from Hacker News

US moves to cancel one of the largest solar farms

by doener on 10/11/25, 11:05 PM with 133 comments

• by jauntywundrkind on 10/15/25, 12:38 AM

  Follow-up to this recent submission. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45553487

  6.2GW is huge. What an incredible sad loss.

  Meanwhile there is a beautiful article showing in photos China's recent 16.2GW solar install Talatan in the Qinghai Province. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/10/business/china-solar-tibe...

• by clarionPilot11 on 10/15/25, 3:41 AM

  You can't bring back manufacturing with expensive energy, and you can't get cheap energy by canceling solar projects.

• by paraboli on 10/15/25, 1:47 AM

  A tragedy. Killing this and Revolution Wind are some of the most consequential acts of the Trump administration. We are now unable to do large scale grid-connected energy projects and won't be able to take advantage of the incredible advances in efficiency renewables provide. With data centers causing the first increase in per-capita energy usage in decades there's a good chance we have an actual power crisis and the administration's other priorities like reshoring manufacturing become impossible.

• by xutopia on 10/12/25, 12:40 AM

  What is the reasoning behind such a move? Is it just pure corruption (ie: Qatari plane and base) or is it something else?

• by aauchter on 10/15/25, 1:41 AM

  “The BLM did not cancel the project. During routine discussions prior to the lapse in appropriations, the proponents and BLM agreed to change their approach for the Esmeralda 7 Solar Project in Nevada,” said an Interior spokesperson in an email Friday.

  “Instead of pursuing a programmatic level environmental analysis, the applicants will now have the option to submit individual project proposals to the BLM to more effectively analyze potential impacts,” the email continued.

  https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2025/10/13/trump-nv-solar-pro...

• by perihelions on 10/12/25, 12:49 AM

  https://archive.is/uk5pq

• by breadwinner on 10/15/25, 2:27 AM

  Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has bragged he had Jared Kushner "in his pocket." Oil-producing middle-eastern countries, having made significant contributions to Trump family's wealth, have enormous influence over him. If you were the ruler of an oil-producing country and have enormous influence over Trump, what would you have him do for your country?

  If it was me, this is what I would have him do: Pull out of the Paris climate accord, cancel renewable energy projects, cancel EV tax credits. Trump has done all that.

  In fact Trump went a step further:

  Trump is using tariffs to pressure other countries to relax their pledges to fight climate change and instead burn more oil, gas and coal. See: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/27/climate/trump-internation...

• by jauntywundrkind on 10/12/25, 2:46 AM

  Just for scope, I really really enjoyed seeing this NYT article & photos, on the 16.2 GW Talatan solar install in Qinghai China. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/10/business/china-solar-tibe...

  The 6.2 GW here would have been significant.

• by legitster on 10/15/25, 12:25 AM

  > The Interior Department in a statement Friday afternoon said that the solar developers and BLM had “agreed to change their approach for the Esmeralda 7 Solar Project in Nevada. Instead of pursuing a programmatic level environmental analysis, the applicants will now have the option to submit individual project proposals to the BLM to more effectively analyze potential impacts.”

  What does this even mean? Why the hell does it have to be so hard to get anything done in this country?

  > “Friends of Nevada Wilderness is thrilled that this poorly sited project is dead,” said Shaaron Netherton, the group’s executive director. “In the push to get this particular project through, the BLM ignored the importance of this region’s cultural significance, biological significance and the fact that it is one of the most intact landscapes remaining in Nevada,” Netherton added.

  I will also save some ire for these people. This is literally desert wasteland sitting alongside a freeway. It's hard to believe that someone spent time and money on this cause.

• by zoklet-enjoyer on 10/15/25, 2:49 AM

  This doesn't surprise me. Doug Burgum is very friendly with oil companies.

