Slashdot Mirror


Chinese To Supply 600 MW Wind Farm In Texas

Hugh Pickens sends in a Wall Street Journal report that Chinese banks will provide $1.5B to a consortium of Chinese and American companies to build a 600-megawatt wind farm in West Texas, using turbines made in China. The wind farm will be built on 36,000 acres, and will use 240 2.5-megawatt turbines, providing enough power to meet the electrical needs of around 150,000 American homes. The project will be the first instance of a Chinese manufacturer exporting wind turbines to the United States. China aims to be the front-runner in wind- and solar-power generation "The Obama administration is hoping a shift to renewable energy will inject new life into the US manufacturing base and provide high-paying jobs, making up for losses in other sectors. But while the US has poured money into renewable energy through tax credits and other subsidies, China has positioned itself to reap many of the benefits by ramping up its export machine."

453 comments

  1. How is that sustainable? by Loomismeister · · Score: 1

    I'm not seeing an obvious benefit to China in doing this. Is there one, or is China just being really generous?

    1. Re:How is that sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're making money and destroying a rival.

    2. Re:How is that sustainable? by magarity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which part of $1.5B isn't beneficial? Their banks collect interest and their manufacturers make sales.
       
      Meanwhile, 36K acres to power 150K homes? Doesn't a nice nuclear plant only need 100 acres or so to provide power that same number?

    3. Re:How is that sustainable? by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Informative

      Same thing the U.S. gained when it rebuilt Europe - a place to sell goods. In this case it's Chinese turbines so they get jobs, and we get poorer.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:How is that sustainable? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

      I suggest they use an 8x8 grid pattern as the basic city layout. Then, you can put a 20MW turbine in each corner and power all the houses within each block. The turbines themselves only take up a single block, so you still get 60 blocks of high density residential zoning with no pollution at all.

      The alternative (and better choice) is to terraform a small area away from the city. By raising the level of the land and encouraging waterfalls, you can build a very efficient hydroelectric power farm that generates no pollution and never breaks down.

      Nuclear fission has its related pollution problems. Fusion plants don't last longer than 50 years. Wind power is pretty inefficient as far as power generation goes. But Hydroelectric is built to last and has a great price/output ratio over the life of the plant.

    5. Re:How is that sustainable? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Meanwhile, 36K acres to power 150K homes? Doesn't a nice nuclear plant only need 100 acres or so to provide power that same number?

      Yes but there's a big difference in how those acres are occupied. One is sparsely occupied by the windmill towers, the other is a field of impermeable ground cover.

      Just saying. More nuke plants too please.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:How is that sustainable? by PHPNerd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They aren't being "generous"....IT'S A TRAP!

    7. Re:How is that sustainable? by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      China would likely benefit in repair parts and maintenance related costs. Once the components for these turbines are in place, you're not likely to just switch them out for some other manufacturer.

    8. Re:How is that sustainable? by thickdiick · · Score: 2, Informative

      It comes out to roughly 4.26 turbines per square mile

    9. Re:How is that sustainable? by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hopefully they can shame the USA into taking some 'retaliatory' action.

      Fingers crossed.

      --
      No sig today...
    10. Re:How is that sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is in West Texas. Finding a contiguous 36K acres with no life form higher than a snake living on it is pretty easy. What else are they going to use the land for?

    11. Re:How is that sustainable? by the_macman · · Score: 0

      Cool. Sounds good for any newly constructed neighborhood. Lets goto Las Vegas and put it into practice. Oh wait. The housing market crashed like the titanic. Ok so lets dig up existing neighborhoods and put a turbine on every block. I'm sure that won't be a hassle for the local residents and it certainly won't kill every bird in the area.

      Sorry man wind power just isn't sustainable. You're better off investing in a technology that has realistic power yields (nuclear).

    12. Re:How is that sustainable? by omeomi · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, 36K acres to power 150K homes?

      Who cares? There's plenty of open land in Texas...

    13. Re:How is that sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do I never have Mod points when I really want them?? +1 Funny

    14. Re:How is that sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is China we are talking about. They'll just be disposed of and replaced by more cheap Chinese junk ever year.

    15. Re:How is that sustainable? by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      Well, a 1,000 acres or more is preferable for all the support buildings and security reasons, but yes, the 'power block' can be under 100 acres.

      Anyway, The total maximum capacity of these turbines is 600 megawatts. Modern (ie, built in the last 30 years or in progress) put out double this amount, and they do so 24-7 for an 18 month fuel cycle.

      A wind farm as described might put out a few hundred megawatts for parts of the day. Actual power plants have to be ready to compensate when the wind dies down.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    16. Re:How is that sustainable? by mayko · · Score: 1

      Lets just hope it doesn't get really windy one day for something like this to happen.

    17. Re:How is that sustainable? by gnud · · Score: 1

      But western Europe didnt do too badly?

    18. Re:How is that sustainable? by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Just make sure you DON'T FORGET to enable AUTO-REBUILD! This is a critical measure to ensure system availability when dealing with Fission or Fusion facilities.

      Oh and whoever decided the parent was 'informative' wins NOOB OF TEH YEAR!11

    19. Re:How is that sustainable? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Fusion plants don't last longer than 50 years.

      Okay, now I know that all you know about power plants came from SimCity. :-)

    20. Re:How is that sustainable? by C_L_Lk · · Score: 5, Informative

      Remember that 240 wind turbines spread across 36,000 acres does not *use* 36,000 acres - not anywhere near it. Every wind energy corporation I've worked with allows farmers to farm right up to within 10 meters of the turbine tower base. The wires are almost universally all run underground with these new wind farms. The actual footprint of the turbine tower base with the 10 meters of safety space, is less than 1/2 of 1 acres. 240 towers will use an area around 120 acres. The remaining 35,880 acres will still be prime viable agricultural space. In the meantime, the typical turbine lease involves payments to the landowner of approx. $10,000 per year per turbine on their property. That means if you have a farm that is 1000 acres and have suitable space for 10 turbines, you'll lose about 5 acres of your growing space, but be paid around $100,000 a year. The loss of 5 acres of crop space may see something in the order of $5000 in lost revenue from the growing space.

      The farmer comes out $95,000 a year ahead - that just might keep their farm operating when otherwise economics might say they couldn't. Also, note that for every MWh of power generated by a wind turbine, that's typically 1220 pounds of CO2 emissions avoided from traditional power generating plants (coal, gas, oil, etc.) - a 600Mw farm running at 25% capacity for a 20 year life span generates 26,280 GWh of power - potentially keeping 16 million tons of CO2 out of the environment.

    21. Re:How is that sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every Chinese-manufactured installation comes equipped with a remotely activated kill-switch. Then they just throw the switch when there is an international dispute.

    22. Re:How is that sustainable? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Funny

      WHOOOOOOSH!

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    23. Re:How is that sustainable? by Beer_Smurf · · Score: 2, Funny

      You really don't want a large wind turbine on your block.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nSB1SdVHqQ

    24. Re:How is that sustainable? by jgtg32a · · Score: 2, Funny

      Downtown Dallas it is

    25. Re:How is that sustainable? by Sandbags · · Score: 4, Informative

      Of a typical wind deployment, over 90% of the land is usable for farming, and 75% for housing, however, these things are usually placed where housing is unwanted as wind turbines to create some noise polition and are an eyesore. The Texas site chosen is virtually unpopulated. (and few expect it to ever be given the climate and terrain and high wind). Other sites like down mountainsides are basically considdered useless for anything else as you can't live there and can't farm therte, and they make ideal wind farms.

      In contracts; the Savana River nuclear site, for example, is a 198,000 acre site, of which 24,000 acres is used for the nuclear plant and secured from the public. another 18,900 acres is set aside for ecological study of the effect of the nuclear faciltiy. This facility is closed, and not generating power, but at its peak didn't make over 1.5GW.

      The Hartsville SC plant (robinson), is a 5,000 acre site generating about 715MW at peak, but that includes nearly 200MW of non-nuclear power sources used as backups. The reactor peak output is barely above 500, and rareley above half that. Their "primary" unit is actually a coal fire plant.

      This of course does not include the massive land necessary for the creation and storage of nuclear fuel, nor its waste...

      nuclear power is also about 5 times the cost per GW, so it's more land, more expensive, more dangerous, and more politically charged (go on, TRY to get a permit for a new nuclear plant...)

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    26. Re:How is that sustainable? by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      The land between the turbines can be used for other things like farming. They're spread over 36K acres, not occupying all of it.

      --
      This is blinging
    27. Re:How is that sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok so lets dig up existing neighborhoods and put a turbine on every block. I'm sure that won't be a hassle for the local residents and it certainly won't kill every bird in the area.

      You're doing it wrong. If you've already got an unworkable city model then, rather than distress the local residents, just forget that it ever existed and move on. I mean if you're not paying attention to them, they may as well not exist, right? Just chalk it up as a learning experience, click 'New', and move on with life.

    28. Re:How is that sustainable? by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but that needed a much deserved ROFLMAO, both for the parent, and the Whooosh ;)

    29. Re:How is that sustainable? by StormyWeather · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I live in west Texas, and I would have been one of the first posters here on my phone if I hadn't been about to get a root canal. Yes it sucked, but that's beside the point.

      WHY DON'T WE GET SOME DAMN POWER LINES FIRST!!!! I am so sick of driving around seeing all these turbines just sitting there idle on windy days because we don't have the transmission lines to get the energy out of here. Amarillo is like the third windiest city in the united states (and no Chicago isn't above us). Funny thing is informed people here know that wind power isn't our cure all, it's just a political football, and we it at the moment.

      1. We don't have transmission lines
      2. Even here we have calm days
      3. T Boone is like the most despised person in West Texas. There are what I think to be a lot of conspiracy theories about him here about him trying to steal all of our water, and using wind power as a conduit to do that. There is some anecdotal evidence to support the conspiracy theories, so it's hard to say that they are 100 percent false. What I do believe to be true is that he wants wind power to be huge because he could sell a crap ton of natural gas to generate electricity when the wind isn't blowing.

    30. Re:How is that sustainable? by dasunt · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Same thing the U.S. gained when it rebuilt Europe - a place to sell goods. In this case it's Chinese turbines so they get jobs, and we get poorer.

      Repeat after me:

      There is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world.

      China getting richer doesn't automatically mean that the US gets poorer.

    31. Re:How is that sustainable? by LifesABeach · · Score: 2, Interesting

      By American Businesses buying finished, and partially assembled products from anywhere outside of America really, really does nothing for the average American. It also points out the contempt that investors have for contributing back to the community that they have benefited from. As much as I disagree about the allowed undermining of America's Infrastructure, Nuclear Power Plants also make an abundant supply of Radio Active Waste; that's a bad thing. But consider another question, what would happen if one were to place a large scale Automated Electronics Factory by this new power source? What is the economic impact of electronic products made without humans? What if the waste material generated by this 100% automated factory was "composted" so that future products yet to be created could already take advantage of now readily accessible mined raw materials, ready to go? And if the current factory did not have enough capacity, then an additional adjoining 100% automated factory would be constructed? Is there a Airport, Freeway, and Rail Line close by this proposed location?

    32. Re:How is that sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They got this stuff called farmland. I hear you grow things on it.

    33. Re:How is that sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're getting windmills and they're supplying the materials and doing the work. How does that make US poorer?

    34. Re:How is that sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing the U.S. gained when it rebuilt Europe - a place to sell goods. In this case it's Chinese turbines so they get jobs, and we get poorer.

      Except Europe didn't get poorer. Rather the opposite, in fact.

      If that's your analogy the U.S. has little to be afraid of.

    35. Re:How is that sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just make sure you turn disasters off

    36. Re:How is that sustainable? by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      and they do so 24-7 for an 18 month fuel cycle.

      What does "an 18 month fuel cycle" mean when you're talking about wind turbines?

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    37. Re:How is that sustainable? by gnick · · Score: 1

      A wind farm as described might put out a few hundred megawatts for parts of the day. Actual power plants have to be ready to compensate when the wind dies down.

      We're talking about the Chinese - That's just the way it is. The power's great while you're using it. But then, just a couple of hours later, you find yourself wanting to go back for more...

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    38. Re:How is that sustainable? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      In this case it's Chinese turbines so they get jobs, and we get poorer.

      My industry sells a lot of product to the rapidly expanding Chinese middle-class consumers, so maybe it is just you who gets poorer?

    39. Re:How is that sustainable? by mwalleisa · · Score: 1

      Boy do we need a better solution. Let's have some fun with numbers...

      36,000 acres = 56.25 square miles (640 acres = 1 square mile)
      US population ~ 307,000,000 (http://www.census.gov/)
      Average US household size = 2.61 (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts)
      Number of turbines (@ 2.5MW / turbine) to power all US homes (just homes; no businesses at all) = ~188,200
      Land area to power all US homes = ~44,100 square miles
      Land area of the state of Pennsylvania (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42000.html) = 44,816.61

      Unfortunately, I couldn't quickly find good data breakdowns on power consumption for residential vs. business. The DOE website has a lot of data and analysis but I'm not sure they even have such a breakdown.

      --
      If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, what does your empty desk signify?
    40. Re:How is that sustainable? by Deluge · · Score: 1

      Oh please, noise pollution and an eyesore? You sound like those rich guys who don't want an offshore windfarm spoiling the ocean view from their villas. Even in relatively high winds, all you hear standing outside, maybe 15m from the base of the tower, is a light swish as the blades pass by. Not a sound that should bother anyone inside their house.

      As for the eyesore aspect, that's purely subjective. I personally find wind turbines (especially the newer ones, with the long blades and slick-shaped nacelles) to be quite graceful and relaxing to watch.

    41. Re:How is that sustainable? by commodore64_love · · Score: 0

      >>>There is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world.

      Technically there is. The Earth is a fixed size, and no bigger. That is all the wealth that is available to mankind at this point-in-time.

      And also since most people measure their wealth by how much paper they hold, which decreases in value, it's worthwhile to always be looking for ways to ameliorate that process, rather than encourage it. When my grandfather was a teenager in the 1920s, he could buy a good-quality wool suit for $5. Today it costs $400-500. Has the suit changed? No not really; wool is wool. What has changed is the devaluation of the paper dollar to about 1/100th its value when my grandpa was a young man.

      Just since Bush created the bailout bill, the dollar has already lost ~10 cents. We borrow from China, we print more paper on our presses, and that paper loses value. If you had $100,000 in 2008 it's only worth about $90,000 in real value today.

      Yay?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    42. Re:How is that sustainable? by maxume · · Score: 1

      The numbers are sort of available here:

      http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table5.html

      (There might be a better page available here, I didn't look much:

      http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html

      )

      Anyway, backing out the averages (for the U.S. as a whole) for residential, commercial and industrial, average monthly usage is (about) 116 billion kilowatt hours for residential, 111 billion kilowatt hours for commercial, and 85 billion kilowatt hours for industrial.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    43. Re:How is that sustainable? by dasunt · · Score: 1

      Technically there is. The Earth is a fixed size, and no bigger. That is all the wealth that is available to mankind at this point-in-time.

      As far as I can tell, wealth is some mix of matter or energy.

      How much you can have, how much you can do.

      So while in theory, there is only so much wealth in the world, in practice, we are only harnessing a minute fraction of the available matter and energy.

    44. Re:How is that sustainable? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, 36K acres to power 150K homes? Doesn't a nice nuclear plant only need 100 acres or so to provide power that same number?

      Yes but there's a big difference in how those acres are occupied. One is sparsely occupied by the windmill towers, the other is a field of impermeable ground cover.

      Just saying. More nuke plants too please.

      One was 100 acres of farmland, amd the other was 36K of farmland. Now it's Chinese vegetables for dinner.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    45. Re:How is that sustainable? by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I think one of the larger questions should be, why the fuck aren't we manufacturing these things in the US??

      I thought a lot of this push by the Obama administration et al was to put US citizen to work and boost OUR economy, not China...why is our government not pushing for all aspects of the alternative energy initiatives they are promoting to be done in the US? Where are the tax credits and incentives to US companies (established and especially startups) for developing and manufacturing in the US and employing US citizens? During the election campaigns, I recall hearing that the move to clean/green energy sources wasn't JUST for the health of the environment, but also for generating new jobs and industries for the US.

      I know China technically owns a lot of the US at this time, but, c'mon no one has been annexed yet, and this is not helping US citizens as much as home grown/developed/manufactured solutions would be...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    46. Re:How is that sustainable? by ArhcAngel · · Score: 4, Informative

      WHY DON'T WE GET SOME DAMN POWER LINES FIRST!!!!

      Very good question. It's so good ERCOT asked it themselves and the first fruits of that discussion have already started coming on line. The problem is construction of those new lines will take time and the growth spurt of West Texas Wind the last few years has overwhelmed the existing grid.

