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

US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 933 posts

Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects

#561

Post by dozerly »

botanrice wrote: post #549

I have either learned to tune it all out or have been worn down of all the terrible news. But of all the terriblew news to come from this administration, this kind of thing guts me the most :( There is really no way around this, no silver lining. After years of working to get these programs implemented, to have the admin just willy-nilly spend money (what money!?!) to have them STOP. It hurts man.

I have to say, being able to find the silver lining in 6 years of fascist policy before this is impressive.

Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects

#562

Post by bryanlarsen »

perpetuallunch wrote: post #507
smolder wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Common sense" might also mean "do the simple thing" which, given how cheap it is to invest in renewable energy sources like solar farms, and how much room we have to build daytime capacity that way without large scale storage, might mean installing a lot more solar. Don't pretend the current US admin is anything but corrupt and stupid.

Day time . And what of the night? Freeze in the dark.

Night can be handled by whatever currently handles day time generation, be it nuclear, natural gas, hydro, whatever.

Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects

#563

Post by morkalork »

ambicapter wrote: post #453
morkalork wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That kinda stinks, I wonder if getting the settlement was contingent on the re-investment.

It was.

So RWE gets to save face by "winning a payout" but in actuallity the admin is just indirectly subsidizing O&G development in a red state. Wonderful.

Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects

#564

Post by nozzlegear »

RobotToaster wrote: post #318
jfengel wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we're not expecting someone else to stop it. We voted for this. The evil is not imposed on us. It is us. Not everyone, but a majority. The minority is looking for ways to stop it, but it requires getting literally everyone else to work together. Which means any disagreement among them results in a loss, and more of the same evil.

Less than half of people who voted voted for Trump, and turnout was 64%. Being allowed to chose between two evils every few years isn't democracy.

Can't help but roll my eyes every time an election between a guy who campaigned on locking up his political enemies and throwing out all the Mexicans, and an awkward black woman, is described as choosing "between two evils." Give me a break.

Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects

#566

Post by toomuchtodo »

perpetuallunch wrote: post #477
esskay wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What "world order" is this? One where cheap energy generation is seen as a good thing? Bizarre that anyone would be against a private company building solar or wind farms in this day and age. For a guy in the ai and cybersecurity industry you seem to have incredibly poor judgement Gyan.

Provide one example where solar and / or wind generation have penetrated a market to a level worth mentioning and electricity prices have come down or remained stable adjusted for inflation.

We could collectively provide a long list of examples across several US states, Europe, and Australia. Is that going to change the minds of people who don't believe it? It will not, the discussion is irrelevant and wasted energy (mental models are rigid, people are irrational and emotion driven broadly speaking), all that matters is the economics.

Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy+ 2026 - https://www.lazard.com/media/kcfconhf/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pd... [pdf]

> Renewables Remain Lowest Cost New-Build Generation; All Generation Faces Increasing Cost Pressure: Despite rising and inflationary cost pressures across all generation technologies, renewables remain the most cost-competitive form of new-build generation on an unsubsidized basis and will account for the majority of near-term capacity additions in the U.S. Continuous upward revisions to demand projections have driven a sharp increase in announced new-build gas generation despite a 15-year high LCOE, which is expected to continue to rise, and historically long development and equipment delivery timelines.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capaci...

The World Crossed a Major Solar Milestone [3TW] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49151977 - August 2026

> The world has reached the 3-terawatt threshold of solar power, with the first terawatt taking 10 years to deploy and the next two terawatts taking less than five years.

> Forecasters expect the world to deploy more than 9 terawatts of solar by 2036, with poor countries' share of solar deployment expected to start growing again from this year onward.

> The main constraint for developing countries to adopt solar power is the lack of accessible financing, and the growth of solar power is also limited by the need for energy storage, such as lithium-ion batteries, to absorb excess power.

The global clean tech supply chain will still be around when the US comes around.

Ember Energy: China Cleantech Exports Data Explorer - https://ember-energy.org/data/china-cleantech-exports-data-e... (Updated monthly)

Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects

#567

Post by pavlov »

1dontknow_ wrote: post #505
zmmmmm wrote: post #310

I read up recently on the history of the fall of the roman empire and it was fascinating how eerily similar it was to the current state of the US. Overwhelmed by corruption and wars they make stupider and stupider decisions on ever larger scales, ever more frequently. And the population grows ever more cynical, eventually opting for authoritarianism before eventually the center can't hold any more and it all collapse…

I like these comparison with Roman Empire but it seems too simplsitic and Ive learned that usually means "its not so right actually". Meaning for example, what about empires that actually survived or adapted? What did they do that we know exactly didnt the Roman Empire do that saved them? How does zeitgeist impact this in the sense that what ruined Roman Empire might save a nation today? Not trying to be negative, Im…

"what about empires that actually survived or adapted" — which ones exactly?

Empires are pathological developments of nations. They don't tend to survive all that long.

Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects

#568

Post by forestrywat »

Lio wrote: post #460
bakies wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not mills

Yeah, what is it with people calling turbines "windmills"? They don't grind corn. Is it supposed to be a some kind of cheesy insult? It just makes you sound stupid if you call them windmills.

Do you get angry at people for calling sea stars starfish? "They aren't fish they are echinoderms!"

Or perhaps you get angry at people who call light utility vehicles "trucks"?

Language evolves. People accept colloquial definitions. Wait until you learn about pencil lead, koala bears, dry cleaning, and peanuts. Windmill is absolutely acceptable if it's understood by people to mean wind turbine, which it is.

Re: US strikes $1.2B deal to pay German firm to halt offshore wind projects

#570

Post by neom »

In case anyone is wondering why he hates wind so much, it stared in 2011:

Donald Trump pledges 'any legal means' fight against windfarm. US tycoon saying proposed offshire turbines will 'compromise' golf resort – and ruin his sea view: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/05/donald-trump-l...

Donald Trump continues to battle Scottish offshore windfarm plans. In his second letter to Alex Salmond, the businessman said the turbines would have a negative impact on Scottish tourism: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/28/donald-t...

Post reply on HN