Note: My personal commentary appears indented, in black, in italics, throughout this review.

Overview

Donald Trump has been making questionable and misleading claims about wind energy for quite some time. Some local Republican politicians, nonprofit groups with links to the fossil-fuel industry, and Fox News, have been doing the same.

A July 29, 2025 article published on the BBC website entitled "How Trump's loathing for wind turbines started with a Scottish court battle" sheds some interesting light on why Trump may be so adverse to wind energy. The article states that in 2012, Trump spoke as an "expert" witness on green energy targets to the Scottish Parliament, saying he believes that wind turbines were damaging tourism in Scotland. Trump was objecting to 11 turbines which were planned, and ultimately constructed, near his Aberdeenshire golf course. On Trump's July, 2025 visit to Scotland, he described those turbines as "some of the ugliest you've ever seen".

Compiling data from a vast number of different sources, the goal of this post is to determine what's fact, what's fiction, and what's somewhere in between.

Wind energy is a dense, complicated, and contentiously-debated topic. I've spent countless hours meticulously researching and analyzing all the minute details, first so I could understand them, and second so I could present them in this comprehensive review. For you to fully understand the claims and the data which either supports or rejects them, I suggest you read this article in its entirety.

This topic directly relates to climate change. Personal views on climate change, including the degree to which it's a problem, and how much of it is due to the burning of fossil fuels, seem to be the underlying reasons for the controversy.

Here's a comprehensive list of claims about wind energy and who made them:

• Wind turbines drive whales "crazy" and they "kill the whales" (Donald Trump)
• Wind energy "kills all your birds" (Donald Trump)
• Noise from wind turbines causes cancer (Donald Trump)
• Noise from wind turbines makes people "go crazy" (Donald Trump)
• Wind turbines reduce property values by 75 percent (Donald Trump)
• Wind is a "very expensive form of energy" (Donald Trump)
• "Stupid and ugly windmills are killing New Jersey." (Donald Trump)
• "Smart countries" don't use wind energy (Donald Trump)
• China has "very, very few" wind turbines (Donald Trump)
• Wind turbines have a short life span and are difficult to recycle (Donald Trump)
• Germany regrets its decision to transition to renewable energy (Donald Trump)
• Wind turbines are "not green," "not reliable," require too many critical minerals, and require too much land (The Heritage Foundation)

Each of these claims will be examined in detail below.

On January 20, 2025, immediately after being inaugurated for his second term as president of the United States, Trump issued an executive order regarding wind energy.

That same day Trump issued another executive order declaring a "national energy emergency."

That same day the Department of Interior issued an order declaring a 60-day suspension of "any onshore or offshore renewable energy authorization."

On July 7, 2025, Trump issued another executive order regarding wind energy.

All of these orders will be examined in detail in a section at the end of this post entitled "Trump's Executive Orders on Wind Energy".

Wind turbines drive whales "crazy" and they "kill the whales" (Donald Trump)

In May, 2024, at a rally in New Jersey Trump said wind turbines "ruin the environment, they kill the birds, they kill the whales."

At a January 7, 2025 news conference Trump said wind turbines were "dangerous" to whales. Trump also said "The windmills are driving the whales crazy, obviously."

NOAA Fisheries is the U.S. government entity (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) that helps avoid and minimize impacts to protected species and their habitats throughout the life cycle of offshore wind energy projects. According to the official NOAA Fisheries website (last updated March 14, 2024):

• Geophysical surveys conducted by offshore wind developers may disturb marine mammals and disrupt behavioral patterns, but they do not injure or kill them.
• The sounds produced by these surveys are "orders of magnitude smaller," have "much smaller impact zones," and are of "shorter duration" compared to seismic airguns used in oil and gas surveys.
• There is no evidence that surveys conducted by offshore wind developers causes whale deaths, and there are "no known links" between reported whale deaths and offshore wind activities.

According to a Scientific American article entitled "The Science Is Clear: Offshore Wind Isn't What's Killing Whales" published on June 26, 2024:

More than 500 humpback, minke and right whales have been seriously injured, stranded onshore or died prematurely on or near the East Coast since 2017, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

But it is starkly clear that human activity—in the form of ships that hit whales or fishing gear that wraps around them—is often to blame. "For right whales, if you take out neonatal mortality, every documented mortality in the last 25 years of a right whale has been at the hands of some human cause—ship strike or entanglement. Every single one of them." [Duke University marine scientist Douglas Nowacek]

Regarding ship/vessel strikes, the article says:

• Whales near the East Coast often swim through waters that overlap with major Atlantic Coast shipping routes, and rising ocean temperatures can cause whales to swim into those routes seeking prey.
• Despite an ongoing effort by NOAA to enforce a 10-knot speed limit for long vessels in vulnerable areas, 84 percent of vessels still exceeded that limit between 2020 and 2022 (according to a report from the conservation nonprofit organization Oceana).

The article states that scientists and federal agencies are in agreement that wind development could still pose a risk to marine life in general, and that the biggest risk is vessel strikes during construction. To that end, at least some major wind development projects on both the east and west coasts have agreed to apply NOAA's 10-knot rule to almost all project-related vessels, regardless of size.

Other mitigation methods include:

• Federal law requires Protected Species Observers that use infrared cameras to detect marine mammals during offshore wind turbine development.
• Cessation of pile-driving or hammering turbine foundations into the seabed during months when the largest concentrations of right whales are in the area.
• "Shutdown zones" where construction is halted if a Protected Species Observers notices a whale entering the area.
• The use of "bubble curtains" to absorb construction noises.

Source:

Axelrod, Josh. (June 26, 2024). "The Science Is Clear: Offshore Wind Isn't What's Killing Whales". Scientific American. Retrieved 2025-07-18.

Note that the Scientific American article was published on June 26, 2024, the day after NOAA and BOEM (U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management) published a wind strategy document entitled "NOAA, BOEM Announce Final North Atlantic Right Whale and Offshore Wind Strategy", which states:

The final strategy identifies several actions under three main goals: 1) mitigation and decision-support tools; 2) research and monitoring; and 3) collaboration, communication and outreach.

Immediate impact mitigation efforts include avoiding leasing in areas that may impact potential North Atlantic right whale habitat and high use areas, and providing guidance to developers on conducting robust sound field verification to ensure that noise levels expected from offshore wind activities do not exceed thresholds set for certain activities. The agencies invite industry and other partners to join in the implementation of this strategy, which will be evaluated and updated as new information becomes available.

John Mandelman (Vice President and Chief Scientist, Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life at the New England Aquarium) responded to the NOAA/BOEM final strategy document with a press release, part of which states (bold added for emphasis):

We applaud the agencies for acknowledging the role of applying the best available scientific information on vessel strike risk reduction measures and the emphasis on prioritizing collaboration and data sharing. The offshore wind strategy, however, falls short in clarifying how mitigation, research, and monitoring efforts should occur to protect the critically endangered North Atlantic right whales.

