Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 585 posts

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

#481

Post by Denote6737 »

tony_cannistra wrote: post #21

I looked into this a little because I was curious. I guess the ostensible "national security" rationale (which clearly is not the only reason!) for this is that turbines severely degrade the utility of radar surveillance along the coastlines. This is particularly relevant for low-altitude incursions and drones. Now, other large governments (UK) have resolved this in several ways, including the deployment of additiona…

It's entirely because Scotland put a windfarm off the coast of his golf course. Trump is a child throwing a tantrum.

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

#482

Post by stefanfisk »

opello wrote: post #203
stefanfisk wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Sweden a bunch of offshore wind farm project and even residential PV installations are blocked by the military for unspecified reasons that everyone assumes is that it blocks radar and other signal intelligence. Even though you can partially work around the issue with better onshore equipment or just placing the stuff on the other side of the interfering equipment it is still a step down from not having any i…

I'm surprised residential PV even interacts with radar -- or is that the other signal intelligence part?

Since it’s all classified o honestly don’t have a clue. But passive radar is also a thing and something that the Swedish defense industry is fairly good at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar.

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

#483

Post by stefanfisk »

hunterpayne wrote: post #406
opello wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised residential PV even interacts with radar -- or is that the other signal intelligence part?

It probably has more to do with the fact that solar that far north is a non-starter. Any PV installed there will actually make AGW and carbon emissions worse, not better. Basically, the amount of carbon emitted due to manufacturing is greater than the carbon savings over the lifetime of the panel in those locations.

Even it that was true, why would the military concern itself with that, and why only for the coasts?

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

#484

Post by hunterpayne »

ssl-3 wrote: post #455
hunterpayne wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"while somehow finding room in the same breath to demonize wind and solar energy " 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…

I consider that I'm intertwined in the evolution of a very different friend's very local efforts, with their own hybrid battery-backed grid-tied offline-capable solar power system. That rig is pretty sweet. It pays for itself, and in present form and with their present use (wherein: they're not trying to live particularly-efficiently) it is almost entirely capable of keeping them with power even if the grid goes down…

"entirely capable of keeping them with power even if the grid goes down for an indefinite period."

You do know that batteries have a capacity right? And powerplants have something called a capacity factor. That means for a given amount of capacity, you generate on average a certain amount of power. For nuclear that factor is .9. For renewables its .1. So 1 watt of nuclear provides the same power as 9 watts of renewables. That's why when you say that renewables have 1/3 the capacity cost, it really means its 3x more expensive than nuclear. That means higher bills for people, which is what we mean when we say utilization cost. That's the real cost that people pay and actually counts. And all this is before we talk about siting issues with renewables. Fun fact, most PV is sites (located) somewhere with an albino factor of less than .25. But since you connected a battery terminal to a PV panel, you must know what that means. Seriously, you are just spreading misinformation that transfers cost from the rich to the poor, such a hero you are.

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

#485

Post by Retric »

nandomrumber wrote: post #421
janc_ wrote: 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…

I don’t think nuclear waste is a huge deal, but it does increase fuel costs in a very meaningful way. The classic uranium is cheap therefore nuclear’s fuel is cheap is a tiny fraction of the story. Refueling generally means weeks of downtime, you can’t safely operate at extreme temperatures for maximum efficiency, you need enrichment, and fuel rods, and even with multiple trips through the reactor core a significant amount of fuel isn’t burned or economically useful, and when your done you also need processes do deal with highly radioactive material + the costs of dry casks, and then transport them offsite and then down into some tunnels.

Add all that stuff up and fuel is a major expense. Granted that downtime depends on the design, and is also used to do other maintenance tasks but without refueling you’d end up with different tradeoffs.

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

#486

Post by Retric »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #477
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

> around nuclear power plants Exactly what I said. > This is not true at all Yes it is. I mean, if you’re going to dispute my point without providing any evidence, then all we’ve got is opinions. If we’ve got data, let’s go with the data. If all we’ve got is opinions, let’s go with mine.

> I mean, if you’re going to dispute my point without providing any evidence

Pure Americium-241 is extremely radioactive 0.0000045 grams of the stuff puts off useful amounts of radiation for smoke detectors, it’s half life is also 432 years.

As an alpha emitter it’s not that bad to stand next to but internally it doesn’t take much to be lethal.

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

#487

Post by im3w1l »

tony_cannistra wrote: post #21

I looked into this a little because I was curious. I guess the ostensible "national security" rationale (which clearly is not the only reason!) for this is that turbines severely degrade the utility of radar surveillance along the coastlines. This is particularly relevant for low-altitude incursions and drones. Now, other large governments (UK) have resolved this in several ways, including the deployment of additiona…

This may be the major reason, but I can think of another. How will you protect far away sprawling wind fields from attacks in case of war? They can be attacked by ships, aircraft and subs. You can expect them to be taken out almost immediately imo.

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

#488

Post by robocat »

the_gipsy wrote: post #324
dmbche wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically, isn't it a known presence on radar? It's static - you can't just ignore signals from that area in space?

The enemy could be hiding precisely at the windmills /s

Perhaps if tip speed is X and radar installation is perpendicular to wind turbine, then an enemy can approach at speed X in the turbine's radar shadow. There would still be multiple pulses with timing differences but if there's a field of turbines then I'd guess there's enough interference/scatter to be a problem. Like using approaching from the sun causes problems for pilots.

The reflections from the turbines would pulse due to the blades so in theory their scatter could be cancelled out in processing?

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

#489

Post by dzhiurgis »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #463
dzhiurgis wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go and run your car in garage lol. I swear HN is infested with bots now.

That’s going to kill me because the exhaust is dominated by carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. It isn’t going to kill me via the route you suggest: by giving kids cancer. It’s Christmas very shortly, try not to be this much of a cunt around you’re family.

You probably wanna look up benzene to start.

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

#490

Post by dirkt »

marcosdumay wrote: post #167
dlt713705 wrote: post #62

Next step is invade Venezuela and pump as much oil as possible

The theory that the US government does those wars to keep oil prices high fits the timing way better than the opposite. I still thinks it's missing important details, but the US making wars to get more oil doesn't fit reality at all.

I still find it very curious that after Russia invaded Ukraine, now Trump is using rhetoric that makes it look like the US is ready to invade some other country, too, they just have not decided on the victim yet.

And of course "start a war with another country" is an excellent example of how to control your country in case you have to, because, say, elections are coming up and you may loose.

Post reply on HN