• by gnabgib on 10/11/25, 11:58 PM

  Some other discussion:

  An Immense Solar Project Just Got Canceled Under Trump (11 points, 5 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45542159

  Trump administration has killed a massive solar power project in Nevada (15 points, 8 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45540426

• by dzonga on 10/12/25, 3:20 AM

  lying to get voted for might be fashionable.

  but at a certain point in time -- there are facts you can't dispute. utility solar is one of the cheapest forms of energy there is. & a massive plus when you consider places like arizona.

  so what's trump admin endgame ?

• by partomniscient on 10/12/25, 3:14 AM

  >"The American president has called renewable energy projects a “scam”."

  The rest of the world considers Trump and his administration 'a scam', and aren't falling for it. The side effects of all the bullshit they've pulled and continue to pull is that the rest of the world is playing together more nicely with one another, and the US is screwing over their own economy for the longer term.

• by greenavocado on 10/12/25, 12:53 PM

  Where can I buy those used panels for pennies on the dollar?

• by FridayoLeary on 10/12/25, 1:03 AM

  Sounds like a technical reason. It's apparently 7 projects combined and the Biden administration let them file one enviromental impact assessment instead of 7 sepearate ones. That sounds banal to me, so maybe other people could explain why (if) it's important. It makes sense that Biden would cut a lot of red tape for something that's percieved to be good for the enviroment (a bit ironic in this case) but the Trump administration, who is skeptical about the claimed benefits of renewables are not so impressed. I hope some knowledgeable people can expand on it because some technical and economic analysis would be appreciated.

  Just for the record i know Trump is corrupt, a felon, impeached etc etc. and it's pointless to attribute any decisions he or his minions make to reasons any normal person would describe as "rational" or anything other then serving his own interests. So please don't bother mentioning it again thank you. There, now i've cut the discussion thread by 75%.

• by anon291 on 10/15/25, 12:03 AM

  Solar may be intermittent but tons of electrical usage can be made intermittent thus freeing capacity for non intermittent uses. I'm so tired of these arguments.

  Trump claims to want to bring back manufacturing. Manufacturing is material inputs plus labor or automation. American labor is expensive. The only way to compete is automation.

  Time and time again studies show that energy cost is the main determinant of factory output and manufacturing capacity. Cheap energy equals more stuff. That's basically it. Anyone who is canceling energy projects is not brining back manufacturing.

• by JumpCrisscross on 10/11/25, 11:46 PM

  We honestly need the next administration to shut down our coal- and oil-fired power plants, and shut down our coal mines. Physically ensure they can't be restarted.

  With the precedents handed down from Trump, that could likely be concluded before the courts have a chance to weigh in. The owners will be entitled to cash damages. But the industries will have been politically destroyed.

  (Note: leave natural gas alone. It’s cheap and relatively clean. It’s also geopolitical export currency.)

• by jandrewrogers on 10/12/25, 1:18 AM

  From what I can tell by reading the BLM and related documents, this is not canceling the solar farm. That misrepresents the situation.

  The project was given preferential treatment by Biden, allowing them to skip environmental review process required for other energy projects on BLM land in Nevada. This is canceling the preferential treatment, forcing them to do the environmental review to the same standard as other energy projects in Nevada, with the costs implied.

  Geothermal energy projects in Nevada have been buried in endless environmental reviews by Democrat administrations for decades. It smells a lot like patronage to selectively waive environmental review requirements for preferred energy projects. There may be an "own the libs" aspect to it but that isn't the story.

  If the normal environmental review process doesn't serve a real purpose or makes these energy projects infeasibly expensive then we should be reducing and reforming the environmental review process, not letting administrations decide which energy projects are subject to it.

• by renewiltord on 10/12/25, 4:12 AM

  Once again the environmentalists and conservationists have won.

• by exabrial on 10/12/25, 1:49 AM

  I’m surprised people are up in arms about this here. First, there has been huge protests about the selling, er “leasing”, of BLM land to millionaires. Do they even realize what was happening here?

  The headline would be better written as “some rich guy no longer gets to skip normal environmental procedures for permanently occupying public land”.

  Public land should remain that way, forever. Stop selling our children’s future for profit, no matter the cause.