The New England Aquarium supports the need for rigorous, scientifically based review of industry development and practices that avoid, minimize, or mitigate harm to marine species and habitats. The blue economy of the future is one where the needs of clean energy must be met while simultaneously safeguarding marine species and habitats.

Read more in a November 23, 2022 article published on The New Bedford Light website entitled "NOAA scientists propose more protection for right whales in offshore wind area".

On April 10, 2025, the U.S. Government Accountability Office published the results of a study investigating the potential positive and negative impacts of offshore wind energy development, and how federal agencies engage with groups affected by the development.

The study was conducted by a "panel of 23 experts" contracted by the GAO from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (The National Academies).

The study found that the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), which oversee offshore wind energy development, have been "inconsistent" in their engagement. The GAO made five recommendations to BOEM and BSEE to address gaps in oversight.

Regarding the impact on marine life, the GAO study says only the following:

Among such impacts, development and operation of offshore wind energy facilities could affect marine life and ecosystems, including through acoustic disturbance and changes to marine habitats.

We are an alliance of grassroots environmental and community organizations, scientists, and conservationists working to protect the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale and other marine life from the industrialization of our ocean habitat through large-scale offshore wind energy development.

Save Right Whales Coalition is committed to educating the public and political leaders on the harms of offshore wind on ocean life and for those who live, work, and visit our coastal communities.

The Home page of the Save Right Whales Coalition (SRWC) website states "THEY SURVIVED WHALING, BUT Right Whales WON'T SURVIVE WIND ENERGY."

Also on the Home page is a link to a December 4, 2022 Save Right Whales Coalition "open letter" which argues against any offshore wind development, calling it a "clear violation of the Endangered Species Act."

In addition, the Home page has a "Latest News" list with links to recent SRWC articles about reports and studies that challenge what's being done to protect whales, as well as recent SRWC articles about legal efforts to protect the North Atlantic right whales.

Here's a summary of those links:

• September 11, 2023

  A study conducted by Rand Acoustics, LLC, found that the noise emitted from wind developer sonar was excessively loud and was different from the sonar equipment NMFS (NOAA Fisheries' National Marine Fisheries Service) said would be used, suggesting that there has been a complete breakdown in the system designed to protect marine wildlife. These findings are featured in documentary entitled "Thrown to the Wind."

• January 1, 2024

  SRWC challenges an Associated Press article published December 23, 2023 entitled "Contrary to politicians' claims, offshore wind farms don't kill whales. Here's what to know." SRWC claims that AP reporters limited the discussion to current year wind farm construction, that they only looked at deaths "directly resulting" from construction, and that they "miss the much larger point" that federal agencies do not know how the operation and maintenance of wind farms will impact whales, especially the right whale.

• January 18, 2024

  A study entitled "AN INVESTIGATION of LARGE WHALE MORTALITY
  and OFFSHORE WIND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY IN THE U.S. SINCE 2015" published on November, 30, 2023, conducted on behalf of SRWC by Lisa Linowes and Eric Turner identified a "direct correlation between increased OSW [offshore wind] vessel activity and whale mortality." The study also concludes that information from the United Kingdom and Europe suggests whales and other marine mammals experienced "displacement and mortality events" in the North Sea related to offshore wind development.

• August 5, 2024

  Links to a page on the SRWC website with more links to research, resources, and reports.

• August 6, 2024

  A 2024 year-to-date SRWC summary which includes 1) increased whale deaths, 2) shattered wind turbine blade at Vineyard Wind 1, 3) SWRC's Whale Death Correlation Report, 4) letters to NOAA Fisheries, 5) flawed predictive noise modeling, 6) inadequate observation and monitoring, 7) insufficient oversight, and 8) developer misrepresentation.

• April 14, 2025

  Details of SRWC's filing of a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief challenging BOEM's alleged unlawful offshore wind approvals.

• April 15, 2025

  An article written by Lisa Linowes which discusses in detail the amicus brief filed yesterday which challenges BOEM's approval of the Vineyard Wind 1 project and ten other offshore wind facilities.

• June 1, 2025

  Discusses the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which states that the Department of the Interior must ensure that energy development "provides for the prevention of interference with reasonable uses" of the ocean (including fishing, recreation, and navigation) before approval.

• July 15, 2025

Discusses the impact of the recent passage and signing of the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" on new wind and solar projects.

"Stop These Things" is an anti-wind group based in Australia. The tagline on their website reads:

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE GREAT WIND POWER FRAUD

We're not here to debate the wind industry - we're here to destroy it

The Home page of their website is a blog with summaries of weekly roundup's discussing the past week's events.

To get a sense of how adamant this group is, here are links to a few articles on their website:

• "Britain's Killing Fields: Offshore Wind Industry Wiping Out Whales, Dolphins & More"
• "Acoustic Rape: Why Wind Turbine Construction Noise Kills Whales"
• "Wind Power Fraud"

On April 24, 2025, NOAA Fisheries published an article entitled "2017–2025 North Atlantic Right Whale Unusual Mortality Event" which describes the UME (Unusual Mortality Event), as well as providing comprehensive data regarding North Atlantic right whale mortalities from 2017-2025.

The article states:

Additionally, research demonstrates that only about 1/3 of right whale deaths are documented. The preliminary cause of mortality, serious injury, and morbidity (sublethal injury and illness) in most of these whales is from entanglements or vessel strikes.

Regarding deaths caused by entanglements and vessel strikes, charts in the article show actual morbidity data for 2017-2025 (through April 9, 2025) as follows:

• Mortality: 25 of 41 deaths (61%)
• Serious Injury: 38 of 39 deaths (97%)
• Morbidity (Sublethal Injury and Illness): 64 of 77 deaths (83%)

The United Kingdom has made a significant investment in offshore wind energy, far beyond what's been invested in the United States. According to Wikipedia, in the United Kingdom, as of October 2023 there were 42 offshore wind farms, consisting of 2,755 wind turbines, with a combined capacity of 15,585 megawatts, and eight other offshore wind farms under construction. An obvious question to ask is, how have the offshore wind farms in the U.K. been affecting marine mammals?

The U.K. monitors and collects data on cetacean strandings (beachings) via a government program called the UK Cetacean Strandings Investigation Programme (CSIP).

According to the "CISP Annual Report for the period 1st January – 31st December 2020" (which you can access here: UK Cetacean Stranding Investigation Programme - ME6008), there were 1,102 cetacean strandings in 2020 (2020 is the most recent data available). That number is 11% higher than the average number of reported strandings during the previous four year period. Of the 1,102 cetacean strandings, the harbour porpoise accounted for 451, the short-beaked common dolphin accounted for 320, and whales accounted for 128 (compared with 75 in 2019, 173 in 2018, 73 in 2017, and 63 in 2016).

The 2020 number (128 whale strandings) sounds like a lot, and it's an increase from the previous four years, but it doesn't provide any information on what's causing the strandings.

The "CISP Annual Report for the period 1st January – 31st December 2020" has data for each of the 15 different whale species, including the results of post-mortem examination ("Table 8 Causes of death of cetaceans and marine turtles examined at post-mortem in the UK in 2020"). However, the examination data for whales is sparse, with only 13 examinations performed, and the results show a mix of causes, none of which appear to be directly attributed to wind energy.

