Live data from Hacker News

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

lemonde.fr

391–400 of 411 posts

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

#391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think everyone here would appreciate it if you didn't delve into identity politics, especially not when starting a thread.

Just the facts, please. Or your beliefs, if you want -- but just because you state that you "believe" something, doesn't make it a fact, like you claimed.

Unless you were stating it was a fact that you believed that claim? The wording you used was a bit convoluted there.

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

#392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And you think a Pearl Harbor sized attack force could cross oceans undetected and hide behind wind farms?

Please tell me you’re just yanking our chains and don’t really believe that?

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

#393
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?

[please excuse this exploratory fiction, as I am recovering from running a chainsaw all morning and am feeling old and tired]

I'm almost 50 and mostly retired except for work I like doing (producing musical events or performing).

About the time my kiddo graduated high school, I moved to a rural area far from cities, and about 18 months ago I bought some land that had primitive shacks on it.

I spend a lot of time reading history. I assume that the US fails eventually;

not because I have any illusions about surviving that house fire, have a lack of awareness of the mass death that would cause, or fantasies about how I'd be able to function in some post-US world.

That assumption comes out of watching the capitalists strip the wiring from the walls of US soft power along side watching the fact that it's 85 degrees in March at 6500 feet here... "climate isn't weather" is true, but I'm not an idiot and we didn't have a real winter this year.

The failure of the US is terrifying, not because I and my community would mourn the loss of some glorious and benevolent order, but in the way that the death of my estranged parents was terrifying:

we are no longer doing things because we're forced by the fantasy of belonging to some larger political order, but now have to choose what to do.

Having read a lot about what the US has done in the world, I believe that a) it's unethical/racist/genocidal / exploitative in almost all its actions and b) I think the only actual hope for climate change is the end of the US as a world order. I don't know if the end of that order is sufficient to fix the ecosystem, which I feel is on the verge of some calamitous changes, but it certainly seems necessary.

Not having control over that failing system, and not having a lot of fantasies about belonging to the polis associated with that system, it's perhaps easier for me to look at its failure modes more clinically than I might have when I was 25 and saw it as an impenetrable solid face; I've moved downstream from Fisher's statement, and now it's much easier to see a possibility for the end of capitalism (or at least the uni-polar US world order) than the end of the world itself.

Not that it's the actions of a bunch of angry and over-educated leftists who would bring it about, but as has always been understood by Marxists (among whom I do not count myself), the failure leading to its dissolution are the inherent contradictions of capitalism itself.

Which makes me feel amazingly hopeful, actually. I don't have any real political power (beyond my affinity group), so it's nice to know (like Duncan instead of MacBeth) that these things could maybe take care of themselves without me doing anything I don't find ethical.

Because I believe that there is a future for humans, I spend a lot of time organizing with folks even when I think the short-term goals aren't super useful: for instance, doing ICE Watch support with local folks, shooting a lot of guns with folks who understood the wisdom of John Brown, or just being available to help out folks who have politics oriented around direct action.

I have been spending most of my time clearing the scrub oak from various parts of the land where I live to make the wildland fire interface a little less terrifying. I build a pretty sturdy solar power system here. I've spent the last couple of months getting my head into programming the esp32 and its peripherals. I got a ham license and have been working on building radio systems. Hopefully I will figure out how to get an underground cistern next month, and then act on the septic permit I got last year.

Other than that, I assume that things aren't going to change much in my life time... I just sit here in my shack playing banjo and hoping for the best.

Prognostication should be illegal and all, but I suspect that Trump will probably kick off in 6 months from a stroke, the Dems will elect Newsom, and then they won't do a damn thing to change anything, and we will be fighting the facists under worse conditions when they finally find a pretty face to solidify them.

So I look forward to dying of Super Ebola-fluenza at age 65 in the middle of a mid-June snow-hurricane near Bluff, UT while supporting a bunch of anarchist 30 year-olds in a drone-powered trench line while they fight the "Western Slope Fascist Front". But I bet I'll still be driving my Tacoma to that battle...

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

#394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well that didn't take long.

I think everyone here would appreciate it if you didn't delve into identity politics, especially not when starting a thread. Just the facts, please. Or your beliefs, if you want -- but just because you state that you "believe" something, doesn't make it a fact, like you claimed. Unless you were stating it was a fact that you believed that claim? The wording you used was a bit convoluted there.

Uh, I didn't start it.

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

#395
post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Attracting voters with things like repeatedly promising to drastically cut consumer prices on most everything ‘from day 1’, repeatedly promising no new wars/stopping being ‘the world police’, quickly ending the Russian invasion of Ukraine, etc?