      Disclaimer: I work for Nextera Energy Resources (formerly FPL Energy)

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    47. Re:How is that sustainable? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "...Nuclear Power Plants also make an abundant supply of Radio Active Waste..."

      Well, if we'd just change our laws/policies/regulations and start allowing reprocessing of our spent nuke fuel we could use it much more efficiently, and in the end, there would be MUCH less waste and it also would not be nearly so toxic. I think France does this will all their nuclear facilities?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    48. Re:How is that sustainable? by M8e · · Score: 4, Funny

      They are ferocious giants!!!
      Sancho! Give me my lance!

    49. Re:How is that sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think one of the larger questions should be, why the fuck aren't we manufacturing these things in the US??

      General Electric has multiple wind turbine plants across the country. Without this Chinese company, Texas would have to wait in line for its turbines.

    50. Re:How is that sustainable? by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      He was making a reference to SimCity incase you didn't catch it.

    51. Re:How is that sustainable? by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      why?

      Because morons of the world think that promoting your domestic economy is "protectionism"

    52. Re:How is that sustainable? by stupkid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which part of $1.5B isn't beneficial? Their banks collect interest and their manufacturers make sales.

      Meanwhile, 36K acres to power 150K homes? Doesn't a nice nuclear plant only need 100 acres or so to provide power that same number?

      In you nuclear plant scenario are they mining and refining the necessary materials to power that plant on that 100 acres as well? What about the coolant?

    53. Re:How is that sustainable? by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Because manufacturing is "low-value" stuff, and we are too good for that. Or some bullshit like that.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    54. Re:How is that sustainable? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Uh, at the time there wasn't the same level of world trade as there is now and the U.S. didn't rebuild Europe for a market. The U.S. *helped* to rebuild Europe because (a) we felt sorry for the little buggers (hell, we still do), and (b) we didn't wish to turn it over to another dictator, Stalin, and have to go back in and do what we *helped* do to Hitler.

    55. Re:How is that sustainable? by Sandbags · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not complaining about it, but it is a common complaint.

      but, have you stood next to a wind tower? That swoosh is not exactly slight... it can be heard clearly at as far as a mile, and that's not to count the electric whine and grind of the incredibly high torque generator 150 feet off the ground in the core of the windmill. The blades can generate 75dB or more in typical wind. Standing directly UNDER the windmill is actually the quitest place, due to acoustics, and wind farms will aften take people to those spots to say "you can hardly hear it" but then they build them 1/4 mile away and I'm told over time the noise becomes like a hiss from an old monitor that can't be ignored...

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    56. Re:How is that sustainable? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Well, and the huge wind turbines are a good distance from each other. It would be entirely feasible to grow crops under them.

    57. Re:How is that sustainable? by Anonymous+Struct · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because we're idiots. Energy production is the next real economic driver, and whoever can produce it will become the next oil-rich nation. The US needs to focus on how to solve its own energy needs and how to sell energy to the rest of the world, which is only going to become more and more hungry for it. Moreover, it needs a geographically unique solution to energy production in order to compete, because technology, information, and talent are geographically independent in the 21st century. We have a lot of land, so solar and wind seem like something we can do that a lot of other people can't. Whatever we end up doing, if the US doesn't start producing something of value soon, it will quickly become the most irrelevant first-world nation on the planet (at least while it remains first-world). This absurd idea that we can sell our amazing business and financial management services to the rest of the world forever is going to kill us just as soon they realize that we aren't especially good at it.

    58. Re:How is that sustainable? by joggle · · Score: 5, Informative

      This article really explains it: http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_13655311

      The largest wind turbine manufacturer in the world, Vestas, has just built a plant in Colorado and is building a second. However, due to the credit crisis they are having a harder time selling turbines worldwide since its difficult for customers to get financing.

      The reason the project in Texas is going forward is because one of the few countries in the world that is still in a good position to finance, China, is willing to do so with the obvious catch that he must use Chinese turbines.

      I think once the credit market improves US-built turbines will be more attractive for other projects. The reason Vestas is building the two plants in Colorado is because there are many skilled laborers there that cost less to employ than similar ones in Europe (a Vestas plant over there was closed due to the creation of the new plants in Colorado).

      To Pickens' credit, he tried hard for years to get financing for this project, but if he was to get this thing going while he was still alive this was probably the only way for him to proceed. I think it's still a smart move and hopefully will lead to similar projects in other states. If his project succeeds it should make it easier for other companies to get domestic financing so won't be forced to purchase Chinese turbines in the future.

    59. Re:How is that sustainable? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's another vector for them to suck American dollars into their vaults.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    60. Re:How is that sustainable? by the_macman · · Score: 1

      WHOOOOOOSH!

      Aw man! I'm so dumb!!! In 10 years of reading /. I never thought I'd be on the receiving end of a woosh. "I'm not one of those ultra nerds that doesn't get humor". I guess I can be.

      In hindsight I can't believe I took the time to write an entire comment, edit it, and post it without realizing the sarcasm.

      Yea that sonic boom you heard was the joke going over my head. :(

    61. Re:How is that sustainable? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Becasue no American compnay will step up. Even when it appear someone does, it turns out it's just a grab for water rights.

      Cuold you imagine if the Obama administration said they wanted to build factories in the US?

      OMG SOCIALST! Dems want DEATH BLADES for the elderly! and so on.

      Fucking pundits should be force to successfully and logically debate there points before allowed on air.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    62. Re:How is that sustainable? by the_macman · · Score: 1

      I see now. I stopped reading after the first line. I didn't read the stuff about waterfalls, fusion, 50 years etc. Funny, man. :D

    63. Re:How is that sustainable? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Sadly, the government could back loans and get them made here; but it would be socialist. If there is one thing pubs hate, it's government baked programs...although I notice the cash there government checks every month.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    64. Re:How is that sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've wondered about other methods than transmission lines. For long distances, I wonder if there is a way to pull CO2 from the air in an energy intensive way and make alcohol which is then sent via pipeline to a generation plant that is nearer where the power is used. Yes, this wastes a lot of energy, but if the wind farm is far enough away, the electricity lost via transmission lines might use as much energy, if not more, than pulling CO2 from the air and turning it into an alcohol for transport via a pipeline.

    65. Re:How is that sustainable? by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, it's pretty mucvh shown that's what he did. Used wind power to get the legislation to give him power of some land, create a government group for said area staffed with his employees. voted himself the water then stopped the whole wind turbine thing.

      The Texas legislature should revoke and take ti all back.

      All that land should be used for Industrial Solar thermal anyways, it's far more reliable and easier to maintain.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    66. Re:How is that sustainable? by geekoid · · Score: 1
      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    67. Re:How is that sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Umm, we are. GE is the #2 manufactuer of wind turbines in the world. Procuring those suckers isn't the easiest thing to do, though. And the quantities Mr. Pickens wants requires a lead time far longer than he likely wanted to wait.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wind_turbine_manufacturers

    68. Re:How is that sustainable? by stbill79 · · Score: 1

      This absurd idea that we can sell our amazing business and financial management services to the rest of the world forever is going to kill us just as soon they realize that we aren't especially good at it.

      The rest of the world did realize exactly this last year, when all their AAA rated bonds became worthless. The Fed was able to smooth things over by paying them back with a huge amount of tax payer money (to be realized as soon as their books, which they're fighting tooth and nail to keep closed, are finally opened). Or did you think there was another reason the US dollar has been heading straight down the last few months and foreign investors are tapering off their purchases of US assets.

    69. Re:How is that sustainable? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      The remaining 35,880 acres will still be prime viable agricultural space.

      Unless T. Boone uses the power - electric and political - to pump the water away, turning it into a desert. Other than that I agree completely.

      I think we need a decision that water rights to use water in the area where the water is obtained do not include water rights to pump the water out of the watershed. B-)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    70. Re:How is that sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think thats bad, try living next to a Llama farm.

    71. Re:How is that sustainable? by Syntroxis · · Score: 1
      I have read several reliable sources that when T-Bone sought leases to place his wind turbines, buried in the agreement was a clause that granted him all surface and subsurface water rights and all mineral rights which weren't already under contract. He's now facing a pretty good sized class action suit against him. This is one of the reasons he dumped all of the turbines he was going to put up.

      Oh yea, also the lack of any planning for an infrastructure to distribute the power generated by the wind farm.

      I think all this talk is just that - talk. We could make the turbines here with $20.00+ labor, or in China with $2.50/day labor. Hell, even Harley Davidson, the stalwart of "Built in 'Merica", is moving it's manufacturing to China.

      We ain't gonna win. We're owned by the WTO and don't even know it.

      --
      Wherever you go, there you are.
    72. Re:How is that sustainable? by unknownroad · · Score: 1

      I think there's a missing word or two there. The comparison is almost certainly being made about nuclear plants, hence the mention of a fuel cycle.

    73. Re:How is that sustainable? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      One was 100 acres of farmland, amd the other was 36K of farmland. Now it's Chinese vegetables for dinner.

      Uh-huh, and now one cannot possibly be used for farmland, while the other can. Miss the point much?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    74. Re:How is that sustainable? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      The wind never blows anywhere constantly, but the point of connecting the grid is that the wind is always blowing somewhere. Build enough wind turbines to supply 20% of the nations power, hook in solar for another 10-20%, hydro for 5-10% and fill in the rest with Nuclear (and maybe someday Geothermal for 10-20% or so) and we eliminate carbon output from power generation and with the lines to move the power about if the wind isn't blowing in west texas it might be blowing in california or the midwest or in the rockies. The beauty of wind power is the US is large enough that we don't ever have to worry about the wind not blowing everywhere as it would require a high pressure over the entire nation which has never happened and I don't believe it's possible because of the sheer size of the atmosphere that would have to be stagnant and free of moisture.

    75. Re:How is that sustainable? by Diagoras · · Score: 1

      Isn't that an economic fallacy?

      My knowledge of the dismal science is sketchy at best, but I'm pretty sure the imports = good, exports = bad idea that was pushed by mercantilism was roundly trashed and replaced with the modern view that trade is good.

      This'd be a good time for an economist to jump in, by the way.

      --
      I value politeness. If you extend it to me, I'll extend it to you.
    76. Re:How is that sustainable? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      (go on, TRY to get a permit for a new nuclear plant...)

      Over 30 new permits have been issued by the DOE in the last 3 years, this doesn't include the 60 or so permits that were issued in the 80's that were never built that have notified the DOE of intent to pursue construction. This means we could have over 100 new nuclear plants come online before the end of the next decade (2020) with the permits issued to date. The DOE has said they have had heavy interest from the nuclear industry because the current cost per KW in the US is profitable for nuclear without subsidy.

    77. Re:How is that sustainable? by TFloore · · Score: 1

      To Pickens' credit, he tried hard for years to get financing for this project

      The T. Boone Pickens Plan had one little-advertised caveat that most people never heard of, and which is what was really responsible for killing the deal.

      Pickens wanted the government to impose a Right-Of-Way for his company to provide "utility services" to the major cities in Texas. Selling wind power was a oh-by-the-way to putting some great big huge wells and pumps on the Texas Aquifer, great big water pipes next to the electricity transmission lines, and selling water to the major cities. He would have made boatloads of money from that.

      The utility right of way was not agreed to, so Pickens lost his chance to sell water, the thing he was really interested in, and the deal was dropped.

      Now, the big cities still have water source problems, so Pickens will probably get what he wants, he'll just have to make a few more campaign contributions first.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
    78. Re:How is that sustainable? by shentino · · Score: 1

      I wish I knew which version of SimCity you were referencing here...

    79. Re:How is that sustainable? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "My knowledge of the dismal science is sketchy at best, but I'm pretty sure the imports = good, exports = bad idea that was pushed by mercantilism was roundly trashed and replaced with the modern view that trade is good."

      I'm thinking more from the point of view of the problem we have with unemployment here currently in the US, shouldn't we (and the current administration) do most everything in their power to encourage businesses IN the US to open and employ US citizen here at this time?

      Cheap goods don't do you much good if your people have no jobs to earn money to consume....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    80. Re:How is that sustainable? by Diagoras · · Score: 1

      As I recall, the price of the goods dropping will make it easier for poor people to get the goods, therefore increasing relative wealth, and will create more jobs in the end.

      Starting trade wars with other nations by requiring that jobs stay in the US, while probably satisfying populist sentiment, is probably a bad idea.

      --
      I value politeness. If you extend it to me, I'll extend it to you.
    81. Re:How is that sustainable? by spectrokid · · Score: 1

      that's the sound of the windmill wing going over your head...

      --

      10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    82. Re:How is that sustainable? by mwalleisa · · Score: 1

      Thanks maxume, that helped a lot.

      If I have my math right, we would need a wind farm of around 118,600 square miles, or almost as large as the state of New Mexico (121,355.53 square miles) for everything. I suppose we could split it up across (for example) Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to leave ourselves a little room for growth (141,212.81 square miles total), but that would displace about 12,000,000 people - at least NM only has around 2,000,000 people. Think anybody would mind moving? Sheesh.

      Digging a little deeper on the DOE site, I found that numbers for transportation are also there but it's a small percentage (about 2% of total documented consumption). That got me wondering - I don't see numbers for consumption by federal, state, and local governments. Granted, your average government building (think courthouse) probably isn't that bad, I wonder how prisons, military bases, and the high-power-drain facilities for numerous 3-letter agencies (C!A, N$A, etc.) factor in? If I had to guess I'd say it's less than industrial, but I'm still curious. Maybe we should set aside the West Virginia Wind Farm Co-operative too, just to be safe.

      Just in case anybody missed the point of all this, let me be clear: wind power is not the answer. It's a (relatively) environmentally-friendly augmentation in combination with other sources, but that's it.

      --
      If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, what does your empty desk signify?
    83. Re:How is that sustainable? by maxume · · Score: 1

      I would guess that government buildings largely show up under commercial (but that is just guessing on my part).

      And really, while I don't think wind power is any sort of whole answer, comparing the amount of land that would have to be set aside to build a single contiguous windfarm to the areas available inside arbitrary political boundaries is fun, but with 2.9 million square miles of land available in the (continental) United States, and the potential for mixed use (much of the area 'used' by a wind tower is the space required to make sure that they don't interfere with each other, if you only have a couple of towers up they don't take up much space), it isn't very useful.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    84. Re:How is that sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing the U.S. gained when it rebuilt Europe - a place to sell goods. In this case it's Chinese turbines so they get jobs, and we get poorer.

      So what you're saying is that in 50 years, while the US's GDP will be surpassed by China, the US will have affordable healthcare and have 6 weeks of paid annual leave per year and have the highest GDP per capita in the world. Sounds horrible.

    85. Re:How is that sustainable? by N-S+Equations · · Score: 1

      I do work for Vestas in the UK, you are exactly right. Blade building is currently very labour intensive, I've actually worked on the shop floor for a week. There were protests at the Vestas factory on the Isle of Wight when it was closed down, even though it clearly didn't make economic sense to builds the blades in the UK with high labour costs while almost all the blades (for V82 1.6MW turbines) are sold to the USA and China. So Vestas decided to build new factories in the US and China instead.

      The bigger question is, why is Vestas, a Danish Company, the biggest wind turbine producer in the world with ~25-30% market share? How come countries like the USA, Germany who gave billions to Boeing, Siemens, GE and the like for wind turbine research and had nothing to show for it, and everyone ended up using the iconic three bladed "Danish" design?

      The answer boils down to having smart people in the government, avoiding overly ambitious expensive projects that often ended in failure, having a long turn vision in providing continued support in good times and bad times.

      --
      The universe is simple, it's the explanation that is complicated.
    86. Re:How is that sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      porntipsguzzardo
      ardo
      ardo
      ardo

      Yes! Now I can put up orbital microwave and build a moat and plenty of fire stations around the receiving station

    87. Re:How is that sustainable? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Well, a 1,000 acres or more is preferable for all the support buildings and security reasons, but yes, the 'power block' can be under 100 acres.

      Have you factored in the existing land use from the Chernobyl accident? 2640 Square kilometres of farmland (652358 acres), 1900 sqkm of forest (469500 acres). What about land use from mining, enrichment, test facilities etc? To be fair that existing land use should also be included. Those sites would be ideal areas for locating wind arrays - if you could find a way to not disturb the radio-active isotopes that settled after the accident.

      Anyway, The total maximum capacity of these turbines is 600 megawatts. Modern (ie, built in the last 30 years or in progress) put out double this amount, and they do so 24-7 for an 18 month fuel cycle.

      The technology development cycle for nuclear power plants from design to implementation take decades and can only be implemented at build time because it is not cost effective to retro-fit. Where-as the technology development cycle for wind installations is measured in months and is cost effective to retrofit.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    88. Re:How is that sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the bombs are just enjoying a soft landing lately.

      it's just the opium war in reverse, quit tokin on that pipe.