CISP reports going all the way back to 1994 are available (UK Cetacean Stranding Investigation Programme). It's possible that analyzing data in previous years and comparing it to 2016-2020 data might show a trend in strandings since the inception of offshore wind development and operation in the U.K. which started in the early 2,000's.

The U.K. Offshore Wind Enabling Actions Programme (OWEAP), under the Department for Environmental Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), commissioned and published a series of reports on underwater noise in order to better understand the impacts and management of underwater noise from offshore wind. Those reports can be viewed here.

On November 11, 2019, BBC Science Focus Magazine published an article entitled "Whales and dolphins: Why are more of them beaching around the UK?". The author of that article interviewed CISP Project Manager Rob Deaville.

According to Deaville, the most common causes of cetacean mortality are bycatch and entanglement with fishing lines and nets. Deaville said that other causes include ship-strikes and illness often caused by parasites, starvation, or human pollution (chemical pollution in the water).

Deaville noted that "All the toothed cetaceans use echolocation as their primary sense."

The article goes on to say:

As a result, they are highly susceptible to noise pollution. Chronic noise from shipping and off-shore wind farms can drive animals away from their usual habitats and into dangerous environments, while sudden, acute noise from explosions, seismic activity or sonar can temporarily deafen them or even cause haemorrhaging [sic] in the inner ear. Naval sonar is particularly damaging.

Deaville added, "There are many accounts globally of mass strandings associated with some particular forms of sonar."

On March 15-16, 2000, a mass stranding of 17 cetaceans was discovered in the Northeast and Northwest Providence Channels of the Bahamas Islands. A subsequent interim report published by NOAA in December of 2001 states the following:

Based upon necropsies of the dead animals it was preliminarily determined that they had experienced some sort of acoustic or impulse trauma that led to their stranding and subsequent death.

Based on the way in which the strandings coincided with ongoing naval activity involving tactical mid-range frequency sonar use in terms of both time and geography, the nature of the physiological effects experienced by the dead animals, and the absence of any other acoustic sources, the investigation team concludes that tactical mid-range frequency sonars aboard U.S. Navy ships that were in use during the sonar exercise in question were the most plausible source of this acoustic or impulse trauma.

Unfortunately, wind turbines and their potential effect on marine mammals has become highly politicized.

In January, 2024, a 3-year-old North Atlantic right whale was found dead on a Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts beach. Rescuers tried for over a year, unsuccessfully, to disentangle ropes from the female calf, identified as No. 5120. NOAA Fisheries announced that the entangling rope came from lobster fishing gear set in Maine state waters.

Some social media users blamed offshore wind farms, specifically the noise, the electricity generated, and the mere presence of wind turbines for the death of No. 5120, which is objectively false.

On December 12, 2023, the Climate and Development Lab at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, released a report entitled "Against the Wind,", part of which includes:

A Map of the Anti-Offshore Wind Network in the Eastern United States which provides an unparalleled window into how fossil fuel interests are working with climate denial think tanks and community groups to obstruct offshore wind projects.

The report also says:

We show how think tanks in the anti-offshore wind movement have received donations from six fossil fuel-interested donors between 2017 and 2021. Of these donations, $16,278,401 has gone to members of a grassroots-appearing coalition at the center of the movement.

Read more about the politicization of wind turbines and their potential effect on marine mammals in a March 31, 2023 E&ENews article entitled "Why Republicans suddenly hate offshore wind", and an April 20, 2023 Grist article entitled "The GOP donors behind a growing misinformation campaign to stop offshore wind."

Wind energy "kills all your birds" (Donald Trump)

At an August, 2016 rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, regarding wind turbines Trump said "The wind kills all your birds. All your birds, killed. You know, the environmentalists never talk about that."

On February 16, 2025 I published an HWR article entitled "The Facts about Wind Turbines and Birds". In that article I cited two other times that Trump made similar claims. Trump made the same claim at a recent Cabinet meeting stating, "The birds are dying all over the place."

The conclusion of my HWR article, based on a ton of research, is that bird deaths caused by wind turbines are only a small fraction of bird deaths due to other causes.

Noise from wind turbines causes cancer (Donald Trump)

At a Republican dinner on April, 2019 Trump said "If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75 percent in value -- and they say the noise causes cancer."

According to a FactCheck article entitled "Trump's Faulty Wind Power Claims":

There is no evidence that wind turbines cause cancer. The American Cancer Society told us in a statement that it is "unaware of any credible evidence linking the noise from windmills to cancer." We also searched the biomedical literature for any studies investigating a link, and couldn't find any.

The only plausible way wind turbines might contribute to even a small amount of cancer risk is by increasing stress or disrupting sleep. But it hasn't yet been demonstrated that those problems do contribute to cancer risk, or that they are caused by turbine noise.

Noise from wind turbines makes people "go crazy" (Donald Trump)

At an August 30, 2018 rally in Evansville, Indiana Trump said that the noise from wind turbines is enough to make someone "go crazy after a couple of years."

A September 14, 2018 article on the NBC Philadelphia website entitled "Fact Check: Trump Overstates Risks of Wind Power" did an in-depth analysis of Trump's claim. Here's a summary of the analysis:

• Turbines do emit noise, but according to the DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), the sounds are typically less than 40 decibels (roughly the noise level of a library), what experts call "the lowest limit of urban ambient sound" — when measured 437 yards from a turbine.
• Wind farms are usually located as far from residential homes as possible.
• Low volumes can still annoy some people, and anecdotally, many people have complained of headaches, dizziness or tinnitus, and other symptoms, which they have attributed to turbine noise, sometimes calling it wind turbine syndrome.
• Numerous scientific reviews have found no evidence that physical or mental health is directly at risk because of turbines.
• Scientists can't definitively rule out health effects (but there's no good evidence that they exist), and even effects that are more likely, like sleep disturbances, might be explained by other factors.
• Regarding infrasound (sound waves with a frequency below the lower limit of human audibility) emitted by wind turbines, it's "not inherently problematic to humans," but there is some evidence of symptoms in people exposed to it.
• Regarding sleep disruption, study results are mixed, and the studies didn't always control for confounding factors. A 2016 study conducted by Health Canada (Canada's public health department) found no relationship between sleep disruption and wind turbine noise.
• Some people who have other health conditions might be erroneously attributing their problems to wind turbines.
• In some people, the nocebo effect might make symptoms appear simply because they've been told or they believe that wind turbine noise is harmful.

Wind turbines reduce property values by 75 percent (Donald Trump)

At a March 20, 2019 rally in Ohio Trump said:

Put the windmills up and watch the value of your house, if you're in sight of a windmill, watch the value of your house go down by 65%.

At a April 2, 2019 speech to the National Republican Congressional Committee Trump said:

If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75 percent in value.

