←back to thread

Federal judge lifts administration halt of offshore wind farm in New England

(apnews.com)
224 points zekrioca | 5 comments | 22 Sep 25 22:45 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
esseph ◴[22 Sep 25 23:19 UTC] No.45340841[source]▶
My theory is that he wants to use the sale of US fossil fuels to pay off the debt. Maybe that's bogus, just my uneducated opinion!

(I also think it's incredibly shortsighted)

replies(9): >>45340902 #>>45340920 #>>45340988 #>>45341118 #>>45341145 #>>45341186 #>>45341293 #>>45341377 #>>45341917 #
1. margalabargala ◴[22 Sep 25 23:27 UTC] No.45340902[source]▶
In terms of being able to pay off a debt, having more resources (power from wind and fossil fuels) is strictly better than less (just the fossil fuels).

So that's not even remotely economically sound or logical.

In conclusion you're probably right.

replies(1): >>45341305 #
2. bawolff ◴[23 Sep 25 00:13 UTC] No.45341305[source]▶
I suppose hypothetically if he significantly increased royalties/export fees/whatever and joined OPEC to manipulate the price of oil, it might help.

Obviously that would be crazy.

replies(2): >>45341424 #>>45342022 #
3. JumpCrisscross ◴[23 Sep 25 00:29 UTC] No.45341424[source]▶
> if he significantly increased royalties/export fees/whatever and joined OPEC to manipulate the price of oil, it might help

Joining OPEC would subject the United States to production quotas. We're the world's largest oil producer. But we're also the largest consumer.

4. margalabargala ◴[23 Sep 25 02:04 UTC] No.45342022[source]▶
But, like, even in that eventuality, it would be better for the US to have a bunch of wind power so we can export more oil.
replies(1): >>45342335 #
5. esseph ◴[23 Sep 25 02:58 UTC] No.45342335{3}[source]▶
I agree! I'm just brainstorming at this point but it's basically like guessing in a game of Texas Holdem.