    89. Re:How is that sustainable? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Not saying to require it to be in the US...but encouraging it a LOT. Why not give huge tax breaks and incentives to have the work done in the US employing US citizens?

      That's not doing anything wrong...nothing more than other countries do...don't subsidize it...but encourage more businesses to do their thing HERE rather than another country...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    90. Re:How is that sustainable? by Veetox · · Score: 1

      No, what it actually needs is two $20,000 loans, both repaid before you even break ground.

    91. Re:How is that sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Playing SimCity again, I see.

    92. Re:How is that sustainable? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Obama's first job out of college was for kissinger.

      Kissinger is a CFR stooge.

      CFR was setup and paid for by the Rockefeller family.

      Rockefeller considers China the model society.

      The rest will be history.

      Learn Spanish, Mandarin, or Arabic, the rest is about to be a wash.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

      Yes, I seen snopes saying this is not 100% true, but most of it is true
      and if you ask a European, particularly the late Theo Van Gogh he'd agree.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    93. Re:How is that sustainable? by bigpat · · Score: 1

      You use the worst possible examples to shore up your faulty arguments.

      Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, which is one of the latest plants to be built in the US (completed in 1986), has a capacity of 1,244MW and sits on 900 acres much of which is just a buffer area that is left in a mostly natural state.

      So comparing apples to apples, this wind farm uses 80 times more land area per megawatt. And if you are going to be dragging in mining into the equation, then you had better account for all the materials and energy required to manufacture those wind turbines. Not to mention the land area of the new power grid that it will take to transmit all this power from far off places. When you add it all up, a full roll out of wind and solar in the US would take up an area the size of Arizona and still wouldn't give you enough power on a cloudy or windless day.

      Heck can you even run an industrial economy on wind power? How many wind turbines would it take to power the manufacture of a single turbine? All this talk of how many homes you can power, without considering manufacturing and business. Is the expectation that we are just going to keep outsourcing our industrial production to China where they will continue to use cheap coal power? The Chinese have done the math on this, have we? The last major foray into renewable energy in the US was with hydro-electric power and now many environmental groups want to see many rivers undammed to allow the ecosystem to recover. Do we really want to see our entire landscape covered with wind farms and transmission lines? What is the environmental impact of that?

      Nuclear is a proven safe reliable technology that has the least environmental impact of any other technology including wind and solar.

      I do, by the way, believe that wind and solar do have a place, but it is only going to get us about 5-10% of the way there.

      It is a simple choice either Global Warming is a threat and we need to triple our nuclear capacity in the next 20 years or Global Warming isn't going to be so bad and we can play around with a little solar and wind power to assuage some political groups.

    94. Re:How is that sustainable? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Okay.

      ALSO most people measure their wealth by how much paper they hold. When my grandfather was a teenager in the 1920s, he could buy a good-quality wool suit for 5 piece of paper (dollars). Today it costs 400-500 piece of paper. The paper dollar is about 1/100th its value when my grandpa was a young man. Even just since Bush created the bailout bill, the dollar has already lost ~10 cents of real value.

      We borrow from China for projects like these, we print more paper on our presses to offload that debt, and that paper dollar loses value. China gets richer and we get poorer.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    95. Re:How is that sustainable? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      I think one of the larger questions should be, why the fuck aren't we manufacturing these things in the US??

      Globalisation. When you export the jobs to China you import their unemployment. Because you don't export the working conditions and laws for workers built up through decades of union activities they will work for a bowl of rice. American workers will not work for a bowl of rice, and why should they? So how do they compete with that?

      Strong union presence helped balance the financial impetus that created a strong manufacturing sector in the US keeping US manufacturing in the US, keeping that money in the American economy. What do you think that one day the owners of the factories who used child labor in US factories one day just woke up and said "forget about our profits - using child labor is bad"?...hahahaha. Do you think they mind using child labor in the countries who you are trying to compete with?

      Except the joke is on every western country and it's a race to the bottom because few people value the rights that are taken for granted in many western countries. That's the cost of apathy. For some reason people think Unions are a left wing commie type thing, if that's the case why aren't the Chinese unions protecting communist Chinese workers?

      You don't value the freedoms won for you and Americans are so easily deceived by their own out of what they fought so hard for. Your enemy is within. Capitalism, like Communism has always been the enemy of Democracy. But because all 300 million of you think your gonna be the next tycoon you're all happy to maintain scope for everyone to be exploited while the rest of the world looks on with dis-belief kinda half laughing because we all realise that it's happening to us to.

      You got your wish to spread capitalism around the world, now it's become Corporatism and now it is devouring the democracy where it began.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    96. Re:How is that sustainable? by Deluge · · Score: 1

      I have stood next to a tower. A whole field of them, in fact. It was windy that day, I would say about 35-40km, so the wind noise itself was considerable. I could hear the light swish of the nearest (about 15m from the base) turbine, and that was all. No other irritating noise from the more distant turbines, nor any noise from the generators themselves.

      There's no reason why wind turbine designs can't differ drastically enough from mfgr to mfgr and from one generation to the next to account for the difference in our experiences.

      By the way, the place I was at was the northwestern tip of Prince Edward Island.

    97. Re:How is that sustainable? by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      Unions served their purpose a long time ago, but now merely exist to grab as much money as they can without giving a shit about the consequences as well as to pay exorbinant amounts to those running them.

      Yale has unionized cleaning staff, and while I worked in two different finished buildings there doing renovation work as a union carpenter, their staff would work for approximately 2 hours of their 8 hour day on a good day and spent the rest either sleeping or congregating where they knew a 'boss' wouldn't find them and just bullshitting for hours. It was the biggest joke I've ever seen.

      My union has our local's president driving an expensive sports car, the union cutting benefits and pushing up the age for retirement to get your full pension, whilst we had over 1400 members out of work across the 3 locals in the state.

      Unions for a long time now stopped being a good thing and are now just a money grabbing operation that exist to increase wages far higher than they SHOULD be, especially for people who don't deserve a job in the first place.

    98. Re:How is that sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is another in west Texas http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=martifer+hirschfeld&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

    99. Re:How is that sustainable? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Unions served their purpose a long time ago, but now merely exist to grab as much money as they can without giving a shit about the consequences as well as to pay exorbinant amounts to those running them.

      How is that any different from political parties, corporations or any other entity with lots of people and lots of money? Corruption exists in every organisation that it can exist. It's not right, it's just how it is. Kind of reminds me of how the Soviet Union was before it collapsed. I hope that doesn't happen to America, but the nice America is gone - now it's the America that shits on it's own people (at least from an outsiders perspective). People died for your rights and now corporatism has got America running right into the arms of fascism whilst waving the flag. Somewhere the pursuit of happiness turned into the pursuit of extreme wealth, now the spirit of your nation is in tears.

      Unions for a long time now stopped being a good thing and are now just a money grabbing operation that exist to increase wages far higher than they SHOULD be, especially for people who don't deserve a job in the first place.

      Well thats really a shame for America because functioning unions are a healthy expression of a functioning democracy and an effective counter balance to corporate power. Your First Amendment provides the right of the people to peaceably assemble as well as freedom of speech, press & religion so if you don't have adequate participation in those organisations to make them function effectively you can hardly be surprised when they don't.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    100. Re:How is that sustainable? by Diagoras · · Score: 1

      That lowers the efficiency of the whole system, meaning less gets done altogether. Quoting TV Tropes: "In truth, some countries have a relative productive advantage in some areas, while other countries have different relative productive advantages. Trade allows countries to specialize in whatever production they have an advantage in, thus producing more in total, and then trade with each other. This makes both countries better off. For example, perhaps Country A can produce 4 cans of butter, or 2 cans of butter and 1 carton of eggs, or 2 cartons of eggs. Country B can produce 4 cartons of eggs, or 2 cartons of eggs and 1 can of butter, or 2 cans of butter. With trade, they can produce at their advantages of 4 cans of butter in A and 4 cartons of eggs in B and then trade so they each have 2 cartons and 2 cans. Making them both better off than if they produced everything in their own country."

      --
      I value politeness. If you extend it to me, I'll extend it to you.
    101. Re:How is that sustainable? by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Same thing the U.S. gained when it rebuilt Europe - a place to sell goods. In this case it's Chinese turbines so they get jobs, and we get poorer.

      Repeat after me:

      There is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world.

      China getting richer doesn't automatically mean that the US gets poorer.

      Not necessarily, but us borrowing money from China to buy their wares means they're getting richer AND we're getting poorer unless we're using those borrowed funds to actually boost some sort of economically rewarding activity... which we're not. If the power from this wind farm is being used to build widgets that we're exporting to China or elsewhere, then sure, we're all getting richer.

      If this wind farm is simply going to power houses owned by the banks and built with tools manufactured in China, power electric cars built in China, and allow people to drive those electric cars to stores to buy goods made in China, then this whole system primarily benefits China. The real question is whether they've blindly embraced consumerism as we have or if they're just using it temporarily.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    102. Re:How is that sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for a nuclear servicing company.

      "massive land necessary for the creation and storage of nuclear fuel"

      This is just flat out not true. The amount of storage required for all nuclear waste within the United States could be reasonably moved into the size of a football field.

      Also, most nuclear fuel can be reused, but is not simply due to a treaty signed by Jimmy Carter.

      The plants you cited do not break down how their land is actually used. A lot of nuclear plants set aside land for wildlife refuges, as well as other completely non-nuclear purposes. For example, the Davis-Besse plant in Ohio generates 879 MW using just 221 acres, but has 733 acres for a wildlife refuge (totaling 954 acres).

      Add to that that wind turbines are known for being undependable, and I really cannot see the point in them. Nuclear is not a non-green power source. It is boiling or pressurizing water with a radioactive byproduct. The radioactivity can be safely stored behind a couple feet of concrete or lead, and it's contained. Inconvenient for naysayers that want to fear monger with "radioactivity," but true nonetheless.

      Also, for the Harstville SC plant, the coal plant is their first unit, not necessarily their primary unit. At 5,000 acres, it very well may be that the coal plant is actually the largest part of the plant.

  2. Confessions of an by tdyer · · Score: 1

    Economic Hit Man much?

    1. Re:Confessions of an by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The summary is wrong.

      It should say China is lending *another 1.5 billion on top of the 1400 billion they've already loaned us for bailouts - just like Mr. Potter did in It's A Wonderful Life. First loan the money, then raise the interest, then take over.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:Confessions of an by jayspec462 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wait a minute... You can arbitrarily raise the interest rate on Treasury Notes!? Woo hoo! I'm gonna buy a whole mess of 'em and raise the rate to 3,000%, compounded minutely! Suck it, Uncle Sam!

      --
      $comment =~ s/($verb)\s+($noun)/IN SOVIET RUSSIA, $2 $1s YOU!/g;
    3. Re:Confessions of an by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup - and the federal government, in its infinite wisdom, is subsidizing shipping more jobs to China.

    4. Re:Confessions of an by gnick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can't just arbitrarily change the rates but, if you're big enough, you can set yourself up so that your borrower is completely dependent on your line of credit to maintain their lifestyle. Then (assuming that your lifestyle isn't somehow mutually dependent on the lifestyle of the entity borrowing from you), you can stop loaning them $$ unless they agree to higher rates.

      If China wasn't still largely dependent on us being gluttons, they would probably like to cut us off altogether.

      This move, however, seems to be mutually beneficial. We get stronger through renewable power (although I'd still rather see nukes than wind) and they get $$ and a chance to sell hardware. Seems like a good move all the way around.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    5. Re:Confessions of an by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait a minute... You can arbitrarily raise the interest rate on Treasury Notes!?

      No but at the end of the loan period, when you will need to refinance, they can ('cause surely you won't have the dough to pay them back at the rate you are spending now)...

    6. Re:Confessions of an by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't just arbitrarily change the rates but, if you're big enough, you can set yourself up so that your borrower is completely dependent on your line of credit to maintain their lifestyle. Then (assuming that your lifestyle isn't somehow mutually dependent on the lifestyle of the entity borrowing from you), you can stop loaning them $$ unless they agree to higher rates.

      That's called "negotiation", and is exactly what the market is for.

    7. Re:Confessions of an by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      If China wasn't still largely dependent on us being gluttons, they would probably like to cut us off altogether.

      Don't worry... it's started to happen. 10 years ago it was estimated that 40% of China's manufacturing sector was destined for exort... now it's estimated to be between 10% and 20% due to the rise of the Chinese middle class.

      It won't be too long before China doesn't need the US export market.

      Fun times. This is why I'm taking Mandarin classes.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    8. Re:Confessions of an by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China doesn't lend "us" money. China holds "our" money. Regarding USD, China has 1-2e12 dollars That's 1-2 thousand billions or 1-2 trillion. China didn't lend us USD - US can only issue USD. What happened is US gave China their IOU notes (USD) for all things "Made in China" and China now holds them to buy stuff like oil. Oil is almost exclusively in USD allowing US to keep printing without devaluing the currency too much.

      Now regarding budgetary deficits (what you are talking about), that interest is set more by US gov't than China. The interest rate depends on number of things, but mostly on demand for US Treasury notes. China has been using their USD from their trade surplus to buy US Treasury notes. The reason is they can't really put them anywhere else in the near term. This has driven interest rates low.

      US doesn't go to China for money. China goes to US to buy treasuries.

      So, the end result is China's workers and its gov't has allowed US to print free $$$ without consequences. This seems to have lasted for a while and appears to continue at least into near future (a few years). Interest will only go up once China starts buying stuff with their USD (like commodities) instead of parking them in treasuries.

      Finally, the Fed doesn't even set the treasury interest rates. They only set the overnight lending rate. You know, the 1d loans from central bank to other lending institutions.

      Also, your mortgage rates are set mostly by the bond market, not the Fed rate or even your bank. The bank is just an intermediary between your mortgage and the bond market and they make money on that arbitrage and assume the risk of the mortgage backed by their own assets. That's why banks cannot "fail" per say, or all the investors with bonds lose their money. And who would those people be? The very people that own the houses in the first place, with retirement plants in mutual funds investing money back into bank's bonds.

      Conclusion: you are wrong too, regarding China, interest rates, and even the "bailout" :P

    9. Re:Confessions of an by jayspec462 · · Score: 1

      I was replying flippantly to my parent post, who seemed to envision China as a warped, frustrated old man determined to turn America into Pottersville. China just wants stability. They buy economic stability by manufacturing stuff for us, and buy currency stability (which facilitates the broader economic stability) with our government debt.

      Very smart people on both sides of the Pacific know we're in a death embrace. Sure, they could stop bidding on our debt, but they know that would tank our currency, cause the trillions of dollars worth of notes to dive rapidly towards worthlessness, and kill one of their most important export markets. However we get out of this, it's going to happen very, VERY S-L-O-W-L-Y. China's too big a player in currency markets to dump anything without ruinous consequences for all parties.

      --
      $comment =~ s/($verb)\s+($noun)/IN SOVIET RUSSIA, $2 $1s YOU!/g;
    10. Re:Confessions of an by geekoid · · Score: 1

      There is an old saying:

      You lend a man 1000 dollars, you own him. You lend a man 1 million dollars, he owns you.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Confessions of an by TheLink · · Score: 1

      That saying doesn't apply if the loans are in US dollars (which is likely, if the US side has any clue).

      1) Because unlike the man you lend 1 million dollars to, the US Gov can "print" US dollars (as in legally create them). If direct "printing" is a bit too crude and unbecoming, the US Gov could ask the US Federal Reserve to lend it money (with some cushy terms of course). BTW go google for Federal Reserve trillions (and youtube search too).

      2) The US Gov can "print" money (within reason) without turning into a Zimbabwe because many countries in the world hold billions (or trillions) of US dollars that they need to buy oil, grain, CPUs. In Zimbabwe when Mugabe prints money, the Zimbawe citizens become poorer, and the rest of the world just laughs. Inflation is just another way for Mugabe to tax his own people. Whereas when the US Gov prints money, the US Gov doesn't just tax its own citizens it taxes the rest of the world! If the US Gov hands enough of the printed money to the US citizens, they aren't too screwed (they'd be like Mugabe's cronies in Zimbabwe).

      So see the trillions of dollars the USA owes China in that light.

      And realize how ignorant so many people are when they say "Oh no, we owe China trillions, we're in deep shit, and it's all because of their evil currency manipulation" or keep talking about how good things would be if the US went back to the gold standard.

      Then also realize why Iran selling oil in Euro (and creating this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse ) is bad for the USA. BTW Iraq also sold oil in Euro shortly before it got "regime changed" (then naturally it went back to selling oil in USD).

      The USA needs everyone to use its "tokens" to buy and sell stuff.

      Yes the USA got crappy Chinese goods in return for those "tokens", but hey the Chinese might have got crappy tokens too ;).

      And that's why US Gov officials soon shut up about China's currency manipulation. It's a bit like Mutually Assured Financial Destruction. It's in both parties interest to keep the show going and the balls in the air as long as possible.