A study by researchers at the University of Rhode Island published in July of 2014 entitled "The windy city: Property value impacts of wind turbines in an urban setting" found "no statistically significant negative impacts" on home prices. Note that the turbines studied were exclusivley in in Rhode Island, where turbines have been built in relatively high population dense areas, consisting of 48,554 single-family, owner-occupied homes within five miles of a turbine site, including 3,254 within one mile, which is far more than most related studies.

A study by Energy Technologies Area, Berkeley Lab published in December of 2023 entitled "Commercial Wind Turbines and Residential Home Values: New Evidence from the Universe of Land-Based Wind Projects in the United States" concluded that during the 2005-2020 timeframe, "on average, homes located within 1 mile of a commercial wind turbine experience approximately an 11% decline in value following the announcement of a new commercial wind energy project." The study also found that in the years after project development, the decline in value became "insignificant."

Citing the Berkely Lab study and four other studies (2013, 2015, 2016, and 2024), an article on the official U.S. Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy website entitled "Wind Energy Projects and Property Values" states:

Several peer-reviewed, U.S.-focused research studies on this topic find that while wind turbines generally do not have any widespread, long-term impact on property values, the construction of a wind farm close (~1 mile) to residences in more populated areas can have a short-term impact on property values.

Although wind energy projects may not lower property values for the long term or in rural areas broadly, there is some anecdotal evidence that indicates individual homes or neighborhoods can be affected on a small scale.

Wind is a "very expensive form of energy" (Donald Trump)

At a July 8, 2025 Cabinet meeting Trump said:

Wind is a very expensive form of energy.

After doing extensive online research, it's clear that determining the true, actual cost of wind energy (compared to other sources of energy) is complicated, involves externalities, and is contentiously debated. Some sources claim that wind energy is very cost competitive while others claim it's not.

Much of the debate centers around the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) metric. The LCOE is the total cost incurred to produce energy over the lifetime of an energy producing unit (a wind turbine, a natural gas well, a coal plant, etc.) divided by the total amount of energy generated over that lifetime. As a hypothetical example, if the total cost of a wind turbine over it's lifespan is $1,000,000 and the total electricity generated over that lifespan is 10,000 MWh (megawatt-hours), the LCOE would be $100/MWh (1,000,000 divided by 10,000).

Below, I reference energy cost analysis from four different sources. The first two use the existing LCOE metric. The second two argue against the LCOE metric.

A June, 2025 report published by Lazard, Inc. (a financial advisory and asset management firm, who's mission is "to provide the most sophisticated and differentiated advice and investment solutions for our clients") relies on LCOE to make the case that renewables are cost-competitive.

The report, entitled Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE+), was summarized by an article on the Scientific American (SCIAM) website entitled "Wind and Solar Energy Are Cheaper Than Electricity from Fossil-Fuel Plants" published June 17, 2025. That article states that the Lazard report is "closely watched" and "often criticized" in the energy industry. The article also says:

Lazard calculates an energy resource's levelized cost, or LCOE, by dividing a project's lifetime energy production by its cost. This year's report concludes that renewables are the "most cost-competitive form of generation," even without subsidies.

Persistently low natural gas prices, rising renewable energy costs and higher electricity demand have made existing gas plants economically attractive compared with renewables.

Lazard has sought to address those concerns [like those mentioned above by CATF] by adding a new calculation to its report that accounts for the cost of providing backup power to wind, solar and short duration storage batteries. It finds that those prices range from as low as $71 per MWh for unsubsidized wind in the Midwest to as high as $164 for solar-plus-storage in the mid-Atlantic.

The SCIAM article gives the following levelized costs for different types of energy (costs for offshore wind was not included in the article):

A review published in November of 2024 by the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) entitled "Cost of Wind Energy Review: 2024 Edition" reports wind turbine LCOE as follows:

The U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory specializes in the research and development of renewable energy, energy efficiency, energy systems integration, sustainable transportation, and is a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Department of Energy and operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy.

An article on the U.S. Department of Energy website entitled "Types of Wind Energy" describes "utility-scale" and "distributed" wind energy as follows:

The term "utility-scale" refers to typically large turbines installed either on land or in water that are used to generate large amounts of electricity to feed into the three major electrical grids in the United States (Eastern, Western, and Texas's grid).

The term "distributed wind energy (sometimes called "onsite wind energy") refers to turbines installed locally to meet nearby energy needs. Distributed wind energy installations are typically used by a community, company, utility, or homeowner to power their specific needs.

A June 10, 2025 report published by the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) concludes that LCOE is not an accurate way to assess affordability. According to the report, entitled "Policymakers and industry need to move beyond LCOE to build reliable, affordable, and clean energy systems, finds new CATF report":

While LCOE is a good metric to track historical technology cost evolution, it is not an appropriate tool to use in the context of long-term planning and policymaking for deep decarbonization. This report explains why LCOE fails to reflect the full complexity of electricity systems and can lead to decisions that jeopardize reliability, affordability, and clean generation.

A June 10, 2025 press release announcing the 2025 CATF report entitled "Policymakers and industry need to move beyond LCOE to build reliable, affordable, and clean energy systems, finds new CATF report" states:

"Policymakers need to start asking different questions," said Malwina Qvist, Director, Nuclear Energy Program, at CATF. "Instead of asking what's cheapest per megawatt-hour, they should ask what mix of resources will deliver reliable power at the lowest total system cost while transitioning to clean generation. That's the shift this report is designed to support."

"Policymakers need to start asking different questions," said Malwina Qvist, Director, Nuclear Energy Program, at CATF. "Instead of asking what's cheapest per megawatt-hour, they should ask what mix of resources will deliver reliable power at the lowest total system cost while transitioning to clean generation. That's the shift this report is designed to support."

That same press release also lists four takeaways from the 2025 CATF report:

• LCOE does not reflect total system cost.
• Technologies with higher LCOEs can reduce total system costs.
• LCOE omits critical attributes like reliability and dispatchability.
• Better planning tools are available.

A July 21, 2023 article on the Energy Now website entitled "The Ultimate Debunking of 'Solar and Wind are Cheaper than Fossil Fuels.' – Alex Epstein" claims:

Truth: Solar and wind are only cheaper than fossil fuels in at most a small fraction of situations. For the overwhelming majority of the world's energy needs, solar and wind are either completely unable to replace fossil fuels or far more expensive.

The article is a long, extremely detailed, comprehensive analysis of all the costs related to solar and wind energy. It states that the idea of renewables being the cheapest form of power is a "dangerous fallacy" which results in "false generalization," and that LCOE, by its own definition, ignores the issue of reliability. Note that the author, Alex Epstein, is a staunch advocate of fossil fuels.

"Stupid and ugly windmills are killing New Jersey." (Donald Trump)

On August 19, 2025, Trump posted the following on Truth Social:

STUPID AND UGLY WINDMILLS ARE KILLING NEW JERSEY. Energy prices up 28% this year, and not enough electricity to take care of state. STOP THE WINDMILLS!

