841–850 of 933 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In politics, "common sense" just means that they don't have a real justification. You can just apply it to anything and your base will accept it.
I see this all the time with "common sense" gun control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, what is it with people calling turbines "windmills"? They don't grind corn. Is it supposed to be a some kind of cheesy insult? It just makes you sound stupid if you call them windmills.
Do you get angry at people for calling sea stars starfish? "They aren't fish they are echinoderms!" Or perhaps you get angry at people who call light utility vehicles "trucks"? Language evolves. People accept colloquial definitions. Wait until you learn about pencil lead, koala bears, dry cleaning, and peanuts. Windmill is absolutely acceptable if it's understood by people to mean wind turbine, which it is.
I think you know that “windmill” isn’t just a synonym for wind turbine but a politicised insult originating in the fossil fuel lobby.
> 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?
> not one dependent on "costly subsidies". While paying out 1.2 billion dollars.
If you and I listened to the propaganda on the regular basis, our intuitive knowledge would associate clean energy with isolated from reality snowflake liberals, hippies, abortion, subsidies, as opposed to fossil fuel energy associated with manliness, strength, common sense, “good old values”, military strength, and freedom.
Just like beef (“it’s what’s for dinner”) and a delicious juicy rare steak. See?
I recommend checking out George Lakoff’s work on the power of identity and metaphors. Look up his “moral politics” lecture on YouTube.
> 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?
And don't forget ethanol, probably the least efficient form of energy ever discovered
is it just me or does that seems to be a decision driven fully by a personal dislike of wind energy without having actually run the numbers, or in other words the art of a deal isn't that like yes there was binding commitment to RWE getting some level of subsidies, hence he had to "pay them of" around the amount of profit they have likely list, and probably more but... compared to not paying that much more in subsidi…
The art of the deal is historically mostly losing, flailing and bankruptcies
We need to be careful in not throwing the babies out with the bath water - the fees paid for the leases for these projects were so high that the projects would not be economically viable in the first place. The developers are probably doing back flips behind closed doors that they have exited these positions without major financial impairments. This does not mean that renewables or offshore wind should not be built i…
> 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…
My feeling is that these projects would require offtake costs so high to be viable that they would not be appealing to the states that awarded the leases. The blockade from trump is a very appealing exit ramp for projects that are dead in the water.
You can see in Germany / UK projects awarded with high lease costs failing (Mona already went pop in uk, I imagine any r4 lease not awarded cfd in AR8 will be returned, Total not moving forward with German portfolio…)
I’ve worked on debt financed offshore wind projects for the last decade, the whole project viability hinges on devex/capex balanced against offtake and resource.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sentiments like this are why things will not improve. Neither side needs to practice any introspection because they're the good side and when the bad side wins it's just unavoidable because voters are dumb. Keep doubling down. Surely that will make things better.
Pretending we have issues we don't have also sure to make things better, right? No one who sincerely frames Biden as a problem worth mentioning in a discussion of leadership decline is worth listening to, especially given that he was sandwiched between Trump 1 and 2. A lifetime of patience has been exhausted in one decade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The direction of travel is clear though. China is making massive investments in renewable energy (and dominating sectors like solar in the process) while the US seems hell bent on going the other way.
They're also making massive investments in coal. China is concerned with not having to import energy. They don't care much about climate change.
I 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…
They found the right man for it. Cometh the hour, cometh the man.