      --
  3. Quit RAGGING on the Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are people too !!

  4. *HUGH* Pickens? by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh, T. Boone. You really need a better pseudonym.

    1. Re:*HUGH* Pickens? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      I suggest "Slim" Pickens.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:*HUGH* Pickens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on how thin he is.

    3. Re:*HUGH* Pickens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are quality wind powered turbines already made in America.
        This scum pickens wants to reap his rewards.
      Who do you think the BUSH administration changed the laws for.
        Eminent Domain was used by pickens to steal large tracts of someone else's farmland.

        The American made wind turbines were too expensive for this scum.

    4. Re:*HUGH* Pickens? by triathlon4life · · Score: 1

      Or why not buy Turbines that are going to last 30 years from Danish companies! Why do people ride in like they are doing all good, but bring the worst ideas. 600MW Turbines from China? Give me break. And the 600MW means nothing of how much electricity the turbine will produce over the year. That number could be very misleading, and is probably some crappy marketing tactic. Since it is from China my suspicions are extremely high. Seriously; how did all the F'ing idiots get all the money and get in charge?

    5. Re:*HUGH* Pickens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when does your messiah Obama plan to give those "stolen" tracts of land back? What's that you say? Never? Face it, this isn't a Republican/Democrat issue. What the hell do you think Waxman-Markey is? Just another massive wealth transfer from the middle class to the upper class - including foreign upper-class. I guarantee you Obama supports this 100%. Trade with the Chinese is FAR more important to him than things like Tibetan human rights, domestic energy security, individual liberty, etc. And why the hell not? He already got his piece of the pie, so screw everyone else.

    6. Re:*HUGH* Pickens? by Jon_S · · Score: 1

      "And the 600MW means nothing of how much electricity the turbine will produce over the year."

      Of course it means nothing over a year, since MW is a rate unit, i.e. a unit of energy per time.

      To be fair, I believe what you were trying to say is that it will not always be producing electricity at a rate of 600MW. To find out what the true average rate, you assume the wind speeds follow a weibull distribution, and you integrate over time assuming that distribution.

      On line calculator: http://www.reuk.co.uk/Calculate-kWh-Generated-by-Wind-Turbine.htm

    7. Re:*HUGH* Pickens? by triathlon4life · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the clarification; that is more along what I meant. 600MW does mean something in the total output over X time.

  5. China is taking the lead by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What with all the rest of the cheap Chinese shit we Americans buy every day, what's the big deal with buying some more cheap shit to generate our electricity?

    Hey, cheaper turbines making cheap electricity. We're preserving the American Way of Life.

    1. Re:China is taking the lead by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a difference between buying cheap Chinese shit at the dime store and buying high-profile technology from them. Oh, the shame...

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:China is taking the lead by muckracer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Hey, cheaper turbines making cheap electricity. We're preserving the
      > American Way of Life.

      No, we don't. At least when you look beyond tomorrow morning. If all we can
      afford is cheap and ever more cheaper, our standard of living will eventually
      be just that: cheap crap. While in the meantime the Chinese raise theirs, have
      better and more quality products and can afford it easily.

      The Chinese are incredibly clever...they produce everything 'for cheap' just
      as we idiots want them to in our penny-wise, pound-foolish attitude. We give
      them our precious fruits of 'research and development' to produce the actual
      products. So even if they produce at a loss, it's a huge
      win-win-win-win-win-etc situation for them. They practically leapfrog over
      what took our economy years and decades to develop.
      For every factory producing goods according to our blueprints is one shadow
      factory a few miles further, producing the same exact item minus the
      brand-name. That will then be sold across all of Asia, including the 'chinese
      market' our western capitalists like to salivate over, for half the price than
      the identical 'original' item. In the end they not only got the know-how for
      free, but also manufacturing methods, perhaps even the machines to produce and
      then make money at the end with their own copies while our business has to
      fold as it can't compete by any margin at least on their asian market.
      That they sell turbines of all things to us should be shaking us to the core!

    3. Re:China is taking the lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I know - someone else has already pointed out the difference between dollar store items and proper Chinese industry, but your special sort of bigotry deserves the full smackdown:

      Cheap 'Chinese shit' like every Apple product you buy? Like your TV? Your computer?

    4. Re:China is taking the lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. The Chinese judiciously build to spec. If your cheap Wal Mart toy is crap, blame the company that specified crap.

    5. Re:China is taking the lead by Sandbags · · Score: 1

      A chinease company loaning money to their own firms in the USA to employ US workers to manufacture generators and turbines in an american facility, to be placed on american land owned by american power companies employing yet more americans, and producing profits on the sale of that electricity that stays here in america. I'm lost as to how this is a bad thing...

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    6. Re:China is taking the lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      High-profile technology they stole from Europe or the US. Shameful indeed; for the security guys of the original developer.

      Whether you buy a mobile, tv or turbine from China that was developed elsewhere, doesn't really matter.

    7. Re:China is taking the lead by gnick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not entirely true. You're partially right that, for Wal-Mart fodder, the vendor just says "Make something that looks like this as cheaply as possible." So, naturally, they supply crap that Wal-Mart can sell very inexpensively and their customers can use for 3 months and send to a landfill.

      However, even when specs say "We need this to last for 1000 years" or "We need baby formula - Poison-free, please", the Chinese are some of the worst offenders about using counterfeit goods. Using under-rated bolts and chains has been a major hassle for us. We've bought stuff with strict specs and have had failures under use that should have been well within the capabilities of the equipment. Fortunately (so far) the field failures haven't been catastrophic, but determining the cause of the failures is enormously expensive. They save a few bucks by using sub-standard steel and we spend thousands tracking down the cause of failure to "This isn't a 2000 lb load chain - It's failing at 1200 lbs." That also means that (now) when we buy stuff from Chinese vendors we have to do acceptance QA testing that would be redundant if we were buying from a more reputable source.

      So, in short, the Chinese do not always "build judiciously to spec".

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    8. Re:China is taking the lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should just get one and do like they do, pirate their technology and mass produce them.

    9. Re:China is taking the lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference between buying cheap Chinese shit at the dime store and buying high-profile technology from them. Oh, the shame...

      Maybe you need to look where our computers (including apple), cell phones, gaming consoles, PDAs, plasma/LCD HDTVs et al, come from?

    10. Re:China is taking the lead by maxume · · Score: 1

      The shadow factories don't produce identical items, they produce lower quality knockoffs. Take a look around a site like DealExtreme if you really think the products are identical.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    11. Re:China is taking the lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like 90%+ of all motherboards being manufactured in China? I guess, cheap tech...

      Or Apple stuff? Almost all made in China.

      Wind turbines are no longer "novel technology". Maybe they are only considered that in the US...

    12. Re:China is taking the lead by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

      If by the American Way of Life you mean working at Walmart selling cheap Chinese goods for minimum wage and no benefits, yeah, this is a big step in that direction.

      --
      Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
    13. Re:China is taking the lead by smchris · · Score: 1

      High-profile maybe. High quality? Maybe not so much.

      Local Minneapolis/St. Paul media ran a story about a farming couple who are into organic and renewables out for a lot of thousand because the Iowa company selling Chinese wind crap that broke down went bankrupt.

    14. Re:China is taking the lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google for "exploding Pyrex". Snopes.com will tell you that it's a bullshit urban legend, but actual facts about the materials will tell the truth.

      Now tell me Snopes isn't being paid to manipulate "the truth".

    15. Re:China is taking the lead by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Don't blame the Chinese, blame the Western culture of consumption, in particular the American culture of use-and-throw-away. It's free market principles at work. There's a need for cheap goods, and the Chinese came in to fill that need. If they didn't, well, somebody else would have.

      That having been said, the US is still a huge exporter of products that needs to reliably meet spec, as Chinese products are largely associated with cheap as opposed to reliable. Products that get used only once or twice before being thrown away or put in a box somewhere don't really need to be terribly reliable. Until they can solve that QA problem, there's plenty of room for Western "quality" players. It's only when those companies start cutting corners that they can't compete anymore.

      What this signifies, potentially, is that China will enter competition into higher-quality goods. What to do about it, well, is the question at hand.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    16. Re:China is taking the lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wht can't American firms design and build these wind turbines? The continued sucking up to China has got to stop before they are the de facto Lord and Master of The Estate of the United States of America.

    17. Re:China is taking the lead by tieTYT · · Score: 1

      Sounds like all the same problems I've read about when you outsource developers for software projects. You save money up front on employee cost but in the long run you lose money because the quality issues. Interesting.

    18. Re:China is taking the lead by lonecrow · · Score: 1

      I am curious, is the cost of the chain and doing your own redundent Q&A still cheaper then buying elseware?

    19. Re:China is taking the lead by gnick · · Score: 1

      Sometimes - Depending on what we're buying and at what volume. A couple of hundred bolts? Buy reputable. Several kilometers of expensive, high-tensile steel chain? Worth doing the math for.

      However, if we could go back in time and recoup all of the exploratory work identifying the source of the problem, I'd like to believe that we wouldn't make the same mistake (although I have my doubts). Who knows though? When you have to take bids and accept the lowest per policy, sometimes you're forced by policy to buy crap.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    20. Re:China is taking the lead by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is, that the Chinese products are more expensive, but better at hiding the true cost, and that you, despite being completely aware of that fact, still keep buying there??
      Somebody must have lost his mind from all the lead poisoning.

      *Taking* the "lead" my ass...! ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    21. Re:China is taking the lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm... No. The Chinese products are often still cheaper, despite concealing part of their cost (this, admittedly, is largely due to poor wages and lax environmental restrictions). If the cost of the product PLUS the cost of redundant QA inspections is still lower than we can find domestically (factoring in, of course, the fact that domestic products are still shoddy, but at a much lower probability) then it makes sense for us to buy overseas. The trick is realizing ahead of time that we can't trust their specs.

    22. Re:China is taking the lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could always just not buy from the Chinese. . .

  6. new world order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    new world order

  7. The US should control the technolog by bogaboga · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hope that the Chinese exports to the US do not mean the USA loses all control of the technology behind the venture.

    Who knows...the Chinese could well end up controlling everything we rely on. This could be a backdoor entry!

    1. Re:The US should control the technolog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how they don't already. Without imports from China, we're sunk.

    2. Re:The US should control the technolog by JanneM · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hope that the Chinese exports to the US do not mean the USA loses all control of the technology behind the venture.

      Just like when US exporters give out their technology to their buyers so they can control the technology.

      You know, a good test of whether an idea like yours really is reasonable is to simply reverse the terms in your mind, and ask yourself, in this case: "self, if the US was exporting turbines to China, would I be fine with giving them the know-how and have China control the technology?"

      If, in your mind, it does sound reasonable, then it quite possibly is. If not, then it's not.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    3. Re:The US should control the technolog by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The door is open on a level playing field for American companies to design and manufacture wind farm turbines. The fault for why this did not happen lies within America. You want the USA to 'control' the technology? Control in the 21st century comes from innovation and first mover advantage.

      I personally don't have a problem with where the turbines come from. Borders don't mean a whole lot to me and cheap, clean energy is social justice.

    4. Re:The US should control the technolog by Thelasko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let's hope the Chinese made turbines are better than the ones made in India.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    5. Re:The US should control the technolog by MrSenile · · Score: 1
      Yes, heaven forbid. Next we may see China make bids to buy out corporate America!

      Not like they're buying out Morgan Stanley...

      http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2009/06/03/CIC-to-buy-447M-shares-of-Morgan-Stanley/UPI-45271244026009/

      Or NBA teams...

      http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=stein_marc&page=CavsChina-090601

      Or Automobile companies like Hummer...

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/business/03auto.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1256911465-MYcwhz7EQCEgv2gHJoLH7Q

      Or tried to buy out our oil/energy corporations in the past...

      http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/08/chinese_ownersh_2.html

      Yes, Chinese needs a 'backdoor' entry. This would be similiar to having a co-owner of a house putting in a back door to the house.

      Kinda hard to get a backdoor entry when they're already sitting in your living room.

    6. Re:The US should control the technolog by euyis · · Score: 1

      Remember Japan?

    7. Re:The US should control the technolog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not. The Chinese government uses what amounts to slave labor to build these, giving them the ability to undercharge to the point that no one can compete on price. This is in NO WAY a level playing field.

    8. Re:The US should control the technolog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^.^

    9. Re:The US should control the technolog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm pretty sure the complaint could be boiled down to a couple key points, one of them being "Dey took our jerbs".

    10. Re:The US should control the technolog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. The cotton business was booming when the only thing you had to pay your employees was "low-end" room and board. The society that wins is the one most willing to sacrifice it's morals.

    11. Re:The US should control the technolog by ionix5891 · · Score: 1

      This could be a backdoor entry!

      thats a good way to describe how China is shafting the US which has become complacent

    12. Re:The US should control the technolog by hany · · Score: 1

      Some time ago I saw some documentary whose message has been essentially like "There are few hundred thousands of Muslims in Europe already. With average birth rate in EU being something like 1.6 but in those Muslim families 6-8 the future is most of the Europe countries becoming a muslim states in something like 30-40 years.".

      So, seeing also your post I see this:

      1. Europe will be conquered by Muslims by out-birthing Europeans.
      2. USA will be conquered by Chinese thanks to Americans giving Chinese american know-how, money and land in exchange for few truckloads of cheap consumer goods.

      Well, future seemed quite a lot different when I was a child: all that talk about leaps in science and technology, conquest of the universe, etc. presumably mainly by "white guys" from Europe and USA.

      Who would have thought?

      --
      hany
    13. Re:The US should control the technolog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US technology was demonised by a previous administration and mostly driven offshore.

    14. Re:The US should control the technolog by Peregr1n · · Score: 1

      What, because the Chinese are only interested in subverting the American way of life, and couldn't possibly be looking at it from an investment point of view!

      I'm fully aware I'll be modded as a troll, but I find American's suspicion of Chinese investment ironic, considering the amount of American investment, development and exports worldwide in the last century.

    15. Re:The US should control the technolog by Duradin · · Score: 1

      USA will be conquered by Chinese thanks to Americans giving Chinese american know-how, money and land in exchange for few truckloads of cheap consumer goods.

      Well, at least the descendants of the American Indians who traded their land for cheap trinkets and goods will be getting a good chuckle out of this...

    16. Re:The US should control the technolog by istartedi · · Score: 1

      The door is open on a level playing field for American companies to design and manufacture wind farm turbines

      No it isn't. China manipulates its currency. I can say that, because I'm a free American, and I'm not in office. The wimps we elect can't say it or do anything about it.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    17. Re:The US should control the technolog by TheSync · · Score: 1

      China manipulates its currency.

      Another way of saying China has fairly solid controls over the convertibility of the Renminbi, and unlike a score of other developing countries (such as Argentina and Mexico), it has not yet experienced a massive currency crisis.

      China has devalued the Yuan several times, and they have been loosening up convertibility, beginning to issue Renminbi-denominated debt, but yes they are being careful and slow.

    18. Re:The US should control the technolog by citizenr · · Score: 1

      I hope that the Chinese exports to the US do not mean the USA loses all control of the technology behind the venture.

      Could you please elaborate what part of this "technology" USA owns and controls? You remind me of a guy that thought Tesla Sportster was a great American invention when in fact whole car is shipped into US in a form of modules that are merely screwed together by some immigrants at the back of Californian dealership.

      "The Obama administration is hoping a shift to renewable energy will inject new life into the US manufacturing base and provide high-paying jobs"

      Love this part, "new life into the US manufacturing base" by buying more Chinese crap :).

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    19. Re:The US should control the technolog by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Er, make that China has revalued the Yuan several times - it has appreciated 21.2% against the dollar in the past four years.

    20. Re:The US should control the technolog by PingPongBoy · · Score: 0

      I hope that the Chinese exports to the US do not mean the USA loses all control of the technology behind the venture.

      That's a lot of paranoia. Windmills and wind farms have been around for a long time. The only high tech here is that they're putting the stuff up high on poles.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    21. Re:The US should control the technolog by maxume · · Score: 1

      If you are going to go in that direction, you should go full out and make it clear that the white-man used the cheap trinkets and goods as a pretext to make himself feel better about whatever he did next to take control of said lands.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    22. Re:The US should control the technolog by masonc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is only one US company making Megawatt class wind turbines. Almost all the high quality Megawatt class units in the world come from Europe, where there has been an emphasis on research and progress on sustainable energy. The US has voluntarily stepped out of the field since the progress made in the 1980's. Deregulation of the utilities and the lack of Government incentives has killed this industry, not foreign competition. You cannot have the technological lead in alternate energy without government support.

      --
      CM www.cometenergysystems.com Blog: http://caribbeanrenewable.blogspot.com/
    23. Re:The US should control the technolog by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      Better Red than Achmed........