The next day Trump posted the following on Truth Social:

Any State that has built and relied on WINDMILLS and SOLAR for power are seeing RECORD BREAKING INCREASES IN ELECTRICITY AND ENERGY COSTS. THE SCAM OF THE CENTURY! We will not approve wind or farmer destroying Solar. The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!! MAGA

Acccording to recent data from the U.S. Energy Administration (EIA), residential electricity prices have increased 13%-18% since 2022. For comparison, the Consumer Price Index rose 11%-14% over that same time frame.

Regarding the price increases, the EIA said:

In recent years, electric utilities have increased capital investment to replace or upgrade aging generation and delivery infrastructure, among other factors.

EIA data also shows that in 2023, renewable resources provided 8% of New Jersey's total in-state electricity generation, with wind energy supplying about 0.3% of total renewables. If you do the simple math (0.8 X 0.3) you get 0.24%. In other words, New Jersey's wind electricity generation is way less than 1% of total electricity generation from all sources.

According to the EIA, New Jersey has two utility-scale onshore wind power facilities located on the state's Atlantic Ocean coastline. One is a 7.5-megawatt five-turbine wind farm in Atlantic City, and the other a 1.5-megawatt single turbine located across from Staten Island in the New York City area which is currently out of service.

An article on the NJ.com website entitled "Trump blames N.J. energy price hikes on windmills — but gets one very important fact wrong" notes that in recent years, several companies have been cancelling off-shore wind projects.

"Smart countries" don't use wind energy (Donald Trump)

At a Cabinet meeting earlier this year Trump said:

Smart countries don't use wind energy

According to the "GWEC GLOBAL WIND REPORT 2025":

• 2024 was the wind industry's best year so far, with 117 GW of new wind power capacity added to the grid worldwide.
• The world's top five markets for new installations in 2024 were China, the U.S., Germany, India, and Brazil. These five markets combined made up 81% of global additions in 2024, collectively 1% higher than the previous year.
• Germany's wind energy market is experiencing an unprecedented boom, reinforcing the country's role as a European wind energy leader...Germany's energy transition reflects a broad societal commitment to addressing climate change, strengthening energy security, and ensuring economic resilience.
• Following the election of a new government in July 2024, the UK has seen a series of reforms aimed at delivering its ambitions for up to 50 GW of offshore wind and around 30 GW of onshore wind by 2030. These targets are part of the Prime Minister's wider 'Clean Energy Mission' to achieve at least 95% low-carbon energy generation and build on the UK's successful foundations in electricity decarbonisation to date.
• Statistics published in January 2025 by the UK's National Energy System Operator (NESO) show that wind outperformed gas for the first year ever in 2024, providing a record 30% of Britain's electricity, up from 28% in 2023, while gas produced just 26.3%. Clean power sources in total provided 58% of the country's electricity, with coal producing only 0.6%, as Britain's last coal-fired power station was decommissioned last September.

Read more about the GWEC (Global Wind Energy Council) here.

A June 26, 2025 article on The Guardian website entitled "China breaks more records with surge in solar and wind power" states that "Between January and May [2025], China added 198 GW of solar and 46 GW of wind."

China has "very, very few" wind turbines (Donald Trump)

At a July 8, 2025 Cabinet meeting Trump said that China has "very, very few" wind turbines.

At a UN General Assembly speech on September 23, 2025 Trump said:

They build them, but they have very few wind farms. So why is it that they build them and they send them all over the world, but they barely use them? You know what they use? Coal. They use gas. They use almost anything, but they don't like wind. But they sure as hell like selling the windmills.

According to February, 2025 data on the Global Energy Monitor website China leads the world in wind power generation, generating 444,137 MWh. The next closest country is the United States with 151,429 MWh. Doing the math, that means China generates almost three times as much wind energy as the United States.

According to a July, 2025 article on the Global Energy Monitor website entitled "China's solar and onshore wind capacity reaches new heights, while offshore wind shows promise":

China's wind capacity follows a similar rate of growth as solar, according to Global Energy Monitor's Global Wind Power Tracker, with over 590 GW in prospective phases — nearly 530 GW of onshore capacity and 63 GW of offshore capacity. As of July 2025, 223 GW (37%) of this prospective capacity is under construction, almost four times the combined under-construction capacity of the rest of the world. If these projects become operational, they could generate roughly 1,260 TWh of electricity per year, enough to power about 120 million United States households. Ultimately, China's prospective capacity accounts for about one-third of total global wind capacity in development.

Wind turbines have a short life span and are difficult to recycle (Donald Trump)

At a July 8, 2025 Cabinet meeting Trump said:

You can't take them [wind turbines] down because the environmentalists don't let you bury the blades.

In late July of 2025, during a visit to Scotland Trump said:

[wind turbines] start to rust and rot in eight years

You can't really turn them [wind turbines] off, you can't burn them. They won't let you bury the propellers, the props, because there's a certain type of fibre that doesn't go well with the land.

Because the first generation of wind turbines is now being decommissioned, the challenge is how to properly dispose of, recycle, or reuse the blades. The size of the blades and limited recycling options currently pose a challenge to the industry.

Source:

(April 17, 2020). "Wind Turbine Blade Recycling: Preliminary Assessment". EPRI. Retrieved 2025-10-14.

According to an April 15, 2024 article on the ScienceDirect website entitled "End-of-Life wind turbine blades: Review on recycling strategies":

Glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) is the predominant composite material used in blades. However, the increasing size of next-generation wind turbine blades is also driving the adoption of carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP). Thus, research is needed on cost-effective methods that can recover valuable glass fibers. On the other hand, CFRP is a high-value material, justifying the use of high-cost recycling approaches compared to virgin fiber production.

An infographic on the Electric Power Research Institute website published June 18, 2021 entitled "Wind Turbine End-of-Life Management" provides a good "primer" on wind turbine construction and composition, as well as a list of references.

Note that in Europe there is a project entitled "The European Technology & Innovation Platform on Wind Energy: ETIPWind" overseen by a committee of both industry, research and academia representatives, whose mission is to inform research and innovation policy, to establish priorities, and to foster breakthrough innovations in wind energy.

Organizations that support the wind turbine industry are currently doing research and are working on ways to recycle wind turbine blades.

According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA):

Wind turbines, however, generally have a lifespan of 20-25 years, after which operators must decide whether to extend their operational life, repower them, or dismantle the facility. Repowering, the process of replacing older turbines with more efficient models, is increasingly seen as the preferred option due to its ability to significantly increase energy output without requiring additional land.

An August 24, 2024 article published on the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) website entiteld "News Release: NREL Advances Method for Recyclable Wind Turbine Blades" discusses new research involving a new resin made of materials produced using bio-derivable resources. "This resin performs on par with the current industry standard of blades made from a thermoset resin and outperforms certain thermoplastic resins intended to be recyclable."

The source for the NREL article is an article published August 22, 2024 in the journal Science entitled "Manufacture and testing of biomass-derivable thermosets for wind blade recycling".

