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

241–250 of 585 posts

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

#241

Post by jopsen »

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?

Defense related reasons canceled projects early in the planning phase.

This is the kind of thing you know years before construction is even funded, much less started.

This is a US administration being dishonest, whether for stupidity or to apply political pressure who knows.

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

#242

Post by DoctorOetker »

Is there a similar ostensible classified reason why OCO-2 and OCO-3 are requested to shut down operations? 700+ M invested in space based observatories with ~ 15M yearly operating cost. Just doesn't make sense to disable perfectly working observatories to save less than ~75M in a timespan of 5 years while losing a 700+M investment.

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

#243

Post by piva00 »

vablings wrote: post #164
bayindirh wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> We have seen what Boeing has become when it's effectively unregulated. I think this is vastly overstated by the media. Boeing is still heavily regulated and has a pretty good safety record compared 20 or 30 years prior. The biggest disaster of recent times (MCAS) was because of the tight regulations around type certification and trying to avoid costs to carriers > Some things need to be regulated, esp. if mistakes…

> The biggest disaster of recent times (MCAS) was because of the tight regulations around type certification and trying to avoid costs to carriers

Meaning they tried to skirt around the regulations, including regulatory capture by pushing self-certification because competition caught up to them while they spent money on buybacks instead of investing in R&D, perhaps even investing in absorbing some costs of certification of pilots into a new type they could develop into the future instead of relying on a design from 60 years ago.

Mismanagement is what created Boeing's issues, not regulation.

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

#245

Post by osn9363739 »

aqme28 wrote: post #233
pheggs wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there are at least two reasons trump is pushing for oil: 1) the US has lots of oil reserves, which would lose lots of value if everybody was using renewables 2) oil is the main driver for dollar demand, as oil is paid in dollar, allowing the US to have lots of debt relatively cheaply That's also the reason why he wants to tell Europe to stop using renewables, and that's the reason why he is threatening Venezuela - be…

There is a third important reason-- For some reason, oil has masculine aesthetics but wind power doesn't. I don't think this is a calculated play

How many people actual think like this or are influenced by it? (I'm going to be disappointed aren't I)

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

#247

Post by gardncl »

coryrc wrote: post #226
gardncl wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not correct, and doesn't even pass the sniff test. Solar is deployed at ~$2/watt and you're saying batteries are increasing that cost 2.5x to 10x? So, someone installing a home battery system is paying up to 10x their solar install cost to also have battery backup? No way. Also, battery tech continues to improve rapidly, we're seeing breakthroughs like this rapidly reduce the price: https://spectrum.ieee.org/…

As usual, explain how you're going to power heat pumps in the Northern half of the country during a 3 week bomb cyclone. There are answers and they cost money. The only answer we're using is to build 1:1 natural gas capability for solar, which is roughly double the cost. That's a solution, but it needs to be accounted for when comparing options.

Alternative to natural gas? Wind, geothermal, or nuclear. Wind is already in the northern half of the country and operates well when winterized, unlike the ones in Texas that broke since they were not winterized during that freeze a while back.

Natural gas and fossil fuels are not our only options, they are the easiest options.

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

#248

Post by stevage »

the__alchemist wrote: post #161
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…

Yea... I don't trust the motivations, but can confirm that on AA radars looking low (Where you might find UAS or just low-flying aircraft), wind farms show up as clusters of false hits.

But if they're just false hits it's easy to filter them out, right?

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

#249

Post by tagawa »

pheggs wrote: post #174
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.

there are at least two reasons trump is pushing for oil: 1) the US has lots of oil reserves, which would lose lots of value if everybody was using renewables 2) oil is the main driver for dollar demand, as oil is paid in dollar, allowing the US to have lots of debt relatively cheaply That's also the reason why he wants to tell Europe to stop using renewables, and that's the reason why he is threatening Venezuela - be…

Maybe a third reason:

“Last week, Trump Media, the parent company of Truth Social that is majority-owned by the president, said it was getting into the energy business, announcing a merger with a fusion firm TAE Technologies.”

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd74lyr094vo

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

#250

Post by fasterik »

gardncl wrote: post #239
fasterik wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't disagree that there is price parity for the levelized cost. There is still not price parity for levelized full system cost. If we used wind and solar for 95-100% of generation, the price would be much higher. My point is not that we can or should replace wind and solar with nuclear. It's that it is far cheaper to use a combination of nuclear, wind, and solar than it is to use 100% wind and solar.

Agreed. I misunderstood your comment and got too hot-headed. Sorry about that. Yes, the 95% renewables is the number we should be shooting for not 100% as that causes battery backup price to explode. I have been pro-nuclear for a long time, to disappointing results naturally. So, with how well renewables are doing I've really just jumped on this train and seen nuclear as more of a distraction from the critical next 1…

I may have misinterpreted your original post as saying we should be going full renewables. I think we're basically in agreement about prices. We might just disagree about the percent of energy that should come from nuclear.

I don't see nuclear as a distraction, I see it as a piece of the puzzle. We will always need a source of reliable, uninterrupted power. Whether that comes from natural gas, nuclear, geothermal, hydro, etc. depends on geographical considerations and what tradeoffs we are willing to make in terms of cost and carbon emissions. I'm still optimistic that small modular reactors are going to see success in the coming decades.

Post reply on HN