Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 585 posts

Re: US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified

#121

Post by vablings »

gardncl wrote: post #106
gregbot wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BPA is a federal agency. The Trump administration has been very supportive of zero carbon nuclear i believe they have promised $80 billion dollars to build new nuclear plants. Staff cuts dont mean they oppose using those energy sources.

US deploys nuclear energy at over $10/watt meanwhile solar and wind are deployed around $2/watt (for levelized cost of electricity) including battery storage which means they are deployed for roughly the same cost as natural gas (so, direct competitors). Don't let comments like this fool you, nuclear is far from being competitive with natural gas. Even in countries like south korea that can deploy nuclear the cheapes…

Nuclear is insane levels of expensive likely due to overregulation.

It is important for base load power and overnight power and should always be the backing of the grid frequency. Total loss of grid frequency is much more difficult to recover from with synthetic inertia.

A healthy grid should have all of the following - Nuclear base load that keeps the grid stable and pick up from low solar

- Gas plants for surge power and base load when nuclear/solar/wind cannot take up the slack

- Battery storage for surge/storage during off peak

- Solar for very low-cost cheap energy during peak usage hours

- Wind for other power source ie when the sun isnt shining as much

source: https://grid.iamkate.com/

Re: US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified

#122

Post by jandrewrogers »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #99
tony_cannistra wrote: post #21

I looked into this a little because I was curious. I guess the ostensible "national security" rationale (which clearly is not the only reason!) for this is that turbines severely degrade the utility of radar surveillance along the coastlines. This is particularly relevant for low-altitude incursions and drones. Now, other large governments (UK) have resolved this in several ways, including the deployment of additiona…

> I guess the ostensible "national security" rationale (which clearly is not the only reason!) for this is that turbines severely degrade the utility of radar surveillance along the coastlines. Could it be that they just feel that offshore wind infra is difficult to defend militarily?

No, they aren't any more difficult to defend than any other offshore platform. They do interfere with long-range land-based radar in a way that is problematic with the emergence of shipborne drones.

Re: US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified

#123

Post by monero-xmr »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #104
monero-xmr wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK has tons of wind power but prices there are exceptionally high. Offshore wind isn't as cost effective as solar, it's the poster boy for high-cost, low-value renewable energy

energy development is complex, but it cannot be your idea, which boils down to, "whatever is cheapest," especially for government policy. it would be cheapest to not use energy at all, which is the exact opposite of the mercenary POV you are talking about, without having to use the word environment at all.

It would be cheapest, and 100% in our control, to construct coal plants. Coal is abundant. China builds insane amounts of coal plants to this day. That would provide bountiful cheap energy.

But we don't do this. So all else being equal, I would suggest we reorient towards other types of renewable energy, especially nuclear, if we are longer worried about price

Re: US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified

#124

Post by bakies »

iwontberude wrote: post #96
linuxhansl wrote: post #29

What the... It seems we crossed into the realm of intentionally doing damage. I'm reminded of threatening tariffs to successfully derail global carbon levy on ship emissions. Meanwhile China runs away with all the clean energy tech (solar, wind, batteries, etc, etc.) while we hold to fossil fuels to save less than 200,000 jobs.

[flagged]

not to deny the allegations but every president has had their arm twisted by Israel and sell out to oil.

Re: US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified

#125

Post by LastTrain »

vntok wrote: post #75
breakyerself wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. We can always imagine an excuse to avoid dealing with the obvious reality. I don't think it's productive though.

Yet Sweden did it too ( https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/11/11/why-swe... ) and they quote these defense-related reasons. Are they lying, do you believe that Sweden of all countries is under Trump's direct influence re: wind aversion?

Sweden did not ban all offshore wind projects.