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    24. Re:The US should control the technolog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should not be reasonable, this is a competition. Since we import more than we export from China we have all the power. Kill the wind-turbine imports or tariff them so that US wind-turbines are cheaper.

      It's that simple. "Protectionism" is just a word created by people who want to get rich by exploiting the common person.

    25. Re:The US should control the technolog by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that sort of thing is covered under a "manufacturer's warranty". I would imagine the warranty on an item like this to have a 10 year warranty, and it's not really something I'd worry about too much. Considering how much it costs to ship and install those replacement blades, the manufacturer has good incentive to ship a product that will meet those warranty requirements. Doubly so because the last thing the Chinese want when entering this new, extremely high-profile market is a tarnished image of their wind products, seeing as how we're probably going to buy many thousands more of these from them over the next two decades.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    26. Re:The US should control the technolog by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      The Lotus Elise frame is glued together, not screwed/wielded(!)

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    27. Re:The US should control the technolog by burni2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Windturbines are hightech products. They seem so easy, but they are not.

      1.) the blades
      - these are aerodynamic blades
      - they are CFD and FEM-caculated
      - they are physically tested
      - validating caculations with measurements

      The technology and engineering knowledge that goes into the blade design is a highly protected secret to each manufacturer.

      2.) the power train
      - varying loads, from varying directions
      - multipiple stress for the main bearing(s)
      - dynamical simulated powertrains
      - gear boxes with weights from 20 to 70 metric tons
      - nacelle masses up to 500 metric tons,
      - rotor masses up to 100 metric tons
      - flexible blades up to 60 meters and above
      made of fiber and carbon composite material

      3.) generator, operation & control
      - computers and sensor networks measuring with high resolution on the grid side and adjusting the powergeneration to grid spikes and lows
      and try to dampen torque spikes on the power train.

      Response times within sub 5ms .. for big rotating inertiamass.

      Grid complaince, grid safety, load reduction.

      4.) hub heights 80 meters and above

      5.) rated power from 1 Megawatt up to 6 Megawatts

      Wind turbines are highly engineered products,
      and if they are not .. they fail.

      The higher the rated power of those turbines goes
      the more engineering effort has to be taken.

      Btw. on the engineering side the U.S.
      are head to head with european researchers, and engineers

      http://wind.nrel.gov/designcodes/
      http://www.ge.com/

    28. Re:The US should control the technolog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Borders don't mean a whole lot to me . . .

      This statement is one of the reasons the west is on the decline compared to asia. A theoretical world without borders would be a grand utopia; however, we're not there yet.

      The Chinese DO pay attention, quite closely, to borders. If you think the Chinese are setting up this opportunity out of 'social justice' or some grand scheme of empathetic utilitarianism, you are gravely mistaken. China is obtaining the know-how and will undoubtedly return the favor by providing those GREAT long lasting parts and materials Americans have come to know and love. This deal smacks of a quid pro quo -- without the pro quo.

    29. Re:The US should control the technolog by timeOday · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, I never understand why people say not to worry because it's not personal or ideological, just simple greed. Greed is exactly what does motivate people and countries to oppress each other. Do you want other countries using their economic might to extract and export our limited natural resources on a massive scale? Setting up cheap and dangerous chemical processing plants on our soil so they can have slightly cheaper consumer goods back home? Subverting our politics to select US leadership submissive to overseas economic interests? Heck, until 150 years ago we were literally buying up people to satisfy the slave trade, so I'm sure you don't want us to look even that far back in our own past to see what "good business" might now put us on the receiving end of.

    30. Re:The US should control the technolog by citizenr · · Score: 1

      The Lotus Elise frame is glued together, not screwed/wielded(!)

      and its glued where? and I was talking about what being done in Cali?

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    31. Re:The US should control the technolog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      utilities are not entirely deregulated and that is the problem. the government steps in for some stuff and not others while the utilities go on making their short term profit and the boss who gets the credit says "well if it was so bad for us wouldn't the government step in?" knowing full well that a partial regulation, that protects them after they screw up, by bail out. complete deregulation would be forcing them to loose jobs and their business to others that saw it coming and they would have to operate knowing this or complete regulation which would stop them from screwing up in the first place. however unfortunately switching between any two of those would require major shifts and would loose jobs for many who were not at the top along with those responsible so some protection is necessary while the industries shift. same goes for any other market including investment, banks, or what have you that is partially regulated.

    32. Re:The US should control the technolog by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Deregulation of the utilities and the lack of Government incentives has killed this industry, not foreign competition

      If the industry can't survive without government intervention - then it should be allowed to die. Isn't that the Slashdot mantra?
       
      Whether it's GM, Amalgamated Buggy Whips, or GE's wind power division - if they want to make money from it, let 'em do on their dime not on that of the taxpayer.

    33. Re:The US should control the technolog by masonc · · Score: 1

      Sure, because oil will just keep coming...right?
      The ability to generate energy from wind depends on the ability to deliver it to the end user. The utilities have the lock on that. Unless they are forced to allow wind producers to sell to the grid, there is no market. If you don't have regulations allowing that, the utilities will be the only ones interested in generating from wind, and they already have all the capacity the need. Coal is cheap, why change?
      This isn't just a business issue, it's a survival issue. We cannot continue to use fossil fuels to maintain our lifestyle for much longer. Utilities make money for their shareholders, they don't make decisions for the good of the human race.

      The Europeans get this, they have Electricity Feed laws that make it cost effective to generate and sell electricity to the grid using wind. In a lot of cases the wind turbines belong to a cooperative that invests in the turbine(s) to make money and to make a difference. This only works with legislation.

      It's not taxpayer money that will make the difference, it's making the consumer pay a little extra for energy in the interest of making renewable energy sources a viable solution. Pay now or pay later.

      --
      CM www.cometenergysystems.com Blog: http://caribbeanrenewable.blogspot.com/
    34. Re:The US should control the technolog by N-S+Equations · · Score: 1

      Mod that up.

      Part of the reason why the US did not have a respectable wind turbine industry even after billions of dollars invested in R&D was due to an attitude of "We build B52 that could bomb the shit out of crap, wind mills? How hard can they be?

      --
      The universe is simple, it's the explanation that is complicated.
    35. Re:The US should control the technolog by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that either you lack reading comprehension or have some kind of a hobby horse, because your reply had zip point shit to do with my comment.

      Sure, because oil will just keep coming...right?

      Did I say that? No, I did not.

      The Europeans get this, they have Electricity Feed laws that make it cost effective to generate and sell electricity to the grid using wind. In a lot of cases the wind turbines belong to a cooperative that invests in the turbine(s) to make money and to make a difference. This only works with legislation.

      In other words, it's not cost effective without government intervention. In which case it should be allowed to die. All the government should do is set the regulatory environment such that it's possible for wind power to be delivered to the consumer, and then get the hell out of the way.

      This isn't just a business issue, it's a survival issue.

      No, it's a business issue. Let the market decide which form of alternate energy is preferable, not government bureaucrats deciding which utility gets my tax money.

    36. Re:The US should control the technolog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine how hard they are laughing at us. We borrow money from them, to buy their stuff at prices sure to discourage our own development of the same technology. Why would we pay them for extracting power from our wind? We are DOPES if we don't smell the coffee. Its a hundred years war, and we are not wise to not take this one on ourselves. If we hope to export this technology to other coutries (or even other states in US), we had better put MIT on it, and patent what we develop. (hoping that int'l patents are relevant). We Americans are too predictable when issues of price come up. Money is not always the final arbiter of value. Put GM on it. Give them something new to do. THey have the infrastructure for it.

    37. Re:The US should control the technolog by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      End up? They own you. Head to toe, face to ass.

      One word: Debt.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  8. It is NOT because China ramped up manufactuering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is because they have their yuan tied artificially low to the dollar. Once America is destroy, they will simply shift it to the Euro. This is for all intents and purposes, a cold war. It is aimed cleerly at all western nations. America will go down first, but EU, Canada, Australia will follow. Right now, China is working hard to pull Japan and South Korea away from the west and have them be part of an asian bloc.

    If the west does not pull together and insist that China honor their treaty obligations (drop ALL trade barriers and free their money per the Clinton agreement AND WTO), then kiss it all goodbye.

  9. We can't even compete for THIS!? by HeckRuler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I thought those huge blades were very difficult to manufacture and transport. I know for something this expensive they can customize a barge and do something special at the port, but I'm surprised this didn't give local producers an edge. And while I considered myself knowledgeable about the waking dragon, I'm somewhat surprised that they have the manufacturing chops to produce something this "high tech". I guess it's another feather in their hat that their businessmen can arrange this sort of deal. With Texas no less.

    Come ON people! Get it together!

    1. Re:We can't even compete for THIS!? by magarity · · Score: 2, Informative

      The blades might be hard to transport but the summary says the Chinese are making the turbines, not the blades.

    2. Re:We can't even compete for THIS!? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Uhh, high tech??? WTF is high tech about a wind mill? We have been building wind mills for about 3 thousand years, so it is mature tech in extreme. However, you do realize that China is launching space vehicles - *that* is high tech.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    3. Re:We can't even compete for THIS!? by thickdiick · · Score: 1

      The hardest part in transporting mega-turbines is the ground part. The logistics of routing a shipment in a way that ensures that every overpass has the necessary clearance are immense and add greatly to the cost.

      I don't like how much space these turbines take up and how little power they provide.

    4. Re:We can't even compete for THIS!? by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wages are cents in the dollar. Working conditions are as cheap and unsafe as they can get. Wind turbines due to low manufacturing numbers have a high labor content as such, there is no way reasonable or acceptable way for US labor to compete and if they could of course the whole exercise becomes utterly pointless as they could not afford to pay the electricity generated killing the investment.

      As long as government continue down the path of blind, deaf and dumb monkeys and don't accept the need to establish fair trade practices and import duties to ensure companies compete upon a equal basic, whether foreign or domestic, socio economic collapse is inevitable.

      The WTO is nothing more than a tool of the rich to destroy the middle class, eliminating that threat to their hereditary power base and, turning the bulk of the worlds population into nothing more that working in poverty minimum wage slaves (counting India and China that is already true but the first world middle class have yet to feel the weight of the chain and the bite of the whip not since they put down the masters a century or so ago).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:We can't even compete for THIS!? by Darth+Sdlavrot · · Score: 2

      dictionary.com: turbine
      -noun,
      any of various machines having a rotor, usually with vanes or blades, driven by the pressure, momentum, or reactive thrust of a moving fluid, as steam, water, hot gases, or air, either occurring in the form of free jets or as a fluid passing through and entirely filling a housing around the rotor.

      I think that means they _are_ making the blades.

      Maybe they're not making the generator that the turbine is connected to.

    6. Re:We can't even compete for THIS!? by koiransuklaa · · Score: 1

      Lack of knowledge of a specific area technology is something that can happen to the best of us. It only becomes unpleasant stupidity when you cling to your ignorance even when you are given fairly strong hints that should make you either shut up or read up on the subject.

    7. Re:We can't even compete for THIS!? by Oswald.fi · · Score: 1

      I suppose it can be high tech in the same sense a cutting edge car can be high tech even though people rode horse wagons way back when.

    8. Re:We can't even compete for THIS!? by Sandbags · · Score: 2, Informative

      TFA stated this was a Chinease/American company based in the USA making the turbines... They will not be imported cheap chinease crap, they'll be made right here by American families (using China's money, much of which will stay here in our economy instead of theirs).

      I bought a nice new Chevy a few years ago, and a Chrysler 2 years later. One was manufactured in Canada, the other in Mexico. The Honda, Subaru, and Kia we've also bought over the years were all made in America, with over 80% of manufacture and assembly taking place on american soil...

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    9. Re:We can't even compete for THIS!? by lophophore · · Score: 1

      It's one thing to build product.

      It's another to build quality product.

      The Chinese are doing well on the first, not so well on the second.

      I expect that these turbines will be cheap, and I don't mean only inexpensive.

      As always, you get what you pay for.

      --
      there are 3 kinds of people:
      * those who can count
      * those who can't
    10. Re:We can't even compete for THIS!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As always, you get what you pay for.

      No, we live in a new age. I get what You pay for.

    11. Re:We can't even compete for THIS!? by DavMz · · Score: 1

      I was reading in the Times two days ago that China has invested massively in sustainable energies, including windpower, building windfarms accross the country. A few years ago, most of the products were european and american. As you say, those blades are huge and not easily transportable, so makers had to build factories in China (plus, it's also more easy to get contracts from the government if you are operating from China). Of course, technological transfer (voluntary or not) followed. Now, most of the contracts in mainland China are won by Chinese manufacturers, so yes, they have the technology. They don't have 1.5 billion people making sweaters. Even if only a small fraction of the population has a degree, that still makes a lot of people, and those guys know how to make "high tech" products (missiles, semiconductors).

    12. Re:We can't even compete for THIS!? by Nick+Number · · Score: 2, Funny

      TFA stated this was a Chinease/American company based in the USA making the turbines... They will not be imported cheap chinease crap

      Is that an enzyme to digest East Asians?

      --
      Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
    13. Re:We can't even compete for THIS!? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      And what exactly do you think is the main part of a turbine is? (Hint: It's a word that starts with 'B', and has the letters 'L''A''D''E' and 'S' in it.)

    14. Re:We can't even compete for THIS!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen a modern wind turbine close up? They are very much high tech. Just the scale of those things renders them pretty difficult to build.

    15. Re:We can't even compete for THIS!? by triathlon4life · · Score: 1

      My friend, you obviously know very little about generating energy from wind. It is extremely complex and the variables can become quite complex. This is of course if you want to be as efficient as possible; which I would assume most of us would.

    16. Re:We can't even compete for THIS!? by Sandbags · · Score: 1

      oops, friggin autocorrect on this machine seems to have a bug :) It's changing the correctly spelled Chinese into Chinease...

      lol. didn't notice since it did it automatically!

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    17. Re:We can't even compete for THIS!? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      What I find interesting, is that wind turbines really are not that high tech. You can google and find 100's of sites showing you how to make basic ones from readily available parts.

      Fine tuning their efficiency might reach high tech levels though. And I'm with you, why isn't this being built in country? There are tons of these mega turbines being built in oregon and along the columbia gorge area:
      http://blog.oregonlive.com/news_impact/2009/03/wind3.JPG

      I'm pretty sure those are built in country. I wonder they just can't make them fast enough?

    18. Re:We can't even compete for THIS!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i have purchased and installed a 1 MW chinese hydro electric turbine.

      apart from the rat carcasses that arrived with it, poor documentation, poor quality fittings for bearing cooling pipes, improperly seated valve seat (got seated when the rat bones got jammed in there though), poor quality felt seal on bearing (lasted 3000 hours), it is working OK.

      I've had conversations with people in the wind turbine industry (europe), who, as you would expect, say the chinese turbines aren't quite up to snuff. I don't think anyone is going to argue that point though.

    19. Re:We can't even compete for THIS!? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Apparently you don't know how a turbine or windmill works. See there is this thing called a turbine. It's basically a bunch of magnets and a big spool of copper where the spool of copper wire is wrapped around a drive shaft. As the drive shaft spins the copper wire turns within the magnetic field generated by the magnets generating electricity (alternatively you can construct the system with the magnets on the shaft and the wire spools around the shaft). This drive shaft, magnets and spool are all housed in an iron housing to contain the magnetic field. This enclosed system is called a TURBINE. This turbine can be connected to a hydroelectric facility, a coal power plant, a nuclear reactor or any form of power generation that can spin a shaft. In a wind mill the drive shaft of the turbine is then connected to a clutch and gear assembly that can automatically (or by command) adjust the low spin, high torque of the blades to a higher speed lower torque spin that the turbine uses to generate electricity. The Gearbox is then connected to a second drive shaft that is connected to the rotor and blades.

      Now don't you feel like an idiot? No turbine ever connects directly to the blades of a commercial wind mill because high winds would tear the turbine apart. Modern wind mills have brakes and clutches they can use to survive high speed winds so that if a tornado goes through (common in west texas) it doesn't rip the windmill in half or burn the turbine and the electric lines up.

    20. Re:We can't even compete for THIS!? by Cedric+Tsui · · Score: 1

      turbine (tûrbn, -bn)
      n.
      Any of various machines in which the kinetic energy of a moving fluid is converted to mechanical power by the impulse or reaction of the fluid with a series of buckets, paddles, or blades arrayed about the circumference of a wheel or cylinder.

      :p
      Sorry. I'm being a jerk. I suspect you are confusing 'turbine' for 'generator.' In this case, 'turbine' refers to the entire windmill including the blades. That means the Chinese are constructing the blades as well.

