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

401–410 of 411 posts

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

#401

Post by Ajedi32 »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #376
Ajedi32 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 no…

Yes, I'm fully aware this is an extremely common problem. I'm just saying if the article adds nothing over the press release it's reporting on (and even actively removes important context) then we should just link to the press release.

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

#402

Post by digitalPhonix »

carlosjobim wrote: post #399
digitalPhonix wrote: post #398

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? 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.…

> What does those three seas you mentioned have in common? They have Nordic coastline on both sides.

You should check out the Norwegian Sea?

> 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?

Don't worry, this administration has been canceling those projects too: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/trump-c...

(This is why my stance is "bad faith" on the "national security" claim, if that wasn't clear; I know plenty on how RADARs work and it doesn't pass the sniff test)

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

#403

Post by dang »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #264
RealityVoid wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have expected them not to vote a primitive person. And the most shocking part is people pretending he's got some sort of master plan or that the rest of us are just not seeing his genius. Absolute cinema, I swear.

[flagged]

> No one wanted, since you guys started it, that fucking rock ape as the USA’s first woman president.

You can't do that here. We've banned this account.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#404

Post by Braxton1980 »

kelnos wrote: post #395
no-name-here wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>The Democratic party often sounds like a bunch of elitists

Can you give an example of a Democrat politician making elitist statements?

How do you know this feeling isn't the result of propaganda by the Republican party and their news media supporters to paint the Democrats as elite?

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

#405

Post by Braxton1980 »

kelnos wrote: post #396
Braxton1980 wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The voters are the source of the problem and we need to focus on them instead of Trump because once he is gone they'll just elect another piece of shit.

A large portion of the population doesn't vote but if they understand the real danger of Trump supporters maybe that will motivate them

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

#406

Post by Braxton1980 »

justinclift wrote: post #357
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).

> 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 Sounds like both candidates were terrible enough that quite a few didn't bother?

1.They weren't equally bad.

2. Not voting still results in one being elected. This isn't the same as being offered two foods you don't like and declining to eat either.

3. The judgment on the quality of the candidates is likely mostly based on misinformation and manipulation by others.

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

#407

Post by Braxton1980 »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #224
Braxton1980 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of tax payers voted for this to happen

Many taxpayers are non-citizens or convicted felons and cannot vote. Turnout of citizens who were eligible to vote last election was 65%. Of those, 49.8% voted for Trump. Some portion of them likely did not vote with this specific policy in mind.

>Some portion of them likely did not vote with this specific policy in mind.

Their fault. The Republican party has been quite open about being a against environmentalism and related policies.

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

#408

Post by danny_codes »

pptr wrote: post #339
danny_codes wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue it’s a waste of resources. Fossil fuels will be phased out over the next 50 years. If China is an indicator it can be done quite a bit faster than you’d think. It’s already questionable to build fossil fuel capacity at today’s prices. In 10 years it won’t make any financial sense. In 20 you’d be laughed out of the room. Why waste money on a dying technology? It’d be like mining bitcoin

(Based on AI research) fossile fuel production takes a few years to recoup investment. Only refineries seem quite long term (15-20 years). I'm sure the companies have projections about future demand to decide which projects are worth pursuing. If they miscalculate, the oil companies loose money (oh no! /s). Anyway, you won't loose money on this. There is of course also an argument about national security, not being a…

I do lose money on this. I (and you, and the rest of the world) have to both clean up emissions and pay for climate change. The more we emit the worse the effects.

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

#410

Post by pptr »

danny_codes wrote: post #408
pptr wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Based on AI research) fossile fuel production takes a few years to recoup investment. Only refineries seem quite long term (15-20 years). I'm sure the companies have projections about future demand to decide which projects are worth pursuing. If they miscalculate, the oil companies loose money (oh no! /s). Anyway, you won't loose money on this. There is of course also an argument about national security, not being a…

I do lose money on this. I (and you, and the rest of the world) have to both clean up emissions and pay for climate change. The more we emit the worse the effects.

Right, but that negative externality is on emissions. For emissions it doesn't really matter who is producing the oil.
Post reply on HN