An October 28, 2025 article published on the Science Direct website entitled "Recycling Wind Turbine Blades: A Comprehensive Review of Challenges, Solutions, and Future Directions" states that "cement co-processing" and "chemical dissolution" are both profitable recycling methods, and both achieve carbon reduction. The article also states:

Although chemical recycling offers superior circularity, it remains confined to laboratory scale at present. Therefore, cement co-processing is currently the preferred solution. Once scaling challenges are resolved in the future, chemical methods will become the mainstream process for wind turbine blade recycling, potentially even integrated with pyrolysis techniques.

Finally, a January 6, 2025 article published on the U.S. Department of Energy website entitled "America Can Recycle 90% of Wind Turbine Mass, According to New DOE Report" summarizes a report entitled "Wind Turbine Recycling Assessment Report: A Guide to Recycling Industry" which describes what the U.S. Department of Energy's Wind Energy Technologies Office and its partners are doing and how they are planning to develop efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally responsible ways to manage the volume of decommissioned wind turbine materials.

Germany regrets its decision to transition to renewable energy (Donald Trump)

During the 2024 presidental debate with Kamala Harris, Donald Trump said:

You [Kamala Harris and Democrats] believe in things like we're not going to frack, we're not going to take fossil fuel, we're not going to do things that are going to be strong, whether you like it or not. Germany tried that, and within one year, they were back to building normal energy plants.

The German foreign ministry responded with the following statement on social media:

Like it or not: Germany's energy system is fully operational, with more than 50 percent renewables. And we are shutting down — not building — coal and nuclear plants. Coal will be off the grid by 2038 at the latest.

Source:

Starcevic, Seb; Gavin, Gabriel; Klöckner, Jürgen. (September 11, 2024). "Germany hammers Trump over debate barbs about Berlin's energy transition". Politico. Retrieved 2025-10-29.

An October 2, 2025 article on the Clean Energy Wire website entitled "Q&A: Germany to lower energy transition ambitions following 'reality check report" describes a September "reality check" report commissioned by the German economy ministry. Some of the key findings include:

• Germany is on track to reach its target of 80 percent renewable electricity by 2030
• Germany's international climate commitments and the constitutional target of greenhouse gas neutrality in 2045 made decarbonisation a fundamental requirement of the monitoring process
• Renewables expansion "at a high level" remains essential
• Cost efficiency should play a greater role in policymaking

Some of the German economy ministry's responses to the report include:

• "Future renewable additions should be 'grid friendly' to ensure all kilowatt-hours of electricity produced can be used, and new capacity is added where it makes sense"
• "Renewables already generate too much electricity at times, while requiring fossil fuel backup when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. This would result in high system costs borne by consumers and undermining competitiveness
• "German energy policy must be realigned. Pragmatism, market-based rationality, innovation-friendliness and broad technological openness are essential to securing prosperity, jobs and climate targets for the next generation."

Specifically, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said:

My guess is that we can do a little less in terms of expansion. And that will, of course, trigger significant changes in costs.

If we want to remain an industrialised country, we must have a secure energy supply. For the time being, at least, we cannot guarantee this with renewable energies alone.

Wind turbines are "not green" and "not reliable" (The Heritage Foundation)

The Heritage Foundation is an "American right-wing think tank based in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1973 and is ranked among the world's most influential think tanks.

An August 2, 2024 commentary article published on the The Heritage Foundation website entitled "Wind Turbines: Not Green, Not Reliable" states the following about wind energy:

1. Compared to natural gas power plants, onshore wind farms require eight times as much critical minerals (13 times as much for offshore), these larger quantities are environmentally damaging, and they are out of proportion to the energy produced.
2. Wind energy requires considerably more critical minerals to produce the same amount of energy as other energy sources. To produce one megawatt-hour of electricity, a natural gas power plants need about 1 ton of critical minerals, a nuclear power plant needs 6 tons, an onshore wind needs 11 tons, and offshore wind needs 17 tons.
3. Wind energy requires vast expanses of land.
4. The biggest U.S. onshore wind farm—the Alta Wind Energy Center—generates an estimated 3.29 TWh per year with its 582 wind turbines. But the biggest Palo Verde nuclear power plant generates 33.7 TWh annually—more than 10 times as much.
5. Wind turbines have a disposal problem.
6. Wind turbines kill over 1 million birds a year
7. Because the wind doesn't always blow, wind power is unreliable, and they run at maximum power only about 35% of the time.
8. Because the wind doesn't always blow, wind turbines disregard the fundamental principle of our grids: The supply of electricity must meet demand in real time.
9. Wind energy also lacks the versatility of natural gas and oil.
10. Wind energy is heavily subsidized.

Note that this article gives no source references for the claims and data presented.

Regarding 1, the International Energy Association (IEA) is an organization that works with governments and industry to shape a secure and sustainable clean energy future.

A March, 2022 report published by the IEA offers a comprehensive analysis, comparison, and breakdown of all the critical minerals used by different energy sources.

Here are a few excerpts from the Executive Summary:

An energy system powered by clean energy technologies differs profoundly from one fuelled by traditional hydrocarbon resources. Solar photovoltaic (PV) plants, wind farms and electric vehicles (EVs) generally require more minerals to build than their fossil fuel-based counterparts. A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant. Since 2010 the average amount of minerals needed for a new unit of power generation capacity has increased by 50% as the share of renewables in new investment has risen.

Our bottom-up assessment of energy policies in place or announced suggests that the world is currently on track for a doubling of overall mineral requirements for clean energy technologies by 2040. However, a concerted effort to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement (climate stabilisation at "well below 2°C global temperature rise, as in the SDS) would mean a quadrupling of mineral requirements for clean energy technologies by 2040.

Regarding 2, a December 23, 2024 article on the World Nuclear Association website entitled "Mineral Requirements for Electricity Generation" has a chart (sourced from the IEA) which graphically shows, by energy source, how many tons of critical minerals are needed to produce one megawatt-hour of power. The data in that chart closely aligns with the data stated in the the Heritage article.

Regarding 3, a September 12, 2024 article on the U.S. Department of Agriculture website entitled "Agricultural Land Near Solar and Wind Projects Usually Remained in Agriculture After Development" discusses land usage of wind farms during the period 2012-2020. The data presented in this article is sourced from another U.S. Department of Agriculture article entitled "Utility-Scale Solar and Wind Development in Rural Areas: Land Cover Change (2009–20)".

According to the article:

• From 2012 to 2020, over 90 percent of large-scale, commercial wind turbines in rural areas were installed on agricultural land (cropland, pastureland, or rangeland).
• In 2020, the amount of rural land directly affected by wind turbines accounts for less than 0.05 percent of total U.S. farmland (424,000 acres for wind turbines vs. 897 million acres for farmland).

Published in March, 2024, research led by McGill University studied the land-use of nearly 320 wind farms in the U.S. (the largest study of its kind). The research shows that wind power infrastructure (turbines and roads) typically use only 5 percent of the entire farmland.

According to Sarah Jordaan, an associate professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at McGill:

The land use of wind farms has often been viewed as among the predominant challenges to wind development. But, by quantifying the land area used by nearly 16,000 wind turbines in the western U.S., we found that gas-fired generation offers no real benefits in terms of lesser land use when the infrastructures, including all the wells, pipelines, and roads associated with the natural gas supply chain, are considered.