    21. Re:We can't even compete for THIS!? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Apparently you don't know how a turbine or windmill works. See there is this thing called a turbine. It's basically a bunch of magnets and a big spool of copper where the spool of copper wire is wrapped around a drive shaft. As the drive shaft spins the copper wire turns within the magnetic field generated by the magnets generating electricity (alternatively you can construct the system with the magnets on the shaft and the wire spools around the shaft). This drive shaft, magnets and spool are all housed in an iron housing to contain the magnetic field. This enclosed system is called a TURBINE.

      Actually, yes I do know how a turbine or windmill works... (Hint: What you describe above isn't a turbine.)
       
       

      Now don't you feel like an idiot?

      No, I don't feel like an idiot at all. Because I know the difference between a generator and a turbine.
       
      Before you call other people idiots, you just might check your facts.

    22. Re:We can't even compete for THIS!? by whosaidanythingabout · · Score: 1

      There are absolutely no difficulties with transporting the blades. There are hundreds moving through our ports as is evidenced here. I believe that the blades in this port are coming from India. What is concerning is that the US cannot compete with a foreign source for these parts. Why? There are certainly many reasons but IMO the number one is that people are not willing to change. Just the other day there was a CNN article about a Pennsylvania town that was protesting the closure of the local coal mines. What needs to happen in the US is to take these workers that are displaced from aging, outdated industries and retrain them to provide the labor pool for the next generation of technology. Without the correctly trained skilled labor force the US will slowly lose the ability to innovate and utilize the technology needed to advance.

  10. End up controlling everything we rely on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like our deficit financing?

    Why do they need a back door when they can go in the front door of the fed?

  11. Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This just makes me so cranky on a Friday morning that I don't know where to start. If the U.S. hasn't figured out that losing all its manufacturing infrastructure to other countries is a BAD thing, then maybe we deserve it. Was it the funding? Because it's not like the Chinese quality is superior (however, they are getting better). I'm all for spending a little extra money to buy a product made within my own country as long as the quality is the same.

    1. Re:Argh! by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're right, of course.

      Losing manufacturing to China is probably the largest problem we face as a country. Especially in fields of advanced manufacturing, it is strategically important to maintain a strong lead in the U.S.

      Some have said that we are moving away from a foundation of manufacturing and towards one of information management and service-oriented business. This is a truly horrifying prospect as both depend on a constant influx of *manufacturing* jobs to create demand for these new industries. Losing manufacturing to other countries means losing independence and self-sufficiency. We can't clean each other's pools forever.

      The other problem, though, is that China can undercut our labor by a huge amount. It used to be that the Japanese were saying Americans were lazy and overpaid. It took the Chinese and Indians to prove it. So even if we were to begin another "Buy American" program, we would still be at a disadvantage to overseas customers who would simply choose the cheaper Chinese products over the expensive American products.

      We are in a race to the bottom, and if we are to pull ourselves out of this death spiral it will be necessary to look to other failed states for examples of what not to do. No empire in its death throes has ever been able to save itself. England is doing a good job of coming back, but their once vast empire is now just a small collection of rainy islands in the North Atlantic.

    2. Re:Argh! by the_macman · · Score: 1

      I'm not trolling. I'm curious. What is your proposal. America losing manufacturing is free market at work. China has no labor laws therefore they do things cheaply. We don't. Companies move to China. What can we do to compete with that?

    3. Re:Argh! by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope.
      First, losing parts of manufacturing to nations that free trade and have free money is NOT an issue. The money values change and then things will straighten up. China is not doing that. They have their money pegged to ours AND have trade barriers against the vast majority of goods.
      Second, this deal is going through FINANCED MOSTLY BY AMERICAN AND TEXAN GOV. The Chinese got in on a small amount of financing on this.
      Third, the Chinese plants are WELL KNOWN FOR BEING HORRIBLE. THey break down ALL THE TIME. There are American made plants that are great quality. Likewise, multiple companies out of EU as well. Sadly, GE makes theirs in China. But these 3rd party parts are PURE JUNK.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:Argh! by caladine · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the manipulation of the Chinese currency that their government does. They keep it artificially lower in value on purpose.

    5. Re:Argh! by khallow · · Score: 1, Funny

      Cut back regulation. Reduce entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. Eliminate mandated employer health care.

      The US isn't grossly uncompetitive, but there will be a tough few decade period when China's standard of living catches up with the current (year 2009) standard of living in the US. It's reasonable to cut back on the socialist crap until there's no serious labor competition out there any more.

    6. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A swift return to slavery would close the cost of labor gap between us and China almost instantaneously. Clearly, we need to go back to our roots.

    7. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China has no labor laws therefore they do things cheaply. We don't. Companies move to China. What can we do to compete with that?

      1. Get off our collective ass and invent things faster than they can OR
      2. Take it like a bitch OR
      3. Bomb the shit out of them
    8. Re:Argh! by kungfugleek · · Score: 1

      China has no labor laws

      I used to work for a company that outsourced some of their programming to an office in Xi'an, China. When the schedule got tight, the company forced *us* to work overtime, but said they couldn't do the same to the workers in Xi'an because of China's labor laws. They also weren't made to call us on our time, but we were forced to have our telecomm meetings with them on their daylight hours, we were told because of China's labor laws. Also, while the company told us that there wasn't enough money for us to have any kind of holiday celebrations, the office in Xi'an got to celebrate their holidays because, we were told, it was their culture. As if it wasn't ours.

      While it's possible (even probable) that my former employer was lying to us about some of China's labor laws, it sounds like they do have some protection, after all.

    9. Re:Argh! by rotide · · Score: 1

      Ignoring your political views, how does cutting "quality of life" government programs entice our populace to purchase American goods over Chinese?

      Yes, I get it, companies pay less, people pay less, somehow that equates to American goods being more affordable and thus more attractive than Chinese goods? Seriously? That's the slant here?

      Realize this, you will have to cut our quality of life down to equal or _less_ than China's in order to bring our products down to their prices. Is this something you're seriously willing to propose? Because cutting a few "socialist" programs here and there won't do squat to change the current manufacturing climate at all.

    10. Re:Argh! by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      I'm not trolling. I'm curious. What is your proposal. America losing manufacturing is free market at work. China has no labor laws therefore they do things cheaply. We don't. Companies move to China. What can we do to compete with that?

      Make sure that when you buy the cheap stuff from China that you are buying productive capacity instead of useless consumer goods. Stuff like power generators. Imports are not bad, wasteful spending is. Better by far to be buying generators than wide screen TV's. For those complaining about how American productivity should be boosted instead of China's, sure China will get paid for this, there's nothing wrong with that. If you want to boost productivity in the US, next time you're buying an electrical item that will be powered with this electricity, make it a CNC lathe or mill, or a development computer or some other piece of productive equipment and produce something instead of an entertainment device so you can consume.

      Wake up people, stop complaining about the things that benefit you. Cheaper costs of production boost your economy, not drain it. Your tools, machinery and electricity are cheaper and you think it's a bad thing? WTF?

    11. Re:Argh! by LordAndrewSama · · Score: 1

      ban chinese goods, or raise import taxes on chinese goods until it's a level playing field? i'm sure this would have consequences, but it's all I can think of right now.

    12. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get better at something else. If they can perform the same manufacturing more efficiently, then we have no reason to do any at all, unless there's a market that only we can cater to and then we only cater to that market. That's from the economic standpoint.

      From the strategic standpoint we must remain ready to do our own manufacturing.

      Back to economics if we can't figure out products that can make us competitive, then individuals need to go where the jobs are.

    13. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some US companies have had success buying former Soviet State factories in Eastern Europe and renovating them with robots and high tech laser welding gear. The difference or competitive advantage here is lower cost of living for the workers, no 60 years of Union entitlements dragging profits down, the workers aren't slaves in an environmental wasteland, and the high tech retooling makes them competitive to lower tech labor from lower wage countries.

      There is a short window where we can arbitrage our high tech with medium cost workers. US companies doing this have also broken into these countries markets selling products where they couldn't before selling them on a strictly Export basis from the US. Some of these companies overseas units make more money now than the original US units do.

    14. Re:Argh! by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Realize this, you will have to cut our quality of life down to equal or _less_ than China's in order to bring our products down to their prices. Is this something you're seriously willing to propose?

      What you're willing to propose and what is going to happen are sometimes two completely different things.

    15. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could make free trade agreements contingent on strong labor laws. We could allow the free movement of capital to be contingent on the free movement of labor.

      The fact that you seemed to ask this question seriously makes me weep.

    16. Re:Argh! by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can't compete ; China is willing to allow it's workforce to get treated like crap.

      About the only thing that you can do is raise import tariffs to the point where domestic product looks like a good deal - but this isn't going to happen because of the enormous power bloc that's founded on the profits of yoking the global labour pool. "Globalization" is an odd term... some people perceive it as the homogenizing of consumer culture on a global scale but the man behind the curtain is the army of low-paid workers required to support it.

      The only real solution that avoids the endless spiral of the labour pool further into poverty is to wind back the clock and live by bartering products locally, which mitigates the imbalances caused by regional labour cost differences at the cost of reintroducing the imbalances caused by geographical differences in local wealth and losing the inherent efficiencies of a global economy. Then you just get the poor people invading you for your resources.. and go around the spiral again.

      So another kind of globalization might work ; if similar goods were available everywhere for the same cost, everyone would have a similar standard of living, but the only way that's going to happen is if you have both energy and manufacturing technologies ..

      1. That everyone can use
      2. That are acceptable everywhere
      3. That use commonly available resources
      4. That use only minimal amounts of rare resources
      5. That produce enough energy to meet comfortable needs

      Which means no dirty manufacturing plants, no dirty energy production, no detrimental working conditions. If you follow this spiral you end up with robot factories (who wants to work - it's detrimental to [my enjoyment | my payroll budget]), producing 100% recyclable consumer goods to order from clean or recycled materials with no unrecoverable by-products, powered by fusion (with a good PR campaign), or solar, or whatever people will tolerate in their back yard. At which point you're either socialists or a human zoo kept for the amusement of a few immortal plutocrats, because there will be no need for humans to do labour work for anything other than recreational purposes (or used as a means to keep the population under control - work or starve... hmmm, sounds familiar).

    17. Re:Argh! by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      In some cases we have. Due to budget constraints, some prisons are being turned over to private enterprise where prisoners work for cents a day.

    18. Re:Argh! by Spewns · · Score: 2, Informative

      Cut back regulation. Reduce entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. Eliminate mandated employer health care. The US isn't grossly uncompetitive, but there will be a tough few decade period when China's standard of living catches up with the current (year 2009) standard of living in the US. It's reasonable to cut back on the socialist crap until there's no serious labor competition out there any more.

      If anyone had any doubts as to whether or not capitalism and free market economics were literally insane, evil disasters of ideas, let the quoted text reassure you.

    19. Re:Argh! by hackingbear · · Score: 1

      Your former employer was probably right. While I was in China, the software engineer there wouldn't work OT w/o double pay, not even if we allow them take time off on some other days. It all comes down to market force at the end. Engineers are scarcer, unlike the millions of blue collar assembly line workers. In China, if you follow the laws closely, you have no business and so practically everyone cheats if they can. Also the labor law has been tighten in the beginning of 2008 trying to slam some loopholes to protect the blue collar workers. Though, from our perspectives, the law is stupid -- we don't ask people to work OT everyday, but once awhile before the deadline, we in the US will just crank up and work a bit of OT voluntarily.

    20. Re:Argh! by TheLink · · Score: 1

      But they work so well for the rich. The rich don't really need stuff like Social Security and Medicare.

      Good thing for them the poorer people keep voting the "right way".

      --
    21. Re:Argh! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      hahahaha...

      Yeah, sociallism is the problem, that's why China is dominating us.

      It's because China take about hal of what business make ans put's it into a giant pool for global investments.

      But you do ahead and stick with your quaint and dis-proven pundit sound bites.

      Socialist crap is NEEDED to be a global player otherwise your just sitting in a mug hut.

      Of course the real problem hear is that you have no idea what being socialist mean.
      The program we have are a social democracy, something we couldna't have this country as we know it without.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    22. Re:Argh! by rabtech · · Score: 1

      If the Chinese weren't manipulating their currency so heavily, then the expansion of their economy would cause their currency to appreciate, thus offsetting some of the "cheapness" of their exports while making our exports much cheaper to Chinese citizens. Chinese labor is cheaper than American labor, but not by nearly as much as the artificial exchange rate implies.

      The only way this can work in the long term without turning everyone everywhere into poor people is if China expands internal demand and there is much more two-way trade between them and other countries (especially the USA). The only way that can happen is if China stops manipulating their currency. There isn't any other population on earth poised to replace the American middle class as an economic engine within the next few decades so I'm not sure how the Chinese think this game can go on forever.

      --
      Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
    23. Re:Argh! by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that Globalization causes those "wage slaves" incomes to go up. You may not like the way workers in China are treated but without the jobs they would be WORSE off. The real result of Globalization is that the Chinese economy becomes self-sustaining. At that point another major world market fully opens up, wages in China will begin a much steeper climb to western levels and as prosperity increases the Chinese people will demand the same environmental and labor laws present in the developed world. As a side result the people will likely demand and receive democracy as prosperity breeds the desire for public control of government. I would argue that prosperity will be the end result of democracy in China and is in fact inevitable. Many of the Chinese communist party already know this and anticipate a future where that is true. Their goal is to keep the country from breaking up and inter china wars from happening, as they have in the past, until the country reaches the point that they reach western wage levels and prosperity.

      The best example is presented with Brazil and SKorea. SKorea has all but completed the journey and Brazil is about 3/4 of the way there. SKorea was ruled by successive millitary regimes, as wage levels increased by exporting cheap labor products to western markets the people demanded and received environmental regulations (80's), labor laws (80's) and fiscal parity (90's) with the western nations and once those were mostly reached they demanded democracy (1988). Brazil already obtained democracy and has worked to establish their economy and fiscal parity. The fundamental block to free market growth was energy imports that exported most of Brazil's wealth generation. This was recognized 20 years ago and long term plans were concocted to create an internal energy production system. Brazil pioneered the wide scale use of Ethanol production from locally grown crops and it's use in factories and automobiles, combined with off shore oil discoveries Brazil is progressing along the path to full Industrialization. Wages have been increasing rapidly, growth has been consistent and inflation is low. All this is contributing to a rapidly expanding economy. Because Brazil's growth is occurring in a Social Democracy it's going slower than both Korea and China but I would wager in another 20 years Brazil can begin to dismantle their slums through education and higher wage jobs.

      Globalization is bad for western nations in the short term because it harms our factory production, but the long term implications are countries that are so codependent there is no chance of war and the eventual elevation of the Chinese population to Western levels of comfort. Once China's wages reach equivalence with Mexico most US imports will shift from China to Mexico. The hope is that by the time that happens the Chinese economy will be self sufficient. All indications are that self sufficiency has already been reached and that growth can be sustained from internal growth alone. Even reaching Mexico's wage levels would restore much of the US factory production because US labor is much more efficient. The belief that short term industry losses will be permanent is IMO a fallacy. The factories will move where it's cheapest to produce with consideration of movement of goods. Keep in mind the continuing increase in energy costs in increasing the cost of exported goods and hurting Chinese exports. At some point in the future factories will move back because local production will be cheaper and the intertwined markets will ensure good relations long term. Globalization is good long term, yes there are short term pains but the Chinese cannot allow the US economy to collapse or flounder for long because it would harm their own economy long term. You need to keep in mind that the Japanese kept the dollar artificially high for almost 15 years single handily before the Chinese began assisting. The one good thing Bush did was allow the dollar to drop, sure it harmed our economy short term but the long term benefits saved a number of industries.

    24. Re:Argh! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      If we are to compete we must accept a lowered standard of living and lower wages along with trying to innovate.

      People bitch at unions for making unsustainable demands, but Americans have unsustainable expectations conditioned by post-WWII economic bubbles,

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    25. Re:Argh! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Yes, I get it, companies pay less, people pay less, somehow that equates to American goods being more affordable and thus more attractive than Chinese goods? Seriously? That's the slant here?

      It's not magic. Yes, that's exactly what I mean. And the American "good" in question here is US labor. By lowering the government-induced overhead, you indeed make it more affordable and hence demanded more often.

      Realize this, you will have to cut our quality of life down to equal or _less_ than China's in order to bring our products down to their prices.

      If that were the case, then that would imply that US labor is almost perfectly interchangeable with Chinese labor, which I don't think is the case. The US has some advantages (a more attractive living and working environment, better access to big capital, and far better rule of law).

      Because cutting a few "socialist" programs here and there won't do squat to change the current manufacturing climate at all.

      To the contrary, just eliminating Social Security, would make US labor 15% cheaper. One change alone. Medical care costs reduction is essential as well. There's probably some other low lying fruit in liability reform, education subsidy reduction, and of course, not spilling hundreds of billions of dollars every time someone collapses the bank sector.

    26. Re:Argh! by khallow · · Score: 1

      If anyone had any doubts as to whether or not capitalism and free market economics were literally insane, evil disasters of ideas, let the quoted text reassure you.

