Ha, been there
US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects
491–500 of 933 posts
Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects
#492Earlier quoted context omitted.
North Americans mostly do not use electricity for heat in the winter. Around 60% use natural gas with forced air furnaces. Something closer to 80% have the option, but 20% don't bother to use it. Some of the deep south get by with electric heat, but they aren't in places where the cold is a typically a legitimate danger to health and safety.
I find something very refreshing in this, reading from Europe where we get told "gas" is the big bad, even threatening to make condensing gas boilers illegal from time to time [0], despite over 95% of homes (in the UK) being heated by this method. That said most of Europe doesn't heat or cool adequately, Spain and Portugal barely heat their homes in winter and boy it gets cold with 41F/5C nights. Then Germany/Switzer…
> Reading from Europe where we get told "gas" is the big bad, even threatening to make condensing gas boilers illegal from time to time
Long-term this is true, and it makes sense to ban gas boilers (potentially with some exceptions): electric heat is significantly more efficient, and can run on renewable energy. But that requires a big investment in infrastructure build-out (heat pumps) which will take decades, and we definitely need to be careful that we handle the transition without screwing people over.
Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects
#493Earlier quoted context omitted.
does this site not serve the public interest? I hope you didn't hurt anyone's feelings
This site only recently (a few years ago) got multithreading . I'm pretty sure it could run off a second-hand laptop. It doesn't require a datacentre: just the two(?) moderators' salaries, and some rounding-error electricity and ISP costs.
I'm fond of Netflix?
Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects
#494Earlier quoted context omitted.
They still mostly rely on coal. Slightly more than half of electricity is generated by burning coal, whereas in the US, it's only 15%. The renewable energy share in generation is roughly the same in the US and China, but not for capacity.
You can look at current levels, or look at trends. China has stopped increasing coal. They're building a small number of new coal plants, but this is outstripped by the coal plants being underutilized or decommissioned China is really only building new renewables, almost 100x as much net renewable capacity per year compared to nuclear.
Only as recently as last year did China stop increasing its net electric generation from coal. And if you look at all primary energy (not just electricity), their dependence on fossil fuels is something like 90%.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-mix?stackMode=rela...
Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects
#495Earlier quoted context omitted.
> not one dependent on "costly subsidies". While paying out 1.2 billion dollars.
Oh that's not nearly the amount of fossil subsidies. Some say it's $31b/yr direct. If you factor in indirect costs like climate damage, health expenses, oil wars, etc, it's much higher. Renewables are much, much cheaper regardless of a little incentive, if there are any left. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/sep/09/fossil-f...
Globally, fossil tax breaks and implicit subsidies are at least $6tn.
The entire sector is a catastrophic, institutionally corrupt scam.
https://www.imf.org/en/topics/climate-change/energy-subsidie...
Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects
#496Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think wind farms on sea look really cool, especially if the turbines are huge. It gives some majestic feelings
I'm not a huge fan of their aesthetic in its own right, but it beats the aesthetic of fossil fuel infrastructure any day in my view.
A huge coal power plant belching smoke probably looked pretty cool, maybe even majestic, the first time you saw London back in the Victorian Era. That's before the entire city became saturated in soot, you developed respiratory problems, and you'd seen the same stinky monstrosity every day for most of your short difficult life.
Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects
#497Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure you would welcome a data center in your backyard
Wind turbines are not data centres. The sea is not part of Donald Trump’s property.
your neighbors property is not yours either, and hmm, I wonder if datacenters and wind turbines have anything in common?
Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects
#498> Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement posted on X that Americans deserve an energy system built on common sense and not one dependent on "costly subsidies". I agree. This is why we are building offshore wind and not subsidizing fossil fuels, right?
[dead]
Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects
#499I read up recently on the history of the fall of the roman empire and it was fascinating how eerily similar it was to the current state of the US. Overwhelmed by corruption and wars they make stupider and stupider decisions on ever larger scales, ever more frequently. And the population grows ever more cynical, eventually opting for authoritarianism before eventually the center can't hold any more and it all collapse…
Was it a book you read? In interested.
Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects
#500Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Texas which are covered with turbines, and they absolutely do not look cool. Compared to coal plants, which are _extremely_ cool-looking. /s
I've never seen one here, which makes sense because we don't use much coal. I suppose if they were 200m high and scattered across half the state I'd have a similar opinion.
Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calaveras_Power_Station#J.K._S... - chimneys are 218m tall.