According to data from the U.S. Energy Information Association, in 2023 there were 918,068 wells in the U.S. (combination of oil and natural gas).

A 2018 article on the American Geosciences Institute website entitled "Land Use in the Oil and Gas Industry" notes that the land footprint of oil and gas extraction extends far beyond the wells:

• New production areas require new access roads, pipelines, and other infrastructure.
• Natural gas must be purified and crude oil must be refined before they are used. As of 2014, there were over 550 gas processing plants and over 140 oil refineries in the United States.
• Processed/refined products must be distributed by truck, rail, pipeline, or boat. Each mode of transport has different impacts on land- and energy-use.
• Other land uses include facilities for the treatment and disposal of wastewater, natural gas power plants, and gasoline service stations.

The article also states:

Overall, however, the high energy density of oil and gas results in relatively little land disturbance for a large amount of energy production.

Finally, a June 16, 2022 article on the Our World in Data website entitled "How does the land use of different electricity sources compare?" has a chart which shows how many square meters of land are required to produce one megawatt-hour of energy for different energy sources. The chart shows a value of 0.4 square meters/MWh for onshore wind, which is the second least of all sources shown, but that number does not include land between turbines.

Regarding 4, according to the U.S. Energy Information Association (EIA), as of April 25, 2024, Plant Vogtle in Georgia is the largest nuclear power plant in the United States with four reactors and a total generating capacity of around 4.5 GWh. The Palo Verde plant in Arizona is second largest with a capacity of 3.9 GWh.

The Alta Wind Energy Center (also known as Mojave Wind Farm) in Tehachapi, California is the according to the U.S. Energy Information Association (EIA) largest wind farm in the United States with a combined installed capacity of about 1,550 MWh (1.55 GWh).

Regarding 5, I cover this topic extensively in the section entitled Wind turbines have a short life span and are difficult to recycle (Donald Trump).

Regarding 6, I cover this topic extensively in an HWR article entitled "The Facts about Wind Turbines and Birds".

Regarding 7 and 8, an October 9, 2013 article on the Institute for Energy Research website entitled "What if Your Life Were as Unreliable as Wind Power?" states "Despite the claims of the wind industry, wind power is inherently unreliable because no one can control the wind."

While it's clear that wind energy is not as reliable as other energy sources like coal and natural gas (because it depends on weather conditions), note that the Institute for Energy Research has received donations from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, and Peabody Energy.

A July 21, 2023 article on the Energy Now website entitled "The Ultimate Debunking of 'Solar and Wind are Cheaper than Fossil Fuels.' – Alex Epstein" has a section entitled "Reliability requirements, solar and wind vs. fossil fuels" which reiterates the reliability issues inherent with wind energy. Note that the author, Alex Epstein, is a staunch advocate of fossil fuels.

One way to increase reliability is through the use of multiple renewable energy sources. By supplementing wind energy with other sources like solar, overall renewable energy reliability is improved.

Another way the wind energy industry is working to increase reliability is through the use of storage batteries, where excess power (achieved during ideal weather conditions) can be stored and saved for future use.

Regarding the statement that wind turbines "run at maximum power only about 35% of the time," an article on the Stout website entitled "Understanding Capacity Factors for Renewable Sources & Fossil Fuels" defines the capacity factor of an energy source as follows:

The capacity factor is the ratio of the actual electrical energy output over a certain period of time to the maximum possible output if the power source was operating at full capacity all the time. Essentially, it illustrates the efficiency and dependability of an energy source...The capacity factor is not about how much energy a power plant can potentially generate, but how consistently it produces energy over time. For instance, a wind turbine can produce enormous energy when the wind is strong, but if the wind is variable, the average energy produced over time might be quite less.

An article on the U.S Energy Information Administration (EIA) website entitled "Wind was second-largest source of U.S. electricity generation on March 29" dated April 14, 2022 states:

The average capacity factor of U.S. wind generators (35% in 2021) is lower than the average capacity factor of nuclear generators (93% in 2021), which are designed to run at or near full output, which they typically do. Wind turbines currently rank as the third-largest source of generating capacity in the United States, behind natural gas-fired generators and coal-fired generators.

An August 13, 2025 article published by the Environment Texas Research & Policy Center entitled "Why don't wind turbines always spin?" sheds some light on this capacity concept.

First, capacity is affected by wind speed. Too little speed means the blades don't turn, and too much causes the turbine to automatically shut down.

Second, environmental factors like ice on the blades can cause the turbine to shut down.

Third, some wind farms monitor bird traffic and might shut down to avoid collisions.

Fourth, turbines shut down for routine maintenance and repairs.

Fifth, in Texas, turbines may be intentionally shut down due to insufficient transmission infrastructure, causing curtailment (intentionally reducing electricity output) because high-voltage transmission lines are congested.

All of these factors contribute to the actual, realized capacity factor of a wind turbine.

Improving transmission infrastructure for wind energy is key to improving efficiency.

The focus of a "National Transmission Planning Study" conducted from 2022 to 2024 was "to better understand the scope of interregional transmission needs as the power sector continues to evolve and transition to cleaner resources." The Study was led by the U.S. Department of Energy's Grid Deployment Office, conducted in partnership with NREL (U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory) and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

Here's a list of major transmission infrastructure projects involving U.S. federal (public) lands:

• Greenlink West, a 525 kV line that spans approximately 350 miles from Las Vegas, NV, to Yerington, NV, expected to be in service by May 2027
• Greenlink North, 525 kV line that spans approximately 235 miles from Ely, NV, to Yerington, NV, expected to be in service by December 2028, (including three 345 kV lines from Yerington, NV, to Reno, NV), twice delayed by the U.S. government
• Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP North), a 500 kV line from Idaho Power Company Midpoint Substation near Shoshone, Idaho to a new proposed substation in the Dry Lake Valley northeast of Las Vegas, Nevada (including a crosstie route from the Ely, Nevada area to a point near Delta, Utah), construction to begin in 2026 and take approximately two years to complete
• SunZia Southwest Transmission Project, two planned 500 kV transmission lines located across approximately 520 miles of Federal, state, and private lands between central New Mexico and central Arizona, under construction, expected to start commercial operation in 2025
• Boardman to Hemingway Project, a 500 kV line from a substation near Boardman, Oregon, extending south and east to an existing Hemingway Substation near Melba, Idaho (about 305 miles), and the rebuilding of portions of existing 138 kV and 69 kV transmission lines, under construction
• Gateway West, two 230 kV segments, both of which begin near Glenrock, Wyoming and end at the Shirly Basin Substation in Carbon County, Wyoming, (one segment is a new 60-mile line beginning at the Windstar Substation, and the second segment is a rebuild of a 58-mile line beginning at the Dave Johnson Power Plant), partially in service
• Gateway South, a 500 kV line, extending over 400 miles from south central Wyoming near Medicine Bow (at the planned Aeolus Substation) extending northeast to southwest across northwestern Colorado to the planned Clover Substation near Mona, Utah, in service
• Transwest Express, a 500 kV line spanning approximatley 735 miles across four states from south-central Wyoming to southern Nevada, scheduled to begin operations in 2027

Source:

(November 16, 2021). "Renewable Energy Transmission Infrastructure". doi.gov. Retrieved 2025-11-07.