      I remain unaware of these "insane, evil disasters" of which you claim exist. Perhaps next time, you could give a reason for your beliefs so that the rest of the Slashdot world can fix you?

    27. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well - its not quite accurate to say that the only option is to raise tariffs. In a more sane world, the American currency would drop in value as our trade deficit increases. As the dollar falls, imported goods should become more expensive until they're not as attractive as domestically produced goods anymore - and everything would eventually balance out. However, the American currency has remained irrationally strong despite growing trade imbalances for a good solid decade for various reasons - including China's willingness to buy large amounts of American debt so as to keep the dollar valuable.

      China wants to keep the dollar valuable so that they can continue growing by exporting goods to the United States. Unfortunately though, the consequence of this is a very distorted American economy that has an incredibly small manufacturing sector and a very large services sector that is overly reliant upon selling and financing good from other countries. The readjustment, though necessary and inevitable, is going to be painful - as interest rates and the price of consumer goods will go up considerably. America will quickly realize that its not as rich of a country as it would like to think it is.

    28. Re:Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well - its not quite accurate to say that the only option is to raise tariffs. In a more sane world, the American currency would drop in value as our trade deficit increases. As the dollar falls, imported goods should become more expensive until they're not as attractive as domestically produced goods anymore - and everything would eventually balance out. However, the American currency has remained irrationally strong despite growing trade imbalances for a good solid decade for various reasons - including China's willingness to buy large amounts of American debt so as to keep the dollar valuable.

      China wants to keep the dollar valuable so that they can continue growing by exporting goods to the United States. Unfortunately though, the consequence of this is a very distorted American economy that has an incredibly small manufacturing sector and a very large services sector that is overly reliant upon selling and financing good from other countries. The readjustment, though necessary, is going to be painful - as interest rates and the price of consumer goods will go up considerably.

    29. Re:Argh! by brad3378 · · Score: 1
      --

  12. Wasted Energy Storage by pipingguy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This makes me feel all fuzzy good inside, so I endorse it. It "feels" greeny, so it must be a good thing.

  13. The question on my mind is... by j0se_p0inter0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...where the hell are they going to put them? I'm sitting here in West Texas in an office of a major tower manufacturer; and we have 80 towers worth of sections sitting in our storage lot (which is being expanded) that the company purchasing them can't find a home for. A couple of sites have been proposed, but they fell through because it would cost too much to build the infrastructure to connect them to the grid. Now they're trying to find a site in a different state. And Mr. Pickens reportedly has 200 towers built that he can't site either, my favorite quote is "Well I damn sure can't put 'em up in my yard". So good luck to the Chinese I guess. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

    1. Re:The question on my mind is... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't know, but every time I drive out to West Texas on I-10, I see trucks carrying windmill parts, and I see more windmills on the plateaus visible from the highway. So somebody is finding places to put them. Or already owns suitable places and is occupying them over time. Maybe that's who the Chinese are selling to, and that's why that land isn't an available choice for your customer? I don't know.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:The question on my mind is... by j0se_p0inter0 · · Score: 1

      Could be, not sure. I know that over here in my neck of the woods, the farms are being sourced by one large US producer and 3 from overseas. The article mentions that only the turbines would be Chinese-sourced, but all the companies I know of with farms here produce their own turbines. If they struck up a deal with a Texas company to build the towers and slap Chinese turbines on them, my best guess is that it would be Trinity. But there's not really any details in the article, so who knows. Like I said, this will be interesting to watch :)

    3. Re:The question on my mind is... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      I'm sitting here in West Texas in an office of a major tower manufacturer

      Trinity?

    4. Re:The question on my mind is... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Welcome to the country of whiners. Everyone here in the U.S. is all for solving problems unless it is going to inconvenience them for a half second.

    5. Re:The question on my mind is... by j0se_p0inter0 · · Score: 1

      Nope! Pretty close (physically) though :)

    6. Re:The question on my mind is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Years ago I saw a documentary about a village on the Russian-Chinese border. The Russian farmers all were sitting around in the local bar all day drinking vodka and bitching about the Chinese traders making more money than they did. It never occurred to them that they could make the same amount of money if they were willing to actually work 14 hours a day in their own small business.

      The Russians had 70 years of communism as an excuse for not knowing about making your own way in the world without expecting a handout. I wonder what excuse people in the US have.

    7. Re:The question on my mind is... by j0se_p0inter0 · · Score: 1

      UPDATE: The wind industry in the US is big but it's also tight-knit...everyone knows what everyone else is up to. Not 100% sure, but what I'm hearing on the grapevine is the company who did this deal is Hirschfeld and the site is near San Angelo.

    8. Re:The question on my mind is... by j0se_p0inter0 · · Score: 1
    9. Re:The question on my mind is... by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      From the sounds of it, they're actively developing a power corridor through the Kerrville/Fredricksburg, TX area. Last time I checked (May 2009), when I was out there, the area is sparsely populated, and people aren't typically worried about losing their "scenic view".

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    10. Re:The question on my mind is... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      the company purchasing them can't find a home for

      one would suppose they're not offering enough money, perhaps calculating their ROI on a short-term budget. The Chinese are patient.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    11. Re:The question on my mind is... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That will change as money for lending is loosening up, that's the issue. Of course when you have cash, that's not an issue.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  14. What does Mr. Horse think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "No sir, I don't like it!"

    1. Re:What does Mr. Horse think? by Xiver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only thing that Mr. Horse likes are rubber walrus protectors.

      --
      10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
      20: GOTO 10
    2. Re:What does Mr. Horse think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Forget the Chinese. How do we know that the 600MW isn't referring to the energy level of the radiation coming off the machinery's metal components tainted with China'a radioactive waste? Have we forgotten so soon?

  15. Capacity Factor by some_hoser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hate how articles talking about renewable energy never take into account the capacity factor of the production. Wind is about 30% or so, so the real average output will be more like 200 MW, unlike a nuclear or other plant with a capacity factor of 90+%. Yet still, they will be compared on their MAX output, not the AVERAGE.

    1. Re:Capacity Factor by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Power generation is broken into two basic categories; base and peak. Wind and solar are both geared to address peak. Wind is never intended to be base load, so what is your point?

      Furthermore, power generation from wind improvements now allow for peak generation over a much larger variation of wind as well as higher efficiency (less loss) for the power which is generated. As I understand it, your 30% is far too low now. IIRC, its somewhere in the 40+% range now.

    2. Re:Capacity Factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      36% at installed location. Nameplate capacity is how its always been done with energy conversion systems.... ALWAYS

    3. Re:Capacity Factor by Sandbags · · Score: 1

      The nuclear plants in and around my state operate at 40-60% capacity, and rarely generate more. One local site has 3 reactors, one of which has not been fired in several years.

      These reactors cost 4-5 times more to build per GW generated (based on AVNERAGE output at 30%), take tens of thousands of acres we can never again use (where we can at least farm on 85% of the land a wind farm exists on), and a reactor lasts 30-50 years, where a wind tower lasts 150, and the generators are inexpensive to replace ever 40-60 years with ones that get better efficiency.

      This does not include nuclear fuel storage and waste disposal costs, for which wind has none.

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    4. Re:Capacity Factor by R2.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Wind and solar are both geared to address peak. "

      Bullshit - they aren't "geared" toward anything. Wind and solar don't work like that - the grid operators cannot simply turn on the wind or the sun. And that level of control is necessary for how we run our grid presently. Baseline is always on, and peak is on when dictated by demand, NOT availability. Solar is an especially good example of this - peak generating hours in many parts of the country occur in early evening in the summer, as people get home from work, turn on lights, cook, and the AC labors to take care of the load. But that's when your solar generation is going down. So you still need to fire up peaking plants to meet demand.

      I'm not saying that wind and solar don't have their place, only that they don't drop as neatly into the electrical supply system as some would wish.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    5. Re:Capacity Factor by polar+red · · Score: 2, Informative

      Read the article here : http://www.politicsinthepub.org.au/downloads/BP16_BaseLoadFallacy.pdf "Although a single wind turbine is indeed intermittent, this is not generally true of a system of several wind farms, separated by several hundred kilometres and experiencing different wind regimes." and here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power "A series of detailed modelling studies which looked at the Europe wide adoption of renewable energy and interlinking power grids using HVDC cables, indicates that the entire power usage could come from renewables, with 70% total energy from wind at the same sort of costs or lower than at present. Intermittency would be dealt with, according to this model, by a combination of geographic dispersion to de-link weather system effects, and the ability of HVDC to shift power from windy areas to non-windy areas."

        essentially, what's said here is that geographical dispersion can easily cope with the intermitency problem. (I can imagine the [total amount of moving air] * [avg wind speed] = constant.)

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    6. Re:Capacity Factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't hate, just understand. Power plants, renewable or not, are uniformly refered to in their nameplate capacity because of all the variables that go into calculating these capacity factors (number of turbines, turbine placement, ground cover, turbulence intensity, electrical losses, and wind speeds--which is subjective itself to how they it is calculated/analyzed).

      In laymen's terms, just because your tv is rated at 1080p, the show you're watching is more likely in 480p, 720i, or 1080i. But the guy at Best Buy is selling you a 1080p tv and that's what you're going to tell to all your friends it is.

    7. Re:Capacity Factor by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      I have read of that model, although perhaps not that paper per se. Re-read my post - I didn't deny that wind was useful, only that it could not be dropped neatly into our existing grid and distribution models. This paper reiterates that - sure, wind can work - as long as you install an entirely new grid and control system to go with it!

      For that matter, the OP took the position that wind and solar were peak load sources. That is patently incorrect - the model you cite shows wind as a replacement for baseload. The root of the distinction between peak and baseline generation is that you can turn peaking plants of and off when it is needed. Sure, you could handle that peak by increasing the base load capacity and then just under-loading it most of the time, but that's hugely inefficient. Wind and solar simply don't fit neatly into the curent power grid. That's not a condemnation, but a recognition that more has to change than "Just build windmills."

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    8. Re:Capacity Factor by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Industrial solar thermal can be used as a base. It doesn't require 24/7 sun becasue it stores the super hot liquid and uses it through the night.

      Add to that power generator on the wast cost could be used to power the evening power needs of the east.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Capacity Factor by polar+red · · Score: 1

      "entire power usage could come from renewables, with 70% total energy from wind at the same sort of costs or lower than at present" (and oil,coal,nuclear ... WILL get more expensive. Guaranteed.)

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    10. Re:Capacity Factor by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      TANSTAAFL.

      You would need to build the solar collection portion of the plant over twice as large as the generator capacity dictates, because you only have 12 hours to collect the BTU's you need for all 24. That's also twice the land.

      Maybe it's feasible, but the existing systems are mostly small - about 50MW. A baseload powerplant in the US is generally over 500MW - nukes go up to 1250. And like the nuclear industry found out, you can't just "scale up" a small design by an order of magnitude without problems.

      Oh, yeah - then there's the 'West Coast to East Coast" thing - which our current grid can't do.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    11. Re:Capacity Factor by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "and oil,coal,nuclear ... WILL get more expensive. Guaranteed.)"

      And wind and solar won't? The laws of supply and demand still apply. Once the cheap land is used up for these installations, what happens next?

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    12. Re:Capacity Factor by polar+red · · Score: 1

      Once the cheap land is used up for these installations

      5 seconds of searching gave me this :
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4560139.stm "that figure may rise to 20% by 2020. 0.0001% of British land to produce that amount of electricity" so 0.0005% of British land is enough. seeing that the UK is relatively densely populated, I think we can assume there is enough land. and then we have also the seas left ...

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    13. Re:Capacity Factor by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "that figure may rise to 20% by 2020. 0.0001% of British land to produce that amount of electricity" so 0.0005% of British land is enough. seeing that the UK is relatively densely populated, I think we can assume there is enough land. and then we have also the seas left ..."

      Hmmm.

      Per Wikipedia, the land area of the entire island of Great Britain is 216,777 sq km. One ten thousandth of a percent of that is 0.217 sq km. That's a square of land .466 km/side. Are you seriously claiming that you could provide 20% of Britain's power via windmills? That's not even a the size of a very large warehouse.

      Maybe when they say ""These things are very small really, at the base," they mean the area of the actual pole on which they sit. Because everyone knows you can fit windmills on land the same way you put cigarettes in a pack.

      Either their numbers are off by a couple of decimal places, or they are not counting access roads, the actual footprint of the blades, switchgear, etc. But what you are definitely forgetting is that the value of land can have very little to do with rational measurements. From your link:

      "There is a wind farm in the Isle of Lewis that is being proposed at the moment, that the RSPB are opposing because it may impact migratory routes.

      "We do not support that application, because we think a wind farm may not be suitable for that particular location."

      Now add up the rest of the migratory paths, the scenic views, the airport takeoff and landing zones, the farmers taht just won't sell, and there's not so much land available after all.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    14. Re:Capacity Factor by polar+red · · Score: 1

      OK, so you won't believe projected figures. try actual installed capacity of 24% in denmark then ...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    15. Re:Capacity Factor by evilviper · · Score: 1

      You would need to build the solar collection portion of the plant over twice as large as the generator capacity dictates, because you only have 12 hours to collect the BTU's you need for all 24. That's also twice the land.

      No, you would build the solar collector 1X as large, and your generator 1/2 as large, and generate the electricity more evenly around the clock.

      If you want to build the solar collector twice as large, fine... you'll get twice as much out of it, but you certainly don't NEED to do so.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    16. Re:Capacity Factor by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "Denmark has relatively modest average wind speeds in the range of 4.9-5.6 metres a second measured at 10 m height. Onshore wind resources are highest in the Western part of the country, and on the Eastern islands with coastlines facing South or West. The country has very large offshore wind resources, and large areas of sea territory with a shallow water depth of 5-15 m, where siting is most feasible. These sites offer higher wind speeds, in the range of roughly 8.5-9.0 m/s at 50 m height.[6] There have been no major problems from wind variability, although there is a temporary problem resulting from the connection of a large bloc of wind power from offshore wind farms to a single point on a weak section of the transmission network.[7]

      Denmark is connected by transmission line to other European countries and therefore it does not need to install additional peak-load plant to balance its wind power. Instead, it purchases additional power from its neighbours when necessary. With some strengthening of the grid, Denmark plans to increase wind's share even further.[8]"

      Cool. Good for them - they are geographically and politically fortunate.

      What about everyone else whose entire country doesn't lie within 50 miles of the North Sea?

      I repeat (again) that I am not suggesting that wind and solar be written off. I am only pointing out that there are issues with implementation that are either being ignored or glossed over by those who promote renewables as this facile solution that is only being held back by entrenched interests and public stupidity.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    17. Re:Capacity Factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow the FUD.

      The nuclear plants in and around my state operate at 40-60% capacity, and rarely generate more. One local site has 3 reactors, one of which has not been fired in several years.

      Nuclear plants on average operate around 90% capacity very regularly. What state do you live in that one hasn't been "fired" (not the right term at all)?

      take tens of thousands of acres we can never again use

      Take something like this for example:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Valley_Nuclear_Generating_Station
      100 acres for a dual unit plant, not "tens of thousands".

      and a reactor lasts 30-50 years

      30-50 years is wrong. NRC licenses last 40 years to being with, and renewals take it to 60.

      This does not include nuclear fuel storage and waste disposal costs, for which wind has none.

      Fuel storage and waste disposal costs are figured into the cost of running nuclear power plants.

      If you really want, I can dig up sources for every item I stated.

    18. Re:Capacity Factor by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Bullshit - they aren't "geared" toward anything. Wind and solar don't work like that - the grid operators cannot simply turn on the wind or the sun. And that level of control is necessary for how we run our grid presently.

      I think I smell some more bullshit coming from you. Base load must always be available and be available to increase demand - which is what you're talking about. Peak load is capacity available beyond base which is normally only used to satisfy load beyond base. After all, base load is typically, dramatically cheaper to boot.

      While in theory, wind can provide some base load capacity, simply because its likely to be available, its availability and exactly capacity is always unknown, if available at all, and as such, it not dubbed "base load". So in short, wind absolutely is geared to satisfy "peak" capacity as it is simply not reliable enough to meet base load requirements.

      From here, your rant seems to go full circle and support exactly what I'm saying....which brings me full circle - what the fuck is your point because you don't seem to have one at all...

    19. Re:Capacity Factor by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      Way to miss the point. You seem to be saying that, since wind doesn't satisfy the definition of base generation, it therefore must be peak. Well guess what - it doesn't satisfy the definition of peak, either! You are trying to stuff wind and solar into a model that doesn't have room for it.

      You are sabotaging your own position by offering a "simple" solution. As long as various advocates continue to insist that "Solution A" is simple and easy, you will always be subject to rejection when it turns out that it's NOT simple and easy. If you focus on defending the idea that solar and wind are "baseload" or "peak", your general argument - that we should adopt these technologies - gets stopped butt cold.

