If wind is "weather-dependent", how should one describe oil? "Peace-dependent"?
Israel(US) toddler tantrum dependent.
Although I found this funny, I'd prefer to see this kind of message on reddit than on HN.
US and TotalEnergies reach 'nearly $1B' deal to end offshore wind projects
341–350 of 411 posts
Re: US and TotalEnergies reach 'nearly $1B' deal to end offshore wind projects
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wind is one of the cheapest sources of electricity available. Even if you are a completely brain-dead climate change denier it makes sense from a financial perspective.
In this specific case the CEO stated that gas is the cheaper choice given their ~$1B they can spend.
The longer quote seems to be "In the situation of the U.S., where you have huge amount of resources, huge amount of land to produce electricity, offshore wind is not the most affordable way to produce electricity" which sounds like it's just as much about the extra cost of off-shore makes less sense when you're not land-constrained like in Europe or Asia.
Re: US and TotalEnergies reach 'nearly $1B' deal to end offshore wind projects
#343Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does the gas turbine include externalities of fabricating, assembling, shipping installing, maintaining, and decommissioning oil drilling rigs? And of shipping, storing, and burning the gas? And the climate change caused by gas leaks? And the harms to humans, the fishing industry, and bird losses and whale harms by oil spills (I know you really care about those)?
I really want to know how in the hell whales are getting stuck in wind turbine blades. I want to see a video of this happening. There's also the externality of paying for the natural gas, which is passed on to the consumer in the form of higher energy bills. It probably also makes sense to include the $800M we are burning per day right now on patriot missiles (assuming the stockpile hasn't been depleted yet).
The argument is that vibrations of the wind power plants at sea disturb the whales.
Paying for the gas itself would not be an externality. Externalities are for example the worldwide damages caused by extreme weather which is caused by climate change, health problems caused by air pollution or the usage of clean water for cooling
Re: US and TotalEnergies reach 'nearly $1B' deal to end offshore wind projects
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
IIRC those were solar hot water heaters. More of a curiosity than something legitimately powering the white house.
The symbolism, and the stupidity, was there though. As time has gone on it has been more clear every year how intelligent Carter's administration was and how terrible the following administration was. Investing in/promoting solar was just one of many smart moves by Carter that were attacked purely to gain political points that only harmed us in the long run.
One of the lasting consequences of Carter's administration is the strong increase in worldwide CO2 output. Why? Yes they did encourage, at that time, developing countries (now becoming industrial countries) to pursue renewable energy resources but the main goal was to stop them developing nuclear technology.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 Title V – United States Assistance to Developing Countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Act_...
Notable absent from the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978" is the word "coal". Developing countries were barred from developing nuclear technology, but were free solve their growing energy needs using coal.
Re: US and TotalEnergies reach 'nearly $1B' deal to end offshore wind projects
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
There's a big difference between a) Finland needing fast & accurate RADAR tracking across their 50km gulf and restricting activity in the gulf as a result. Not just wind farms, other commercial activities are restricted in the Gulf of Finland including shipping. b) USA restricting wind farms on it's east coast (NC and NY/NJ) where the nearest land is thousands of km away and no other commercial activities are meaning…
Offshore wind farms have been stopped by the Finnish and Swedish military in many parts of the Baltic sea which aren't the gulf of Finland.
If wind farms are a problem for radars in the US, then it's quite a small price to pay to block them offshore. Especially since the country is gigantic and has plenty of room inland.
Any attack on the US will be through sea or space. Both are voids and very difficult or impossible to surveil. There's a historical example in Pearl Harbor.
So why you are bringing up nearest land I have no clue? The point is that the US is exposed to the oceans.
Re: US and TotalEnergies reach 'nearly $1B' deal to end offshore wind projects
#346Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't want another surprise attack from the sea like pearl harbor.
You're saying offshore wind farms would prevent the US from detecting an intercontinental attack crossing the ocean?
From where else would an enemy be able to attack? There's two options: ocean or space.
Re: US and TotalEnergies reach 'nearly $1B' deal to end offshore wind projects
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
We're not the ones arguing the absurd position that the concerns two small countries with extreme closeness to Russia (and a history of prior invasions) more than a thousand miles away, with completely different geography, apply to a vastly different country in a completely different area of the world.
[flagged]
Re: US and TotalEnergies reach 'nearly $1B' deal to end offshore wind projects
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
US fossil fuel companies also make money from projects outside US. They explore, build the infrastructure, and operate oil fields for other countries.
Maybe. But it's not obvious that they would benefit from cheap petrol.
Not maybe, they do. And noone wants their product so expensive that people starts looking for alternatives.
Re: US and TotalEnergies reach 'nearly $1B' deal to end offshore wind projects
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know it's par for the course, but I'm constantly surprised to see how editorialised official communications from the US government are.
Everything is written in the voice of a terminally online Twitter troll. Every single communication from the U.S. federal government should be assumed to be a lie until proven otherwise.
I wonder how long it takes (it took?) before Americans think this is how it all should be, and that this is how it is in every country.
Re: US and TotalEnergies reach 'nearly $1B' deal to end offshore wind projects
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unclear to me what would satisfy this complaint.. You wish La Monde speculated more on some glaring omission of motive here? You're original point is that they seemed to speculate too much!
They could do some actual journalism, find out the answers to some of these obvious follow-up questions, and report on them. Or, failing that, link to the press report since it seems like as is they aren't really adding much beyond that. But my original complaint about editorializing was about the title the submitter wrote on HN, not the article title.
What if they couldn't grt an answer, should they just not publish in that case? And why would they link to the press release, they are not a propaganda office.