Live data from Hacker News

US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified

arstechnica.com

431–440 of 585 posts

Re: US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified

#433
post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but if you already have a battery, getting an extra 200-400w when the sun isn't shining is really useful. (for a UK based house. Not so sure about the USA.) The cost isn't as good as solar though. a 1kw turbine is expensive.

They also need regular servicing and proper locating away from turbulence. Micro scale wind makes absolutely no sense economically.

Economic sense depends on individual/local circumstances also.

Re: US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified

#434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is insane levels of expensive likely due to overregulation. It is important for base load power and overnight power and should always be the backing of the grid frequency. Total loss of grid frequency is much more difficult to recover from with synthetic inertia. A healthy grid should have all of the following - Nuclear base load that keeps the grid stable and pick up from low solar - Gas plants for surge pow…

nuclear also has a very limited lifespan if we go all-in on it. we will run out.

Run out of what? The fuel? Given its energy density, and uranium availability, that seems unlikely, but I haven’t done math on it.

Re: US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified

#436

drones are invisible to radar.......or clearly russia(or ukrain) would not be dealing with strikes far from the front lines also, hypersonic missles are now a thing, and the hit faster than any radar or interceptor can register but yes if you were worried about Portugal trying a sneak attack, then clearly they would use the wind turbine shielding attack vector from weaponised shipping cans placed on container ships

They are not (necessarily) invisible, that depends on size & many other variables.

Also, hypersonic missiles are perfectly vusible on radar.

Re: US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified

#437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> overregulation. Americans love to remove regulation to make things cheaper (and to enable capitalistic monopolies, but that's a different matter), then cry when people die (or worse). Some things needs to be regulated, esp. if mistakes are costly to the planet and/or people on the said planet. So yes, nuclear should be regulated, and even overregulated to keep it safe. We have seen what Boeing has become when it's…

There is room between under-regulation and over-regulation. Given that we are experiencing high costs and other barriers to construction, we can do at least two things: reduce red tape where it makes sense or where the risk is acceptable to help lower costs, or the US government can, through a variety of mechanisms ranging from basic research funding to direct subsidies, spend taxpayer money to try and alleviate cost…

> There seems to be this mind virus that has infected many people on the internet that seem to think that regulations are a moral good

The people who don't agree with you are largely reasonable, as you likely are, and are no more infectees of a "mind virus" for holding their opinions than you are for holding yours. There's no need to denigrate them, or misrepresent their views to try to make your point. Indeed, many of them arrived at their opinion after seeing what happens when people push for not-enough regulation: Once bitten, twice shy.

Re: US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified

#438
post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And don't forget the cost of storing nuclear waste for the next 10000 years, which is never included in the "cost of nuclear".

What nuclear waste? Where is it? Somebody must be able to point to the nuclear waste by now. There it is, waving frantically in panic, the nuclear waste! It’s coming right for us! Something is either highly radioactive for a short amount of time, or not very radioactive for a long amount of time. But never both highly radioactive and for a long time. In reality, there is so little nuclear waste that most of it has mo…

> What nuclear waste? Where is it?

Good question! Since you asked: it is largely in cooling pools and piling up in empty lots around nuclear power plants, waiting for safe, secure storage to appear.

> Something is either highly radioactive for a short amount of time, or not very radioactive for a long amount of time.

This is not true at all, unless you consider "short amount of time" to include decades to centuries to millenia.

Re: US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified

#439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US deploys nuclear energy at over $10/watt meanwhile solar and wind are deployed around $2/watt (for levelized cost of electricity) including battery storage which means they are deployed for roughly the same cost as natural gas (so, direct competitors). Don't let comments like this fool you, nuclear is far from being competitive with natural gas. Even in countries like south korea that can deploy nuclear the cheapes…

Nuclear is insane levels of expensive likely due to overregulation. It is important for base load power and overnight power and should always be the backing of the grid frequency. Total loss of grid frequency is much more difficult to recover from with synthetic inertia. A healthy grid should have all of the following - Nuclear base load that keeps the grid stable and pick up from low solar - Gas plants for surge pow…

Or possibly under regulated. Where exactly is all the radioactive waste going to go? Especially the spent fuel rods pose major disposal challenges. The one site that was looking hopeful appears to have been discarded. It is a bit late in the game to be pending basic stuff that is piling up. Most nuclear power plants are not well sited for long term disposal, though that is what is happening.

Re: US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified

#440
post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So yes, nuclear should be regulated, and even overregulated to keep it safe. Here's what overregulation of nuclear power has done for us over the past several decades: "We can't risk releasing radioactive pollution in an accident, so we'll build coal plants that spew it into the air during normal operation instead."

Many countries shut down all their coal plants over a decade ago. Why didn't yours?

Because Greenpeace and other powerful lobby groups convinced Americans that nuclear power was more dangerous than fossil fuels.

I'm not one of those tinfoil hatters who rants about how the anti-nuclear movement was seeded and sponsored by the Soviets... but I will say that if they didn't do that, they overlooked some of the most useful idiots at their disposal.

Post reply on HN