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

371–380 of 411 posts

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

#371

Post by triceratops »

thunfischtoast wrote: post #343
hedora wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> The argument is that vibrations of the wind power plants at sea disturb the whales.

It's an argument that's always reeked of whale shit to me. If they really cared about marine sound pollution they'd go after super yachts first.

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

#372

Post by jbxntuehineoh »

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'm finally getting around to acquiring that EU citizenship I'm eligible for. Not that I'm necessarily planning to leave, but it can't hurt to have the option.

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

#373

Post by exabrial »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #44
exabrial wrote: post #22

[flagged]

IIRC it does not. There has been some discussions by folks around it, but so far no evidence has pointed to it being a primary motivation. The evidence we do have is that republicans have had a party vendetta against clean energy for decades, and their current leader has had a personal vendetta specifically against wind turbines, also for decades.

well that didn't take long.

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

#374

Post by digitalPhonix »

carlosjobim wrote: post #345
digitalPhonix wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 impossibl…

> Baltic sea

Still don’t see a problem making this comparing?

Atlantic ocean: thousands of miles to the nearest land from the NE coast; unrestricted commercial activity

Baltic sea: Belligerent nation on the coast (Kaliningrad Oblast) ~100 miles away; heavily patrolled and monitored commercial activity

> If wind farms are a problem for radars in the US

I’m asserting they are not because they magically weren’t 2 years ago and the airspace on the NE coast of the US has some of the largest and most aggressive ADIZ in the world since 2001. If wind farms were a problem for RADAR/early warning systems we would have heard about it in the last 25 years.

> So why you are bringing up nearest land I have no clue? The point is that the US is exposed to the oceans.

Er yes... I’m sure the military groups responsible for early warning didn’t just realise that in 2025. 10 years after offshore wind farms in the area were fully operational.

Edit: I want to say that learnings from recent conflicts (especially around drones) would be a compelling argument for why we only just realised these issues, but no one has articulated that or why it’s an issue on the Atlantic coast.

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

#375

Post by gausswho »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #366
gausswho wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't that revised to a single generation?

no, it used to be single generation but now people as far back as 4-5 are getting citizenship — I'm helping others go through the process myself but it's taking months longer than it used to due to the influx

How does that work so many generations back? Doesn't Bill C-3 add the additional requirement to demonstrate your parent(s) must have lived in Canada for ~3 years in order to make that path available?

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

#376

Post by beepbooptheory »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #364
fastasucan wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They could at least raise the questions in the article instead of leaving readers with the impression they didn't even try to find answers. Worst case, you write "the person we spoke to declined to comment". > why would they link to the press release, they are not a propaganda office Just reporting the contents of the press release as if it were your original reporting is worse IMO. At least reading a press release y…

Not every single article needs to be Woodward and Bernstein dude. Sometimes you just need to report what happened, what someone said. If that ends being an incomplete or incongruous picture, you gotta chalk it up sometimes to the nature of such matters in the world, not a deficiency of the journalism. Your argument could be applied to literally any piece of journalism! In general, answers to possible questions are not finite, metaphysical things that we can always fully account for, and its not a news articles job (which isn't even a long form investigation style piece!) to try.

I know, of course, you are not arguing uncharitably here, so I can only assume this is the first news article you have ever read.

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

#377

Post by everyday7732 »

adrianN wrote: post #326
stared wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [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…

So Major Major‘s father is being paid to let land be available for rich biodiversity. Sounds not unreasonable to me.

Henry George would like a word.

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

#378

Post by Braxton1980 »

kelnos wrote: post #329
Braxton1980 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only idiots are the people who voted for Trump

It's tempting to dismiss them like that, but that doesn't fix anything. The reality is much more complicated. The Democratic party is far from perfect (they kinda suck, in fact), and if they aren't attracting voters, "the other side is just stupid" is a useless, arrogant way to go.

Neither party will ever be perfect. One is better than the other.

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

#379

Post by Braxton1980 »

anon7000 wrote: post #229
Braxton1980 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of tax payers voted for this to happen

And the majority of tax payers voted for the previous admin too, which started this offshore wind project in the first place.

Ok? And?

The majority voted to move in one direction then the majority wanted to reverse it.

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

#380

Post by Braxton1980 »

sgerenser wrote: post #222
Braxton1980 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of tax payers voted for this to happen

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).

"Both sides"

Both candidates weren't equally bad. That is always the situation and you must choose the least worse or best candidate.

Post reply on HN