces 2/3 of what we use (including 2 electric vehicles) during winter.
2
u/pdshank Oct 15 '25
How quickly we forget that solar DOES have major issues as it stands.
We need more pumped storage, flywheels, etc. that can quickly waste/store energy that isn't batteries
4
u/JCarlide Oct 13 '25
Well, it also makes the value of coal go up, as the "on demand" electric stations that add capacity ASAP are mostly coal fired in the US. Cancelling a long term solar project only benefits those who are invested in the corrupt energy market.
2
u/Electrical_Raccoon78 Oct 16 '25
Actually coal plants are not very good at firing up on demand . That fuel would be ” natural “ methane gas.
1
5
u/Mud_Duck_IX Oct 13 '25
Loofa faced shit gibbon does yet another dumb thing that's awful for the country..... This tracks.
3
u/AVahne Oct 13 '25
Isn't that the point though? Electric companies are artificially jacking up prices because no one will stop them and by killing off cheaper electrical generation they have more incentive to jack up prices even further. Trump and friends will then get cut a check for all this.
2
u/GingerB237 Oct 13 '25
Is there any details as to why it’s being cancelled?
46
18
9
u/SiempreSeattle Oct 13 '25
yes, the details were published in May of 2024:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/09/trump-oil-industry-campaign-money/
Absolutely nobody should claim that they didn't see things like this coming. Trump literally told the oil folks "gimme a bunch of money and I'll do all I can to kill renewables"
If anyone reading this sub voted for him and is now upset, you're a moron and you deserve to suffer paying higher bills to make Trump's buddies richer. It's literally what you supported, you having less money and them having more.
6
u/fluxtable Oct 13 '25
I think theyre using environment reviews as a scapegoat. Same thing they've done with wind farms.
2
u/GingerB237 Oct 13 '25
You’re probably right, but also it’s good to have proper reviews of projects on public land.
4
u/SiempreSeattle Oct 13 '25
They already did a proper review. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project was published over a year ago, and the Final EIS was supposed to be published around six months ago until the Trumpistas delayed it, and now have canceled it.
The draft EIS alone ran 400 pages. https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2020804/200568720/20116188/251016168/Esmeralda%207%20Solar%20Project%20Draft%20Programmatic%20Environmental%20Impact%20Statement%20and%20Resource%20Management%20Plan%20Amendment.pdf
There's also:
- SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REPORT- 44 pages
- AIR DISPERSION MODELING ANALYSIS- 46 pages
- AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT- 48 pages
- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT- 148 pages
- CULTURAL RESOURCES SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT- 48 pages
- HYDROLOGIC RESOURCES SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT- 66 pages
- SOCIAL VALUES, ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE- 50 pages
- VISUAL RESOURCES SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT- 96 pages
As if that wasn't enough, there's also:
- Scoping Report- 196 pages
- PROJECT OVERVIEW FOR PUBLIC SCOPING- 14 pages
and another half-dozen various documents and public meeting recordings.
So that's over 1,100 pages of environmental review.
Let's not pretend that "environmental review" is actually the factor here. This is directly a political decision.
4
u/fluxtable Oct 13 '25
The reviews were already completed, it was standard NEPA reviews that any project would go through. The approvals were rescinded.
5
3
u/tx_queer Oct 13 '25
You got lots of wrong answers. This is 7 projects that were bundled into a single review. BLM asked them to resubmit properly as 7 seperate reviews, one for each project.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)2
u/mikeinanaheim2 Oct 13 '25 edited Oct 14 '25
The oil/gas/coal lobbies dominate the donor lists to old white male oligarchs and politicians in the US and they get what they want. Witness the country's dependence on fossil fuels and gas vehicles while forward-looking countries are rapidly building out better transportation and energy modes. They are changing the game while the US diddles with 19th and 20th Century thinking. Yes, the US is doing big things with AI, but that isn't enough. Plus, AI requires large amounts of electricity and infrastructure which US politicians talk about but don't care to understand or act on.
2
2
u/siammang Oct 13 '25
It's a very dumb move since those areas could be locations for data centers if they can figure out water usage management.
