411–420 of 585 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These things are also probably really loud if you happen to have a sensitive set of sonar buoys. I'm not entirely sure how you solve that one, because putting them in deeper water would also make them less effective.
This seems like maybe the least BS answer. Sub detection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody at all, but isn't it scary to imagine? In fact we could imagine and invent all kinds of scary things if we think too much. Ahh!
I know plenty of people personally who can rant about energy prices being high while somehow finding room in the same breath to demonize wind and solar energy and even namedrop whichever foul devil bogeyman it is this week that is said to be the cause of this disjointed trauma that they find so overwhelming. In the next breath, they pick something else from the deck to be upset about: These days, that's usually brown…
Did you ever consider that all the money spent on expensive renewables is money not spent on cheaper forms of power? Did you ever consider that they are correct and that spending on renewables drives up power costs? Because that's what the data says is happening. Now, I am aware that the amount of FUD on this topic is very different to get through. But if you learn about the differences between capacity and utilization costs and the other accounting games that are played with energy costs, you will learn how to see through the FUD. But I'm sure it is more psychologically comforting to just look down on them which is what you are actually doing.
I actually believe the radar surveillance excuse (on a technicalities only), if that's what this is going to come down to. The ocean is a big empty place and prime for picking up radar reflections as the background is pretty quiet. However... how on earth was this not identified like 10 years ago way before these projects were even started? Seems pretty obvious in hindsight.
One I would have believed more is that they're worried about being too reliable on the offshore wind which can be easily attacked by a foreign navy or maybe a smaller group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before Ukrain everyone though drones were easy to counter. Now that has proven false. granted Trump probably isn't thinking that, but the concern should be real. We need better drone defense before someone (Russia, Iran...) starts anonymously shooting down airplanes.
That's nonsense. Many countries have been using drones before. (Starting with Nazi Germany during WW 2.)
Ukraine makes drones vastly cheaper than the current counters and so we can be bankrupted trying the current counters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why not same scrutiny for coal?
Correct operation of a coal plant has global impact, and therefore coal should be phased out entirely. Absent that, when a coal plant goes badly wrong, the damage is small enough and localised enough to be affordable. When a nuclear plant goes wrong, the upper bound for error includes both Chrenobyl and also "unknown parties stole the radioisotopes" followed by terrorists repeating the Goiânia accident somewhere. Mak…
The Goiânia accident caused four deaths.
The Chrenobyl reactors weren’t even housed in containment buildings, they were housed in what’s best described as a shed.
Got any real complaints?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct operation of a coal plant has global impact, and therefore coal should be phased out entirely. Absent that, when a coal plant goes badly wrong, the damage is small enough and localised enough to be affordable. When a nuclear plant goes wrong, the upper bound for error includes both Chrenobyl and also "unknown parties stole the radioisotopes" followed by terrorists repeating the Goiânia accident somewhere. Mak…
But one is enforced (nuclear security) and coal is not. p.s. ICE cars are literally spewing cancer fumes right into kids faces. 0 fucks given. If anything people try to frame EVs as actual devil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
china runs with everything. They are still expanding coal units for firming and they'll build a ton of new gas units too. But to ban deployment of wind turbines without any explanation is ... expected from current administration...
Being blind with bias is also expected. I don't like what is going on either, but please consider that if it was only about "damaging" as others have implied, it would not just be off shore wind turbines. I can assure you there are other reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the airport TV's and doctor's office waiting rooms that they are bidding for at this point.
The doctors offices want none of it. It's all FoodTV and HGN. There is no utility in pissing off 75% of your customers. I'm thrilled that my kid's doctor doesn't even allow patients that aren't vaccine schedule compliant.
They can take precautions & insist on proper treatments, of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UK has tons of wind power but prices there are exceptionally high. Offshore wind isn't as cost effective as solar, it's the poster boy for high-cost, low-value renewable energy
> Offshore wind isn't as cost effective as solar, it's the poster boy for high-cost, low-value renewable energy Its not clear cut. Part of the reason why electricity is so expensive in the UK is that its tied to natural gas prices. some of it is CFD, but most of it is because a lot of our power comes from natural gas. We pay for gas on the open market because we aren't self sufficient for gas any more. Yes solar is c…