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

US and TotalEnergies reach 'nearly $1B' deal to end offshore wind projects

lemonde.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 411 posts

Re: US and TotalEnergies reach 'nearly $1B' deal to end offshore wind projects

#181

Post by kube-system »

terminalshort wrote: post #164
kube-system wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the criticism isn't because people get caught up about CO2 -- it's because "cleaner than other coal" is a very low bar to meet to be calling something "clean" full stop. Also "clean coal" is not a type of coal being burnt (although that does matter too) but pollution control systems added to coal plants.

The doesn't cause acid rain version is called "clean" and that seems pretty fair to me when the other version causes acid rain.

It is still dirtier than all of the alternatives we have.

Re: US and TotalEnergies reach 'nearly $1B' deal to end offshore wind projects

#182

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

kilroy123 wrote: post #163
paxys wrote: post #65

Serious question, but not entirely related to the topic - how are “smart” people in the US preparing for the next 20-30 years? - Assume everything will be fine and America will remain a global economic superpower. - Plan an exit to a more serious, stable country. - Some option in the middle of the two to hedge your bets?

I don't know if I qualify for "smart" but my plan has been to keep one foot in the US and one foot in Europe. I saw the writing on the wall long ago. I predicted all of this happening many years ago. I left the US back in 2015. Currently in the UK, and I hope to eventually get dual citizenship. My partner is European, so that is possible too.

[flagged]

Re: US and TotalEnergies reach 'nearly $1B' deal to end offshore wind projects

#183

Post by brewdad »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #168
standardUser wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are taking money committed to a wind project and redirecting it towards burning fossil fuels - because what other lesson can we take from a global energy shock other than to increase our exposure to the next one? The company itself (France's Total) had already committed to the wind deal, so now the Trump admin is letting them off the hook, and using Trump's irrational refusal to issue licenses for wind power as…

[flagged]

This deal has zero to do with someone like you. This impacts our electrical grid. Now instead of harvesting renewable wind energy we will be burning LNG to power that portion of the grid.

I suppose there are still some diesel generators out there, so they might burn that instead. Of course, that only makes you worse off.

Re: US and TotalEnergies reach 'nearly $1B' deal to end offshore wind projects

#184

Post by mullingitover »

munk-a wrote: post #95
bryanlarsen wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alberta tar sands have hundreds of years worth of reserves. They're also expensive and incredibly dirty to extract and emit significantly more CO2 during processing than a light oil well will. (The tar is usually melted by heating with natural gas). I'm quite confident cheap renewable alternatives will make the tar sands inviable far before they run out.

Some good news though, with the war in Iran the spiking oil price means that Albertan executives can ramp up operations and stay quite profitable! Push the price to 200/barrel and we'll just strip mine the entire province after airlifting out Calgary and Edmonton.

This assumes that there isn't profound demand destruction caused by the stratospheric energy prices.

Fossil fuels were already an inferior energy source when oil was $60/barrel. Electrification has been moving fast and accelerating, even at the pre-energy crisis prices.

Now? Current events are likely to take fossil fuels out back and give 'em the Old Yeller treatment with surprising speed.

Re: US and TotalEnergies reach 'nearly $1B' deal to end offshore wind projects

#185

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

mindslight wrote: post #180
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It seems like you should want the types of vehicles that can avoid using fossil fuels to do so, to keep your own prices down? What is with this attitude of reflexively interpreting the development of alternatives as if they are mandatory ?

Whether I wanting them or not is irrelevant to the fact that they presently don’t exist, and that I’m not due for a new vehicle for years.

I did try to make that clear in the comment you replied to.

The battery technology doesn’t exist.

Re: US and TotalEnergies reach 'nearly $1B' deal to end offshore wind projects

#186

Post by mindslight »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #185
mindslight wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you should want the types of vehicles that can avoid using fossil fuels to do so, to keep your own prices down? What is with this attitude of reflexively interpreting the development of alternatives as if they are mandatory ?

Whether I wanting them or not is irrelevant to the fact that they presently don’t exist, and that I’m not due for a new vehicle for years. I did try to make that clear in the comment you replied to. The battery technology doesn’t exist.

I think you misread my comment. I'm asking why you wouldn't want other types of vehicles that can be electrified to be electrified, such that there is less demand for the diesel that yours requires.

For example I've got a tractor that burns diesel, for effectively homeowner use. I too am not going to be replacing this piece of capital equipment any time soon (even though electrical would actually be better in a lot of regards). But since trucking is reliant on diesel and quite demand-insensistive, the Epstein war recently made diesel prices jump 60%. Whereas the fewer economically-critical vehicles there are being powered by diesel (even just the short range ones), the less that price would have spiked.

Re: US and TotalEnergies reach 'nearly $1B' deal to end offshore wind projects

#187

Post by idle_zealot »

saidnooneever wrote: post #25
idle_zealot wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, if we build out refining capacity for the next ten years. Then we're golden until we run out of the finite well of combustible dead algae. So if you think we can revitalize American manufacturing and resource processing starting now, and you're okay with those investments being worthless in a few decades, and you don't give a shit about rendering the planet significantly less habitable to human life, then yeah,…

another option is not to shit on all countires who do have resources driving the prices up for everyone.

This is an article about paying private industry to not build wind capacity.

Re: US and TotalEnergies reach 'nearly $1B' deal to end offshore wind projects

#188

Post by [deleted] »

entropicdrifter wrote: post #147
while_true_ wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NY Times phrases it as a reimbursement to TotalEnergies for relinquishing wind leases that they paid for. The US made the reimbursement contingent on them investing in fossil fuel projects. "The deal is an extraordinary transfer of taxpayer dollars to a foreign company for the purposes of boosting the production of fossil fuels." Total waste of $1 Bil of taxpayer dollars. If the oil and gas industry want to shut down…

Why would they do that when they already paid for a corrupt new regime to do it for them?

[deleted]

Re: US and TotalEnergies reach 'nearly $1B' deal to end offshore wind projects

#189

Post by greeneggs »

Mashimo wrote: post #47
ecshafer wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US (with Canada and Mexico) is self-sufficient with fossil fuel energy.

But it gets traded globally. That means if the price goes up in Asia, it also goes up in NA.

It doesn't have to be traded globally. The US could ban oil and gas exports, and that would decouple local prices from the global market.

Re: US and TotalEnergies reach 'nearly $1B' deal to end offshore wind projects

#190

Post by triceratops »

skywal_l wrote: post #64
MikeNotThePope wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are also organic, all-natural, and fat-free! And renewable on geological timescales.

Contrary to windmills, which slows down the rotation of the earth.

I personally would like more hours in the day.
Post reply on HN