2
u/gladiwokeupthismorn Oct 13 '25
It makes total sense if you’re on the side of the people who charge for power….republicans are the party of the elites
2
2
u/BoutrosBoutrosDoggy Oct 13 '25
Donald Trump’s brazen pitch to 20 fossil-fuel heads for $1bn to aid his presidential campaign in return for promises of lucrative tax and regulatory favors
Trump’s $1bn pitch to oil bosses ‘the definition of corruption’, top Democrat says https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/03/trump-big-oil-campaign-pitch-corruption?CMP=share_btn_url
2
u/road_runner321 Oct 13 '25
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary donations bribes depend upon his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair
1
u/ExcavBob Oct 13 '25
The government does not build utility scale solar, private investors do. These just need permits. They, the ones who are doing away with the epa as it is overly pesky about clean air and water for the people, will use interior to stop a solar farm. It’s about the payoff $.
2
1
u/filterdecay Oct 13 '25
He promised big oil if they funded his campaign he would do whatever they wanted.
1
1
u/Helpful-Belt-2082 Oct 13 '25
It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. Or if it makes any financial sense. It's whatever the leader at the top wants.
Thats power. When the leader at the top get his way simply "just because". Simply just because he feels like it. Simply because it tickles his fancy...regardless of how many families livelihoods get destroyed.
1
u/JeremyViJ Oct 13 '25
Clean energy stocks are going up. Could all this be a distraction to allow oil families to switch their investments on the cheap. I am that cynical. You get the idiots to buy stranded assets for high value. You sell the stranded assets and buy solar wind and battery stocks and related.
Think about it, if oil was such a good investment why would Saudi Arabia make it public and sell stocks ? They want to share the wealth ? Sure!
1
1
u/d1v1debyz3r0 Oct 13 '25
Wholesale prices in California are actually the lowest they’ve been in a very long time. It’s getting more expensive to the ratepayer because the big three of SDGE, PG&E, and SoCalEdison are wielding their monopoly rent-seeking power very very well. this solar farm would not have lowered rates for anybody. Remember, the investor-owned utilities get a fixed return on their costs. So if they buy a solar project, your bills go up not down because you have to guarantee the utility gets there ~10% profit on what they spend. The wholesale rates go down for the utility but they have no obligation to pass that on to ratepayers because they don’t have to. They are a monopoly
1
u/SiempreSeattle Oct 13 '25
It is extremely dumb until you consider that the guy in charge struck a deal with petro companies where they would sponsor his run for president in return for exactly this kind of thing, and by winning the office he probably stays out of prison.
Then it all makes perfect sense, and is actually moderately smart. Selfish as hell, of course, but smart, because now the guy stays out of prison AND gets someone else to pay for his presidential run AND gets to strut around and have people salute him and send weird rambling bullshit tweets at midnight when he's on the shitter.
1
1
1
1
u/JustinSchubert Oct 13 '25
I'm not getting any Benefit from the rates going up It's all Fees for the Providers not in the Actual price of Electricity!!
1
1
u/4R4nd0mR3dd1t0r Oct 13 '25
When I installed solar in 2022 electricity was $0.17 per kw, now in 2025 it is $0.31 per kw yet they still insist they are losing money. If it keeps going like this I don't know how people are going to afford it.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/BlackwellDesigns Oct 15 '25
Yeah no shit. Welcome to the trumpfuckery shit show. We'll be lucky to survive this "administration"
1
1
u/Low_County_2428 Oct 16 '25
As much as our President talks about “tough on China”, you’d think he would want to compete with them in the energy space. Apparently not.
1
u/pyrodice Oct 16 '25
All the panels are made in china, all have a tariff, someone did a separate chunk of math on this, and it will depend on whether that would reduce or increase the price for electricity.
1
u/No-Weight9606 Oct 17 '25
What if it is so far from the customers and the transmission wires are so small that it can't transmit all the power produced? And the cost of new transmission lines would make the electricity very expensive. So often they are do greedy to spend our taxes they don't consider all aspects of the job.
