HN title (currently reads "US govt pays TotalEnergies nearly $1B to stop US offshore wind projects") is editorialized and it's unclear to me whether it's accurate. The article says:

> We're partnering with TotalEnergies to unleash nearly $1 billion that was tied up in a lease deposit that was directed towards the prior administration's subsidies

What's the deal with this lease deposit and how does "freeing it up" equate to the US govt "paying" TotalEnergies that amount?

Is this a situation where TotalEnergies put down a 1B deposit to lease the seashore from the government and the government is now canceling that agreement and giving them their money back? How does it relate to "subsidies"?

If the government would like to pay me to also not build wind turbines, hit me up. I mean, I wasn't going to build any in the first place, but I think this makes me qualified to continue not building any.

The guy is unhinged, hellbent on denial, just to appease his base, who are going bankrupt because of his policies. Would he pay Sun as well to stop shining over the US?

Total doesn’t greenwash anymore.

Perhaps they try to please the US government. A previous total CEO "maintained complicated relations with the United States". He died in a plane crash accident. Was it an accident or a murder, perhaps the current Total CEO prefers to be safe than dead.

https://www.france24.com/fr/20160714-margerie-deces-enquete-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unijet_Flight_074P

I feel like Total could have pushed for more, much more.

It's very important that Windmills and 5G antennas do not spray Covid19 on proud patriotic americans

Do I have it right that the two projects that this deal kills off haven't seen any construction work yet? These aren't among the projects that the stop work orders were issued against in December, right?

We truly live in the bad place

I'm reminded of Reagan taking down the White House solar panels.

Fortunately, fossil fuels are a stable and geopolitically risk-free source of energy.

Serious question, but not entirely related to the topic - how are “smart” people in the US preparing for the next 20-30 years?

- Assume everything will be fine and America will remain a global economic superpower.

- Plan an exit to a more serious, stable country.

- Some option in the middle of the two to hedge your bets?

I know this US government is fully-committed to fossil fuels and about as rabidly anti-renewables as can be, but I'm still shocked to see things like this. And I'm fully aware of Trump's Scotland experience and how that contributed or directly led to this, but, still, shocked. And then I'm also shocked because I know that at least half, if not a good bit more, of US citizens are in agreement with this strategy. Not sure how I can still be shocked but here I am.

And I say that not as some rabid renewables person. Just the insane binary thinking, regardless of the dollars and cronyism at work. There's zero room for nuance, which I guess is my biggest complaint about the world at large.

Aside: people who think climate change will be the death of us all, and sooner than later, I get it, and I fully appreciate you pushing for a cleaner and more livable world. At this point I'm just going to sit in the corner and hope you, and China, figure it out and then it spreads quickly to the rest of the world, which I think at this point is pretty much a foregone conclusion barring a nuclear war (will refrain from commenting about how the likelihood of that has ticked up the past couple of weeks in an area teeming with (sarcastically shocked this time!) fossil fuels).

Simply insane.

> "TotalEnergies CEO Pouyanné said offshore wind was 'not the most affordable way to produce electricity' in the US, which he identified as being natural gas-fired power plants. [...] So it was a win-win dialog," he said."

Pouyanné is only 62 years old. If, as I hope, there are criminal trials in the future for those responsible for recklessly endangering life on this planet, then I hope that he is still alive and that statements like this form part of the prosecution. Unfortunately Trump will almost certainly be long dead by then.

Can I get free money for not doing something the president doesn't like? I'm not doing anything as we speak!

How about Equinor? They are suing the US govt for stopping the wind projects.

If this is accurate the US is making itself look unreliable for major energy investment

It’s not as big of a deal as it sounds.

Theses wind farms have not even started construction yet. Once Don Quixote is out of office, some future administration undoubtedly will start wind farm construction.

At least it doesn't seem like a direct payoff. So in that sense the title is clickbait.

> redirect those funds towards fossil fuel production [...] > US interior secretary [says] the deal was worth "nearly $1 billion

The rest of the comments here... yep.

Trump wrecks the global energy economy and his next move is to increase our dependence on it? They don't make enough dimensions for the type of chess this brainiac is playing.

Sorry, I do not know how else to say this:

Well hopefully when Trump is gone NY remembers this and tells Pouyanné to screw when they put out bids to restart the project.

x

This seems like a good thing considering the “TotalEnergies CEO Pouyanné said offshore wind was "not the most affordable way to produce electricity" in the US, which he identified as being natural gas-fired power plants.”

Not sure why we’re building offshore wind plants when land based gas plants provide cheaper energy. We need to be reducing the cost of living for working people and not raising it. Our goal should be to reduce people’s cost of living and we should align our actions towards those goals.

Most people are cost sensitive!

I believe this has a lot to do with Coastal Radar IIRC. I believe that fact will be lost in the myriad of identify politics and finger point which the comment section is about to delve into.