Clean energy debates continue to shape national policy and public opinion in the United States. Leaders, businesses, and citizens often discuss different energy sources and their impacts on the economy and environment.
Some view renewable sources as the future of energy independence and environmental stewardship. Others see them as risky ventures that disrupt existing systems and create new vulnerabilities.
According to the executive order published on the official White House page on July 7, 2025, President Donald Trump outlined strong criticisms of several popular green energy options.
He described them as unreliable, unaffordable, and harmful to national security. The document detailed plans to end tax credits and subsidies for those sources and encouraged a shift back to traditional, dispatchable energy forms.
Supporters of renewable energy may see the order as a setback, but the text provides insight into the administration’s priorities and strategy.
Now, let’s see what are those unreliable clean energy options according to Donald Trump.
1. Wind Power
Wind power stands first among the energy sources that Trump called unreliable. The executive order described wind as costly, unstable, and harmful to taxpayers. Points focused on money, technical limits, and foreign control.
Financial Burden on Taxpayers
Wind projects depend on heavy subsidies. The Production Tax Credit for wind stood at 2.6 cents per kilowatt-hour. In 2022, wind subsidies reached 5.44 billion dollars, covering 35 percent of all renewable aid.
| Year | Wind Subsidies (USD) | Share of Renewable Subsidies |
|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 4.2 billion | 32 percent |
| 2021 | 4.7 billion | 33 percent |
| 2022 | 5.1 billion | 35 percent |
Trump argued that taxpayers carry the cost, distorting market balance and raising energy bills.
Reliability and Grid Weakness
Wind depends on the weather. Turbines stop when the wind drops. Texas grid operators in 2023 showed wind output fell below 10 percent of capacity during heat waves. Gas and coal plants kept the lights on.
Grid managers keep backup power ready, called reserve margin. Keeping reserves costs millions each year. This cost often hides behind clean energy headlines.
Land Use and Local Pushback
Wind farms need a huge space. A single large project can spread across 60,000 acres. Noise, shadows, and bird deaths spark anger among rural families.
Wyoming officials reported more than 500 formal complaints tied to wind projects in 2023 alone. Farmers and landowners see wind as a threat to land value and local wildlife.
Foreign Supply Chain Threat
Most wind turbine parts come from U.S. factories, but Trump still argued that any foreign ties threaten energy security and hurt economic independence.
2. Solar Power
Solar power took second place on Trump’s list of unreliable sources. His executive order claimed solar drains taxpayers, weakens the grid, harms land, and depends on foreign suppliers.
Financial Burden on Taxpayers
Solar projects depend on heavy subsidies. The Investment Tax Credit allowed a 30 percent deduction on system costs.
A solar system worth 18 thousand dollars meant a 5 thousand four hundred dollar tax cut.
| Year | Solar Subsidies (USD) | Share of Renewable Subsidies |
|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 3.5 billion | 28 percent |
| 2021 | 3.9 billion | 30 percent |
| 2022 | 4.2 billion | 32 percent |
Trump argued that taxpayers should not fund projects they might never use directly.
Grid Instability and Supply Gaps
Solar output depends on sunlight. On cloudy days or at night, panels stop. In 2023, Texas grid operators reported sharp drops in solar supply, forcing fossil fuel plants to step in.
Backup systems cost millions yearly. These hidden costs raise power bills.
Land Use and Environmental Pressure
Large solar farms need vast land. A single big farm can cover thousands of acres. This takes farmland and disrupts wildlife.
Manufacturing solar panels uses hazardous materials. Waste and runoff create local environmental risks.
Foreign Supply Chain Dependence
Nearly 90 percent of U.S. solar panels and parts came from Southeast Asia in 2024. Many factories in that region have ties to Chinese companies.
This reliance raises security and economic concerns. Disruptions in trade or conflict can block supply, halting projects and raising costs.
3. Carbon Capture Projects
Carbon capture requires large upfront investments. A single facility can cost over one billion dollars. Operating costs reach up to one hundred dollars per ton of carbon dioxide captured.
Government incentives and tax credits cover most costs, putting pressure on taxpayers. Trump argued public money should not fund technology that does not work at scale.
Limited Efficiency and Technical Challenges
Many capture projects only remove a small fraction of emissions. For example, Petra Nova in Texas reached only 33 percent capture before shutting down.
Most systems depend on stable industrial conditions. Any power loss or process failure stops capture and releases emissions.
Energy Penalty
Carbon capture systems consume extra energy to operate compressors and pumps. Plants using capture can need up to 25 percent more energy to function. This reduces net output and drives higher fuel demand.
Carbon capture projects face criticism for high costs, weak performance, and added energy needs. Trump used these facts to label them unreliable and to remove financial support.
4. Hydrogen Projects
Green hydrogen production requires electrolysis powered by renewable sources. Costs can reach six dollars per kilogram, far above natural gas-based hydrogen at about one dollar per kilogram.
Most projects rely on subsidies to survive. Without public money, many plans collapse before reaching commercial scale.
Storage and Transport Issues
Hydrogen is difficult to store and transport. It requires high-pressure tanks or cryogenic temperatures below minus 250 degrees Celsius.
Leaks and embrittlement risks raise safety concerns. Infrastructure costs billions to meet safety standards.
Supply Chain Dependence
Many electrolyzer parts come from Europe and Asia. U.S. producers rely on foreign manufacturing for advanced components. Trump argued this dependence compromises energy security.
Hydrogen projects draw criticism for extreme costs, technical hurdles, and foreign reliance. Trump used these weaknesses to justify stopping tax credits and ending support.
5. Battery Storage Linked to Renewables
Large battery systems cost up to four hundred dollars per kilowatt-hour installed. Maintenance and replacement costs remain high, with battery life often under fifteen years.
Tax credits and state grants cover most expenses, burdening taxpayers.
Limited Duration and Supply Backup
Most grid-scale batteries store power for four hours or less. Long power outages cannot rely on these short backup windows.
During extreme weather events, batteries often fail to provide enough energy to cover gaps, forcing dependence on fossil fuel backup.
Material and Environmental Concerns
Battery production depends on lithium, cobalt, and nickel. Mining these minerals causes pollution and deforestation.
Disposal and recycling challenges create long-term environmental risks.
Clash of Priorities: Cheap Power or Clean Progress?
Trump supporters call wind, solar, hydrogen, carbon capture, and batteries a waste of taxpayer money. They argue these sources drive up prices, hurt local jobs, and weaken grid stability. Strong focus stays on steady, low-cost, domestic power that works in any weather and keeps lights on without backup worries.
Opponents push a different vision. They see clean energy as a smart bet for the future. Cheaper solar panels, stronger wind turbines, and better storage promise lower bills over time. Clean options also mean less air pollution and more high-paying jobs in new tech fields.
One side holds firm on cutting costs today and protecting traditional fuels. The other side sees long-term savings, stronger global leadership, and healthier communities.
Both arguments carry real weight. The final choice shapes bills in every home, jobs in every town, and air in every city.
The question remains clear: stick with what feels safe now or step into a cleaner, high-tech future?