Re: US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified

#126

Post by bayindirh »

vablings wrote: post #121
gardncl wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US deploys nuclear energy at over $10/watt meanwhile solar and wind are deployed around $2/watt (for levelized cost of electricity) including battery storage which means they are deployed for roughly the same cost as natural gas (so, direct competitors). Don't let comments like this fool you, nuclear is far from being competitive with natural gas. Even in countries like south korea that can deploy nuclear the cheapes…

Nuclear is insane levels of expensive likely due to overregulation. It is important for base load power and overnight power and should always be the backing of the grid frequency. Total loss of grid frequency is much more difficult to recover from with synthetic inertia. A healthy grid should have all of the following - Nuclear base load that keeps the grid stable and pick up from low solar - Gas plants for surge pow…

> overregulation.

Americans love to remove regulation to make things cheaper (and to enable capitalistic monopolies, but that's a different matter), then cry when people die (or worse).

Some things needs to be regulated, esp. if mistakes are costly to the planet and/or people on the said planet.

So yes, nuclear should be regulated, and even overregulated to keep it safe. We have seen what Boeing has become when it's effectively unregulated.

Re: US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified

#127

Post by sheikhnbake »

vablings wrote: post #121
gardncl wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US deploys nuclear energy at over $10/watt meanwhile solar and wind are deployed around $2/watt (for levelized cost of electricity) including battery storage which means they are deployed for roughly the same cost as natural gas (so, direct competitors). Don't let comments like this fool you, nuclear is far from being competitive with natural gas. Even in countries like south korea that can deploy nuclear the cheapes…

Nuclear is insane levels of expensive likely due to overregulation. It is important for base load power and overnight power and should always be the backing of the grid frequency. Total loss of grid frequency is much more difficult to recover from with synthetic inertia. A healthy grid should have all of the following - Nuclear base load that keeps the grid stable and pick up from low solar - Gas plants for surge pow…

I suspect geothermal is going to quickly replace Nuclear as the most viable option for base load stabilization. Tech has come a long way towards letting us access it away from hot zones and it uses a lot of the same infrastructure and expertise that the oil industry has already developed.

Re: US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified

#128

Post by LastTrain »

catigula wrote: post #55
LastTrain wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Sweden did not ban all offshore wind projects last year.

Is that the strawman framing of my argument that you want to stick with? https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/11/11/why-swe...

You framed it that way. This is an article about how the US shut down every offshore wind farm project. People are here discussing the fact that the us shut down every offshore wind project. You came in and said Sweden did it too. Setting aside the fact that they did not do that, they blocked some projects, not all - you don’t even know what “it” is because the US did not give a rationale.

Re: US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified

#129

Post by doctorpangloss »

monero-xmr wrote: post #123
doctorpangloss wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

energy development is complex, but it cannot be your idea, which boils down to, "whatever is cheapest," especially for government policy. it would be cheapest to not use energy at all, which is the exact opposite of the mercenary POV you are talking about, without having to use the word environment at all.

It would be cheapest, and 100% in our control, to construct coal plants. Coal is abundant. China builds insane amounts of coal plants to this day. That would provide bountiful cheap energy. But we don't do this. So all else being equal, I would suggest we reorient towards other types of renewable energy, especially nuclear, if we are longer worried about price

Why do you think your particular mercenary point of view does not prevail? Because people are stupid?

I like nuclear. The funny thing about nuclear power and the mercenaries promoting their startups about it is, you will still have to convince democrats about it. Because occasionally they are in power, and nuclear, as is often criticized, takes a long time to build and a short time to turn off haha.

Re: US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified

#130

Post by [deleted] »

throw0101d wrote: post #109
linuxhansl wrote: post #29

What the... It seems we crossed into the realm of intentionally doing damage. I'm reminded of threatening tariffs to successfully derail global carbon levy on ship emissions. Meanwhile China runs away with all the clean energy tech (solar, wind, batteries, etc, etc.) while we hold to fossil fuels to save less than 200,000 jobs.

> Meanwhile China runs away with all the clean energy tech (solar, wind, batteries, etc, etc.) while we hold to fossil fuels to save less than 200,000 jobs. If you're talking about coal miners, David Frum joked / observed that there are more yoga instructors in the US than coal miners: * https://www.sfgate.com/columnists/article/Yoga-teachers-vs-c...

[deleted]
Post reply on HN