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

231–240 of 411 posts

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

#231

Post by ericfr11 »

Braxton1980 wrote: post #216
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…

The majority of tax payers voted for this to happen

Voted for what? More pollution, more expensive gas, more expensive electricity??

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

#232

Post by ericfr11 »

while_true_ wrote: post #101
Ajedi32 wrote: post #71

HN title (currently reads "US govt pays TotalEnergies nearly $1B to stop US offshore wind projects") is editorialized and it's unclear to me whether it's accurate. The article says: > We're partnering with TotalEnergies to unleash nearly $1 billion that was tied up in a lease deposit that was directed towards the prior administration's subsidies What's the deal with this lease deposit and how does "freeing it up" equ…

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…

GOP capitalism at its worst: take public money and give it to private interests, without any thoughts of what makes sense.

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

#233

Post by ericfr11 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #214
BoiledCabbage wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So TotalEnergies agreed to invest 1 billion is offshore wind during thr last Administration. The current Administration doesn't want any investment in renewables so they attempted to block it. A judge said the attempted block was unlawful. So then immediately the admin said something new and that instead there were "national security concerns" with building wind plants - (Which doesn't pass the smell test to me at al…

[flagged]

Read some real news

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

#234

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ninalanyon wrote: post #223
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And even if there were, are you (tax payers) prepared to buy it for me, because I’m not due for an upgrade for about another 400,000 kilometres. 400,000 km is around two years for a commercial driver, isn't it?

In the EU it would be about 7 000 hours of driving so more like three years, or more. What kind of vehicle is it though? There are battery electric vehicles available now in almost all commercial vehicle segments in Europe.

7000 hours at 60 MPH (i.e. 100 kph) is ~700,000 km. That's assuming highway speeds, obviously, but if you're doing stop and go in a diesel truck you should probably sell it to someone who isn't and be among the first to get an electric one because the difference in fuel costs is so dramatic in that case.

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

#235

Post by JumpCrisscross »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #225
sgerenser wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plurality, not majority. (Not that I’m excusing the dumb dumbs who decided not voting was a viable course of action when they decided that “both sides” were running bad candidates).

With Trump getting a little bit less than half the vote and a 65% turnout, "did not vote" was the plurality.

Which is functionally a vote for the status quo. Someone who can't bother to vote isn't going to bother e.g. protesting or otherwise affirming their rights.

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

#236

Post by carlosjobim »

ericfr11 wrote: post #233
carlosjobim wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Read some real news

Read official decisions from the defence forces of Finland and/or Sweden. Huge offshore wind projects have been stopped recently.

Or be a reality denying hacker if you prefer.

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

#237

Post by arjie »

stared wrote: post #160
mikkupikku wrote: post #96

If the government would like to pay me to also not build wind turbines, hit me up. I mean, I wasn't going to build any in the first place, but I think this makes me qualified to continue not building any.

> [Major Major’s father's] specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn’t earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce. Major Major’s father worked without rest at not growing alfalfa. On…

These things are common. For instance, we pay dockworkers to not work so that they would let us do containerization. When they say they're striking, half of those striking dockworkers wouldn't be working anyway. They're paid not to so that we could use containers. When US ports finally automate, it will be the same. The boss of that union wears a Rolex because he's good at extracting these concessions from us. So here's a variant for them:

> His specialty was containers, and he made a good thing out of not loading any. Ever since containerization came in, he was paid handsomely for every crate he did not touch. The more containers he did not load, the more money he was given, and he spent every penny he didn’t earn on securing more seniority on the docks to increase the amount of cargo he did not handle. He worked without rest at not working the piers. On long evenings he lingered by the hiring hall and did not sling a single hook, and he sprang out of bed at the crack of noon every day just to make certain that no breakbulk cargo had somehow returned.

Enjoy.

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

#238

Post by terminalshort »

paxys wrote: post #212
terminalshort wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smart people know that you can't predict or plan for anything on anywhere close to that time horizon. The only plan is be adaptable.

> The only plan is be adaptable And that's exactly what the question was. You seem to consider yourself in the "smart people" ranks, so what's your big plan for adaptability?

My "plan" is don't make big long term plans

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

#239

Post by carlosjobim »

jondea wrote: post #215
carlosjobim wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Could you give some sources for this? I can't seem to find anything with a cursory search, but I'd be interested in reading.

> Firms struggle to cope with Finnish military's wind turbine ban

> More than 200 wind energy projects have been canned in south-east Finland due to concerns that they could disrupt military radar.

https://yle.fi/a/3-10374540

Since then the military has just become stricter.

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

#240

Post by brookst »

carlosjobim wrote: post #236
ericfr11 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read some real news

Read official decisions from the defence forces of Finland and/or Sweden. Huge offshore wind projects have been stopped recently. Or be a reality denying hacker if you prefer.

I can’t make heads or tails of your point.

Are you saying that because Sweden has to worry about Russia invading from the east, the US shouldn’t build any wind farms anywhere? That can’t be right. What do you really mean?

Post reply on HN