Earlier quoted context omitted.
> not one dependent on "costly subsidies". While paying out 1.2 billion dollars.
Out country is ran by bunch of Lionel Hutz clones
America voted for this.
US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects
921–930 of 930 posts
Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects
#922Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not just that but they voted significantly more against the incumbent in the rest of the world than the US. People really did not like Trump they just didn't like incumbents more. It's almost like if the Democrats ran a competitive primary this whole situation could've been avoided.
> People really did not like Trump they just didn't like incumbents more. In 2016 Trump got 63M votes. Clinton got 66M. In 2020 Trump got 74M votes. Biden got 81M. In 2024 Trump got 77M votes. Harris got 75M. Trump's popularity increased with each election. Turnout for Harris was definitely lower than the previous election, but the dip was not exceptional. Trump won because of his popularity - not despite it.
Right, his popularity increased in the US election because people did not like the incumbent (Biden / Harris).
Take a look at other world wide elections that happened in 2024.
Like France (parliamentary system so no presidential election); The incumbents lost 33% of their seats [1].
Or UK; The incumbents lost 67% of their seats [2]
And yet, Trump didn't even make it to 50% of US votes. People really did not like him. People really hated incumbents. Your numbers even show this, Biden 1 has more votes than Trump 2; they just didn't support the incumbent anymore.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_French_legislative_electi...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_el...
Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects
#923Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the fees paid for the leases for these projects were so high that the projects would not be economically viable in the first place. Can you explain where you got your information from? * The leases were already paid for (in total) in 2022-2023 for $1bn. * The expected output would have been 7gigawatts annually, which is a 5-7x return per year on paper. * The sale of the lease is due to a regulatory blockade, not a…
I’m not sure what I need to cite but logically when you’ve paid 1B for a lease up front, you’ll want to recoup that through the money you get paid for the electricity you generate. The project accounting probably includes a return on that similar to CAPEX (could be as high as 10%), so its impact grows every year as well. My feeling is that these projects would require offtake costs so high to be viable that they woul…
> the fees paid for the leases for these projects were so high that the projects would not be economically viable in the first place.
> I’m not sure what I need to cite but logically when you’ve paid 1B for a lease up front, you’ll want to recoup that through the money you get paid for the electricity you generate.
I agree. This is why I take issue with your initial claim.
~6.6tw (aggregate for the 3 sites) -> for $30b (middle range to develop)
1 TWh/year = 1,000,000 MWh/year.
That works out to roughly $4.5k of initial capital per MW, initially.
Based on a realized electricity price on the eastern seaboard, let's say $100m/tw/yr in profit - roughly $100 per mw/hour, after subsidy, operational cost and based (very conservatively) on a fixed midrange electricity demand.
After 4500 hours (just over 6 months of operation) you're in the black.
All that being said, if the books were cooked or construction was stalled, there could be outside incentives, but this is incidental to saying something akin to "it's unprofitable on paper" when the math does not bear this out.
Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects
#924Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's insane is that one person will cite something this in one place, but the rest of the people in the thread say "why aren't we building wind and solar????" We are building lots. Of everything.
But... you're commenting on an article in which we are stopping the "we are building" part?
So we are not building solar and wind anywhere, any more?
I know this place has become a political cesspool like reddit, but I implore you to think a little beyond "Trump bad".
Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects
#925Earlier quoted context omitted.
But... you're commenting on an article in which we are stopping the "we are building" part?
So we are not building solar and wind anywhere, any more? I know this place has become a political cesspool like reddit, but I implore you to think a little beyond "Trump bad".
Addressed a whole day ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49209919
I implore you to think a little bit about what degree of political, policy, and economic stability is actually required for anyone to embark on decades-long, multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects, instead of resorting to "hurrr durrrr it's above zero amirite?"
Aloofness is not the sign of intelligence you wish it to be.
Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects
#926Earlier quoted context omitted.
We could collectively provide a long list of examples across several US states, Europe, and Australia. Is that going to change the minds of people who don't believe it? It will not, the discussion is irrelevant and wasted energy (mental models are rigid, people are irrational and emotion driven broadly speaking), all that matters is the economics. Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy+ 2026 - https://www.lazard.com/media/k…
“People are irrational, emotion-driven, and trapped by rigid mental models.” ... of course they are ... everyone except you toomuchtodo :) ..
The drugs I take inhibit most, if not all, of any emotions I might have, leaving me aggressively data driven by evidence, observations, data, and facts. I am a complex expert system with a pulse.
Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects
#927Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ll take the solar. Its efficiencies and maintenance costs are improving way faster.
Yes but solar doesn't work at night and wind often does. You can't put all your eggs in the same basket.
> Yes but solar doesn't work at night
Must be joking, right?
Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects
#928Parts of the world are literally on fire but the US is redirecting money to halt renewables and towards gas. The demand for energy is higher than ever due to AI data centers, but I guess the next model is more important than a habitable environment.
Offshore wind can power the data center too. Your dichotomy is not relevant
Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects
#929Insane. Over the last year, wind - mostly offshore - has generated more than 35% of electricity here. Gas is down to 27%. It's really, really good. And it looks cool.
Where is “here”?
Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects
#930Earlier quoted context omitted.
Geothermal works in enough areas (geographies) for it to be an entertaining talking point in niche forums like this one. But not much else. Earth is an incredibly poor heat conductor, as evidenced by the fact that you don’t have to dig very far, maybe a foot or four, and it’s a fairly constant 14 degrees C, and yet the core is molten lava (rock) and has been that way for billions of years predominantly from latent he…
"Artificial" geothermal works well enough to store energy from sunlight months for use during colder months. Artificial in the sense of using solar energy (direct or electric) to heat mass insulated by earth and later extracting that heat to use (directly in district heating, or indirectly via heat -> electric conversion).
Show me an example where this is being used in the real word, at scale, in a cost effective manner.
It’s not even a good idea. Water has a greater capacity to store heat than rocks and dirt.