Regarding 9, a September 2020 article on the U.S. Department of Energy website entitled "U.S. OIL AND NATURAL GAS: Providing Energy Security and Supporting Our Quality of Life" lists the following uses and benefits of oil and natural gas:

• Fuel for cars, trucks, marine vessels, locomotives, and airplanes.
• Heating, air conditioning, lighting, industrial production, refrigeration, home heating, home cooking.
• Materials used to produce life-changing prosthetics, energy-efficient homes, safer cars that go farther on a gallon of gasoline, and hundreds more consumer products that Americans use every day.
• Plastics and chemicals derived from oil and natural gas make our food safer, our clothing more comfortable, our homes easier to care for, and our daily lives more convenient.
• Natural gas is also a key ingredient for chemical fertilizers, helping increase crop
  production and yield per acre planted, and powering many important operations on the farm like crop drying.

Regarding 10, a July 29, 2025 article on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website entitled "Summary of Inflation Reduction Act provisions related to renewable energy" states:

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (pdf) is the most significant climate legislation in U.S. history, offering funding, programs, and incentives to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy and will likely drive significant deployment of new clean electricity resources. Most provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 became effective 1/1/2023.

The Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and Production Tax Credit (PTC) allow taxpayers to deduct a percentage of the cost of renewable energy systems from their federal taxes.

Through at least 2025, the Inflation Reduction Act extends the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) of 30% and Production Tax Credit (PTC) of $0.0275/kWh (2023 value), as long as projects meet prevailing wage & apprenticeship requirements for projects over 1 MW AC [one megawatt of alternating current].

Starting January 1, 2025, the Inflation Reduction Act replaces the traditional PTC with the Clean Energy Production Tax Credit (§1 3701) and the traditional ITC with the Clean Electricity Investment Tax Credit (§ 13702).

These tax credits are functionally similar to the ITC/PTC but is not technology-specific. It applies to all generation facilities (and energy storage systems under ITC) that have an anticipated greenhouse gas emissions rate of zero. The credit amount is generally calculated in the same manner as described above but will be phased out as the U.S. meets greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

To summarize, as of January 1, 2025, two renewable energy investment tax credits exist: 1) Clean Energy Production Tax Credit of $0.0275/kWh (2023 value), and 2) Clean Electricity Investment Tax Credit of 30%. Prior to January 1, 2025, these two credits were known as the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and the Investment Tax Credit (ITC), respectively.

According to a June 25, 2025 article on the Cato Institute website entitled "Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are Mostly Fiction, But the Real Energy Subsidies Should Go":

In 2022, fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum liquids) received $3.2 billion in federal support (11 percent of the total), compared to nearly $15.6 billion for renewables and nuclear (54 percent).

The subsidies are even smaller when scaled by the energy produced by each source. By this measure, renewables and nuclear are subsidized at a rate 19 times higher per unit of energy produced than coal, oil, and natural gas. Looking at renewables alone, the subsidy is 30 times larger than for fossil fuels.

According to the US Treasury Department's Office of Tax Analysis, the federal government is projected to forego nearly $1.2 trillion in revenue over the next 10 years due to energy-related tax provisions. Of that total, 94 percent goes to renewable energy and clean technologies (Figure 2). The remaining 6 percent includes provisions that benefit fossil fuels.

A June 18, 2025 article on the Institute for Energy Research website entitled "Wind and Solar Energy Subsidies vs. Oil and Gas Tax Deductions" describes the history of wind energy subsidies going back to 2007. The article references a report dated December 11, 2024 created by the Joint Committee on Taxation entitled "Wind and Solar Energy Subsidies vs. Oil and Gas Tax Deductions" which estimates tax credits (in billions of dollars) for the years 2024 through 2028. The report shows wind at 3.3, 4.1, 5.3, 6.7, and 7.9, compared to 0.7, 0.7, 0.7, 0.7, and 0.6 for oil and gas.

Trump's Executive Orders on Wind Energy

• January 20, 2025:

  "Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government's Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects"

  Halts wind energy leasing on the Offshore Continental Shelf.

  Halts new or renewed approvals, rights of way, permits, leases, or loans for onshore or offshore wind projects pending the completion of a comprehensive assessment and review of federal wind leasing and permitting practices.

  The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) decision regarding the Lava Ridge Wind Project was made "allegedly contrary to the public interest and suffers from legal deficiencies," therefore a temporary moratorium is in effect on all activities and rights of Magic Valley Energy, LLC (and any other parties included in the BLM decision), and the Secretary of the Interior will review the BLM decision and if necessary conduct a new analysis.

  A U.S. government assessment and report will be conducted regarding "the environmental impact and cost to surrounding communities of defunct and idle windmills...to require the removal of such windmills."

  The U.S. Attorney General will provide notice of this executive order to any court with jurisdiction over pending litigation related to any aspect of federal leasing or permitting of onshore or offshore wind projects or the Lava Ridge Wind Project, and request that the court stay the litigation or otherwise delay further litigation.

• January 20, 2025:

  "DECLARING A NATIONAL ENERGY EMERGENCY"

  States that "The integrity and expansion of our Nation's energy infrastructure —- from coast to coast -— is an immediate and pressing priority for the protection of the United States' national and economic security.

  Blames the Biden administration for "harmful and shortsighted policies" which have resulted in an "inadequate energy supply and infrastructure" which "causes and makes worse the high energy prices that devastate Americans."

  Further blames the Biden administration: "The policies of the previous administration have driven our Nation into a national emergency, where a precariously inadequate and intermittent energy supply, and an increasingly unreliable grid, require swift and decisive action."

  Defines "energy" and "energy resources" as "crude oil, natural gas, lease condensates, natural gas liquids, refined petroleum products, uranium, coal, biofuels, geothermal heat, the kinetic movement of flowing water, and critical minerals" (omitting renewables entirely).

• July 7, 2025:

  "ENDING MARKET DISTORTING SUBSIDIES FOR UNRELIABLE, FOREIGN CONTROLLED ENERGY SOURCES"

  Refers to wind and solar energy as "expensive and unreliable energy sources."

  States that wind and solar "displaces affordable, reliable, dispatchable domestic energy sources, compromises our electric grid, and denigrates the beauty of our Nation's natural landscape."

  States that wind and solar's reliance on subsidies "threatens national security by making the United States dependent on supply chains controlled by foreign adversaries," and that ending subsidies "is vital to energy dominance, national security, economic growth, and the fiscal health of the Nation."

Trump and his administration have been actively issuing many additional orders to curb and cancel wind and solar projects.

An October 16, 2025 article published on the Third Way website entitled "Trump's War on Solar & Wind: A Timeline of Recent Federal Actions" shows a timeline which includes all 23 Trump administration actions on solar and wind this year.