Hey, I'm not saying Trump and the GOP are great. They disgust me. But they talk to people in a way they find engaging. Even when they lie, somehow. But regardless, I'm not sure how what you said has anything to do with what I wrote.

The Democratic party often sounds like a bunch of elitists, and that turns off many voters, even those who might consider themselves liberal or progressive. I'll likely vote for Democrats in every election until I die, but I don't think of myself as a Democrat, and haven't registered as one in decades (fortunately the Democratic party has open primaries in California, so I don't have to declare a party).

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

#396
post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh I absolutely agree. I'm not trying to "both-sides" this. I'm just saying that calling conservatives stupid/idiots isn't productive and isn't going to solve anything.

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

#397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think everyone here would appreciate it if you didn't delve into identity politics, especially not when starting a thread. Just the facts, please. Or your beliefs, if you want -- but just because you state that you "believe" something, doesn't make it a fact, like you claimed. Unless you were stating it was a fact that you believed that claim? The wording you used was a bit convoluted there.

Uh, I didn't start it.

Seems you did, even though nobody responded in kind. My reply simply stated the facts. For more detail, read the post you just responded to [0] (in particular, the 2nd and 3rd paragraph), and the other replies to the original thread [1].

In the future, it'd be better if you don't represent your beliefs and opinions as fact [1], and didn't try to preemptively portray anyone who doesn't share your beliefs as counterfactual and politically-motivated [1].

0 – https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47507794

1 – https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47493747

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

#398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If the radars that the USA uses are so great, then why don't Finland and Sweden purchase these systems instead of blocking almost all offshore wind farms? These are two countries that have very strong political agendas in favour of wind power. Maybe there are new threats that neither you or I are aware of or understand? Secrecy is how the military operates. New and emerging threats is the exact reason which has been…

> If the radars that the USA uses are so great, then why don't Finland and Sweden purchase these systems instead of blocking almost all offshore wind farms?

Are you deliberately not trying to see the difference?

Early warning systems need all the help they can get when you only have 100km to your threats (ie. the baltic sea); when you have the entire Atlantic you don’t need that.

US early warning systems are great because they have 1000s of kilometers of space.

As other commenters have already pointed out to you, the Nordic countries do allow wind farms in:

    - Gulf of Bothnia (Sweden + Finland)
    - Kattegat (Sweden)
    - Noregian sea (Norway)

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

#399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the radars that the USA uses are so great, then why don't Finland and Sweden purchase these systems instead of blocking almost all offshore wind farms? These are two countries that have very strong political agendas in favour of wind power. Maybe there are new threats that neither you or I are aware of or understand? Secrecy is how the military operates. New and emerging threats is the exact reason which has been…

> If the radars that the USA uses are so great, then why don't Finland and Sweden purchase these systems instead of blocking almost all offshore wind farms? Are you deliberately not trying to see the difference? Early warning systems need all the help they can get when you only have 100km to your threats (ie. the baltic sea); when you have the entire Atlantic you don’t need that. US early warning systems are great be…

And they don't allow wind farms where they are exposed to the open baltic.

What does those three seas you mentioned have in common? They have Nordic coastline on both sides. Meaning that nobody can hide in radar shadow, because they'll be seen from the other coast.

> US early warning systems are great because they have 1000s of kilometers of space.

Not if there is a disturbance in the way. You know how signals work. Everything behind the disturbance will be in shadow, stretching for as far as you please. The ocean is a giant dark void, and your enemy can be anywhere and go anywhere.

The Swedish defense minister has specified the threat to be cruise missiles in their decision to ban and block offshore wind farms. I wouldn't be surprised if the US has the same reason for their national security concerns. With a cruise missile you have to get close before launching, as compared to ICBMs which have no limits in range.

And just out of curiosity: Why don't they build these wind parks inland in the great plains? Too much energy loss from distance to consumers?

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

#400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From where else would an enemy be able to attack? There's two options: ocean or space.

And you think a Pearl Harbor sized attack force could cross oceans undetected and hide behind wind farms? Please tell me you’re just yanking our chains and don’t really believe that?

Much larger attack forces are currently cruising the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and have been doing so for decades. The oceans are international waters, giant voids where it's hard to know where your enemy is.

They can be a thousand miles away from your coast and launch cruise missiles with more fire power than that of Pearl Harbour. If there is a radar/signal disturbance on your coast which can help them, they will take advantage of it.

Post reply on HN