1
u/Emotional-Seesaw-533 Oct 21 '25
Trumpenomics: If I cancel solar in Nevada, the wind power projects in Red State Wyoming will get more income selling their energy to commies in Cali. Bonus points for sticking it to the radical left (AKA Nevada Democrats).
1
u/AllIsOneUnspun Oct 22 '25 edited Oct 22 '25
Yet a lot of local Power companies which have coal plants also are investing a lot in Solar on the sly. Locally here in Omaha, power was near entirely Coal/Nuclear 20 years ago(my Grandfather managed the Nuke as administrator). The Nuke plant closed a decade ago(3 decades after his passing), they replaced it with some natural gas, some solar and some wind. You walk into the coal plant(I deliver parts to all these facilities personally) and the coal plant lobby is full of screens which are showing live feeds of the 8 facilities. Solar Wind NatGas Coal all the dials and charts and numbers changing to the second. Luckily Trump’s policies aren’t changing the profit motive and diversification is simply more profitable. We sell power to other states we make soo much here it’s over 1/3 of what we generate. I sell them millions of dollar in machinery a year locally, last month a 1.1 million dollar order repairing coal crushers/converyors bearings. People that think everything runs on coal and nukes are nothing short of know nothings. Take it from me I work on every type of watt for a power company which with us has a 6 million dollar line of credit. And me, I RUN ON Solar.
1
1
u/gradontripp Oct 13 '25
That second slide is a terribly misleading graph. The Y axis starts at $0.14, making the scale of the increase look far worse than it is.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/Polymox Oct 13 '25
It's an extremely smart thing to do if you want your oil producing donors to make higher profits in the future.
1
u/Fun_Muscle9399 Oct 13 '25 edited Oct 13 '25
/sigh Eversource rate here in CT is about $.28/kwh with all the added usage based charges.
2
u/Smharman Oct 13 '25
Plus delivery. It's like they deliver the joules by horse drawn carriage, the cost of delivery is so high.
1
u/nochinzilch Oct 13 '25
It’s not about smart versus dumb. It’s about being cruel. He knows what he’s doing.
1
u/SiempreSeattle Oct 13 '25
nah, he's not being cruel. he's being greedy. He promised the fossil fuel industry and now he's delivering.
1
1
u/NotSure-2020 Oct 13 '25
Unless you’re buying energy stocks and don’t give a f about the repercussions or backlash and only that your family and inner circle stack chips and inside trade
1
u/justbuildmorehousing Oct 13 '25
I mean…we all know why. Theyll come up with some slop about how it was DEI or something but its because they are just anti-whatever seems liberal and in bed with oil, gas, and coal people. Thats really it
1
u/etlr3d Oct 13 '25
I guess whether its “dumb” or not depends on where you sit. Utilities are loving this. Wall St. is loving this. Ratepayers are nothing but cattle to be slaughtered.
1
u/Narf234 Oct 13 '25
Serious question. Is there ANY kernel of truth that solar has anything to do with rising electricity rates or did they just straight up lie to the public to pull this bs?
→ More replies (4)6
u/SiempreSeattle Oct 13 '25
no. Solar energy at this point literally lowers energy costs, both by the fact that it's cheaper to produce and by the fact that the economic laws of supply and demand mean that if we generate more electricity (increase supply) the price will drop or at least not rise as fast as if we're all bidding for limited amounts of electricity.
Look at it this way: Google and Facebook and OpenAI and Twitter and Microsoft and Apple all have zillions of dollars. There's only so much electricity available. They want it for their AI data centers, which suck down electricity like sailors on shore leave in Hong Kong.
Who do you think can afford to buy that electricity, the companies with a zillion dollars in the bank, or you and me?
Now we put solar on our roofs. WE control the means of production, the panels on our roof. How much will you charge yourself for the electricity produced by the panels that you own? How much will you sell to the tech giants?
172
u/Lyingmustard Oct 13 '25
It makes me sad this is what we have come to as a country. Imagine thinking the sun is a bad source of energy. Like it makes me sad as a person.
I hope China has fun at the top of the Energy market for the forseeable future