      Either show me how major wind and solar installations can fit into the US distribution as it exists today, or grow a pair and give us the bad news about how we need to change the way the grid works.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  16. Long cable by daybot · · Score: 1

    providing enough power to meet the electrical needs of around 150,000 American homes.

    California really are getting desperate. Also, that's a long cable; they'd better crank the voltage to reduce resistive loss...

    1. Re:Long cable by daybot · · Score: 1

      Bollocks - misread the summary. I thought it was saying they're building a wind farm in China.

  17. Why China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why are we not using US resources for this? G.E. has been producing these turbines for years.

    1. Re:Why China? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      GE produces those wind generators IN CHINA, NOT in WESTERN NATIONS.
      They are the ones that transferred that tech to them.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:Why China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is the answer:

      Right now I am involved in getting funding for a telco venture. Only the Chinese banks will funds the gig, on condition we source only from Chinese suppliers.

    3. Re:Why China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, GE produces these in Florida.

    4. Re:Why China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not 100% correct. I used to work for a manufacturer that supplied gears for GE's turbines. All of the gears we supplied were made here in the US, so while some of the assembly of the turbines may take place in China there are a number of parts made right here. Do you have any idea how big some of these parts are and how expensive they are to ship?

    5. Re:Why China? by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      Which begs the question, are the labor laws (or maybe we should say unions) that screwed up in the US that is it cheaper to ship the parts to another country, assemble a bug ass product, and ship it back?

      Maybe that is something the Federal government should be looking into? Wait most of the federal government people are paid by the unions and others to look the other way. Where is my pitchfork at....

  18. What American companies and people are involved? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would like to picket them.

    What I find amazing is that Chinese wind Generators are well known for lots of downtime (gee, what a surprise), which means high labor costs on THIS side. That means that these companies will pay a great deal more for the power.

  19. We're dooooooomed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, though, this is getting sad. First we loose the manufacturing of cheap plastic crap, then consumer electronics, then consumer everything. We pin our hopes on big-ticket stuff like train engines and green technology, then we start losing that too. The fine article pointed out that just 25% of the components of US-installed turbines are made in the states.

    What's wrong here? It can't just be the wages or the currency. There's a hell of a lot of skill and work that went into china's boom for the past 30 years. Are our best and brightest going to Wall Street rather than industries that actually produce something? Is economic nationalism seen as passe among the powerful? Are we generally just too lazy now?

    1. Re:We're dooooooomed! by anagama · · Score: 1

      We're being sold out. Germany is the number one exporter in dollar value in the world -- and that with a first world standard of living. http://www.wisegeek.com/which-countries-export-the-most.htm Big business in bed with government is killing America.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  20. I'm a treehugger but... by e-scetic · · Score: 1

    36,000 acres of turbines to power only 150,000 homes? Seems incredibly inefficient...

    1. Re:I'm a treehugger but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, if you couldn't use that 36,000 acres for anything else. Wind sites can still be farmed, grazed, etc.

    2. Re:I'm a treehugger but... by confused+one · · Score: 3, Informative

      That land can be used simultaneously for other things, like a farm. OR, We could accomplish the same thing with one (fairly small by modern standards) nuclear power plant AND use much less land. Your choice. Either is fine by me.

    3. Re:I'm a treehugger but... by Guido+von+Guido · · Score: 1

      True, if you couldn't use that 36,000 acres for anything else. Wind sites can still be farmed, grazed, etc.

      To second that, Toronto has a windmill downtown at Exhibition Place. That's a pretty heavily used area.

      I'm sure the Europeans can give more examples. Taking the bus or the train through Germany in recent years I've seen a large number of windmills on what looked like actively used farmland.

    4. Re:I'm a treehugger but... by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

      You can use the land for multiple purposes at the same time. Kind of like this...

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    5. Re:I'm a treehugger but... by Hadlock · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Efficency? Would you like fries with that? Cows can graze on the land the turbines sit on. There's a turbine smack-dab in the middle of a Wal*Mart parking lot two towns north of me. Turbines are fenced off with 100x100' fences, but other than that the 20 acres of "wind land" they use is up for grabs for agriculture, hunting lodges, parking lots etc.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  21. on first thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope this works out better than the Chinese drywall that eventually reeked of their sulfurous quarries.

    On second thought, this could be a good thing, something that could fire up the blood of the cowboy entrepreneurs down there to compete in this new arena. I wouldn't surprised to see people like Dubya associated with new ventures.

  22. Bah. by Penumbra · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wait, Texas EXPORTS windmills, mostly to the Netherlands. I see the blades going by rail to the port all the time. The Beaumont Enterprise lists what ships are in port with cargo and destination information.

    1. Re:Bah. by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

      You'd think the Dutch would have found a better way to make their flour by now.

  23. "using turbines made in China" by ibsteve2u · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...using turbines made in China...

    Sigh...I knew the artificial inequities in trade - that is, the artificial difference in the cost of living and thus the wages you can get away with paying, the artificial differences in the cost of regulation, and the way the Chinese manipulate their currency to ensure they maintain a preeminent trade position - would result in the much-ballyhooed "green jobs" going to China.

    Am I the only person in America who sees a horribly bleak future for our children because of inequitable free trade and trickle-down economics? The latter only encourages our top economic tier to seek the margins the former provides, eliminating patriotism (and ethics, morality, honor, and even the public displays of religion - but that is another rant entirely) from the equation.

    Unless something changes, I don't think America has anywhere to go but down...for 90% of us, anyway.

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
    1. Re:"using turbines made in China" by db32 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then I would suggest making sure you are part of the 10%. For all the other asinine problems running around here, we do have a tremendous amount of upward mobility. There is a huge portion of that 90% that believes that they should be able to whine loud enough and someone else will come fix their problems in some fashion. Government handouts, corporate charity, whatever. Then on the top end, there is a bunch of worthless dead weight always waiting to be replaced. These are the guys with more money than brains. The ones that didn't get there through hard work, ingenuity, etc. They just can't compete. For every guy ready to invest heavily in 'the next big thing' that has a clue how to evaluate that investment, there are probably 10 that want to throw all their money at what someone tells them will be 'the next big thing' without any real evaluation or critical examination.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    2. Re:"using turbines made in China" by thetagger · · Score: 1

      Am I the only person in America who sees a horribly bleak future for our children because of inequitable free trade and trickle-down economics? The latter only encourages our top economic tier to seek the margins the former provides, eliminating patriotism (and ethics, morality, honor, and even the public displays of religion - but that is another rant entirely) from the equation.

      Wow, an American complaining about inequitable free trade? WTF.

    3. Re:"using turbines made in China" by lxs · · Score: 1

      The irony is truly delicious. Before you know it US citizens will be sneaking across the border to find a better life as illegal aliens in Mexico.

  24. Traded for missile technology by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We give them information about missile technology they give us information on wind mills.

    Sounds fair to me.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/15/inside-the-ring-2059116/

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Traded for missile technology by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

      lollll...you are a little behind the curve, there. Ever heard the phrase "dual-use" technology?

      The Washington Times' article is just revisionism, designed to conceal what the Republicans had already done with free trade by shifting the responsibility forward in time.

      See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801029.html/

      --
      Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  25. Level Playing Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With approximately 1 ton of rare earth magnets in each turbine, and China having dominance in the rare earth supply chain, and threatening to cut off all exports of rare earth oxides (hmmm, build your factory in China and China will let you have access to the REO), with no EPA or greenies to stymie the mining industry, I'm failing to see where this field is level.

    1. Re:Level Playing Field? by Marcika · · Score: 4, Informative

      With approximately 1 ton of rare earth magnets in each turbine, and China having dominance in the rare earth supply chain, and threatening to cut off all exports of rare earth oxides (hmmm, build your factory in China and China will let you have access to the REO), with no EPA or greenies to stymie the mining industry, I'm failing to see where this field is level.

      Rare earth magnets are not the only way to build efficient turbines. This summary of this article (PDF, p.26) does a good job of showing why your statement is probably false.

    2. Re:Level Playing Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe what the GP is trying to say, is that, by mining, some fields were leveled?

      Nothing makes me happier than to realize we are taking the lead, by plundering 36 thousand acres to put up some windmills that can only serve 150 thousand houses (WHEN THERE IS WIND), and will pay for it to a foreign government down the road.

      Build a nuke plant. That will bring money to America, and it will create real jobs, take up far less area, and provide for more houses.

      This nuclear plant in Ohio is on a 953-acre plot, which uses 733 acres as a wildlife refuge. Therefore, (953 - 733 = 220) acres are used for the actual nuclear plant, and it provides 879 MW, which is (879 - 600 = 279) MW more power than the wind mills. For (36,000 - 220 = 35,780) fewer acres, you can provide for more houses in a reliable manner, as well as a clean one (nuclear plants are just glorified boiling water plants with a radioactive byproduct that can be safely stored on, or off site in a place smaller than the size of a football field for all plants across the US; also, the byproduct could be reused if the government would rewrite a law that blocks that very act).

      So, one is going to destroy a huge amount of the planet to make (hint: wind turbines), and one will be better in ever other way, except the production of a byproduct that can be easily stored in a very small location.

    3. Re:Level Playing Field? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      REE deposits exist elsewhere in the world. It's just that the deposits in China have cheaper production, so many former mines have been closed. As prices and demand rises, both old and new deposits around the world will be opened.

    4. Re:Level Playing Field? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      That took a lot of reading to get to the simple answer hehe.

      Sintered Ferrite magnets, as opposed to rare earth magnets, perform better at higher speeds due to lower flux, when taking cost of the magnet into account.

      I doubt many wind turbines will be running fast often. But since they are cheaper, you could always buy 10x the number of them (vs rare earth) per wind turbine and have many more disc layers turning to produce the energy.

  26. Why get China into this? by werfu · · Score: 1

    Why do the China has to get into this? Don't the US realize that by having such deals and loan with China they're selling their country. Obama has planned for the green energy industry to help to rebuild the economy. If the wind turbines and most of the manufacturing is done in China, where's the point?

    1. Re:Why get China into this? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      GE has been making wind plants in China all along. Oddly, it is EU companies that produce their wind generators in the states.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  27. For those who were thinking about the math... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    150,000 homes, powered by
    36,000 acres = 145.7 km^2

    Average U.S. household size = 2.59 (census.gov)
    150,000 homes = 388,500 people

    145.7 km^2 / 150,000 homes ~= 1000 m^2 per household
    145.7 km^2 / 388,500 people ~= 375 m^2 per person

    U.S. Population = 304,059,724 (Google)
    To power the entire U.S., that's 114,022 km^2
    (For reference, the state of Ohio is 116,096 km^2)

    1. Re:For those who were thinking about the math... by Cedric+Tsui · · Score: 1

      Cool!

      Windmills aren't a promising as these numbers show though. For one, you pick ideal locations for your windmills. If you were to cover Ohio with windmills, you would generate very little electricity. Another thing that should be added to projections is that windmill power output is its maximum rated output, while the average output is probably 30% of the maximum. Oh, and one last point. I believe household consumption makes up less than a half of a country's power requirements since most of the electricity is used for industry.
      Still. Those numbers make me happy.

  28. Problem is, this is NOT just America by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Right now, China is targetting America by tying their Yuan to the dollar. BUT, once they feel that we are down enough, then they will go after EU by tying to the Euro.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Problem is, this is NOT just America by Marcika · · Score: 1

      Right now, China is targetting America by tying their Yuan to the dollar. BUT, once they feel that we are down enough, then they will go after EU by tying to the Euro.

      Newsflash: The Euro is already strengthening extremely against the Renminbi (and the Dollar); tying the RMB to the Euro would be actually beneficial for them: It would stop clobbering European exporters with ever more punitive exchange rates in the middle of a recession...

    2. Re:Problem is, this is NOT just America by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Tying the RMB/Yuan to the Euro at a rate that is far far lower than it should be would NOT help EU. It would destroy them. All their manufacturing would slowly move to China because the goods would be far cheaper.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Problem is, this is NOT just America by Marcika · · Score: 1

      Tying the RMB/Yuan to the Euro at a rate that is far far lower than it should be would NOT help EU. It would destroy them. All their manufacturing would slowly move to China because the goods would be far cheaper.

      If EU exports are uncompetitive due to a strong Euro exchange rate, and EU domestic production is also uncompetitive against imports even at a strong Euro exchange rate, then Chinese companies have out-competed European companies in a fair manner, have they not?

      (And more importantly, would out-compete the European companies on world markets even (and especially if) Europe chose a policy of mercantilistic retribution or isolationism.)

    4. Re:Problem is, this is NOT just America by maxume · · Score: 1

      And at some point, the people of China will go after the leaders. 300 million people upset that they are being left behind is quite a problem to deal with.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:Problem is, this is NOT just America by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      The Chinese money is much lower BECAUSE they have tied it to the dollar (7 yuans to a dollar, when it should be less than 2 and probably 1 for 1). That means that the Yuan/RMB is seriously undervalued relative to the dollar AND the Euro. Once China is done with America, then they will attack the euro by simply tying it to that. They will be able to hold seriously undervalued relative to that, until they have sucked up the jobs.

      In what way is that fair?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    6. Re:Problem is, this is NOT just America by Marcika · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In what way is that fair?

      Well, from the viewpoint of world markets: if the Chinese entrepreneur can do the job better and cheaper, why should I (as a hypothetical third party) buy gizmos from the EU/US? Just because Americans are per se more worthy of a job than a Chinese person with the same skills?

      From the viewpoint of the EU/US: The Chinese pay a rather high price for "sucking our jeerbs" with a cheap currency. In order to keep their currency low, they hold trillions in treasury bills, (1) foregoing better returns in other assets, (2) risking their investment in case of USD inflation or USD devaluation, (3) keeping their people worse-off, as imports are more expensive than they would be otherwise, so they have to use crappy Chinese gizmos and eat crappy Chinese food even if they don't want to.

    7. Re:Problem is, this is NOT just America by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Well, from the viewpoint of world markets: if the Chinese entrepreneur can do the job better and cheaper, why should I (as a hypothetical third party) buy gizmos from the EU/US? Just because Americans are per se more worthy of a job than a Chinese person with the same skills?
      Cool. So, the west should enact a near total trade barriers against Chinese products and then hook our money against the RMB/Yuan so that our goods do not cost say 7 yuans there, but only costs 1 yuan? In addition, we shouls subsidize our energy and then dump the products on the Chinese and even the regular world markets?

      Is that really what you are suggesting as being fair or well thought out?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    8. Re:Problem is, this is NOT just America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is actually a co-dependent relationship. If the Chinese didn't loan us money to buy cheap crap from them,
      they'd have millions of unemployed people who have previously had a taste of what it's like not to live an agricultural, hand-to-mouth existence.

      For now, they're playing along to prevent social upheaval.

    9. Re:Problem is, this is NOT just America by Marcika · · Score: 1

      Well, from the viewpoint of world markets: if the Chinese entrepreneur can do the job better and cheaper, why should I (as a hypothetical third party) buy gizmos from the EU/US? Just because Americans are per se more worthy of a job than a Chinese person with the same skills? Cool. So, the west should enact a near total trade barriers against Chinese products and then hook our money against the RMB/Yuan so that our goods do not cost say 7 yuans there, but only costs 1 yuan? In addition, we shouls subsidize our energy and then dump the products on the Chinese and even the regular world markets? Is that really what you are suggesting as being fair or well thought out?

      Yes, if you had 300 million people that you wanted to drag out of squalor, it might make good policy. Of course, apart from being infeasible (you know, with Americans already having way higher wages) it would be highly unpopular amongst the American population. As the second part of my GP comment alludes, it is "fair" in the sense that the Chinese sacrifice a huge amount of current consumption and wealth in order to secure future jobs and technology.

      (That the energy cost and externalities are not accounted for is just as much a fault of the US as of China - the US is the most vehement opponent of carbon taxes and carbon limiting treaties internationally.)

    10. Re:Problem is, this is NOT just America by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

      Trust me: Americans would happily take a cut in wages to reach parity with Chinese workers...if our housing, food, medical, utility, insurance, and other living expenses also fell to Chinese levels.

      But our top economic tier doesn't want that to happen; when you've gone to all the trouble - and three decades of work - to shift America's wealth into your hands, why would you want to see the value of your holdings fall?

      --
      Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
    11. Re:Problem is, this is NOT just America by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      First, if China really wanted to drag their ppl out of squalor, then they would push for TRUE free enterprise. China is a in cold war and this has NOTHING to do with helping their ppl. Heck, over the last 10 years, they increased their military spending more than all of the rest of their budget COMBINED.

      Secondly, the entire issue of limiting carbon is dead wrong with Kyoto and trying to mandate it via gov. even worse. Kyoto and Cap/Trade will only make things WORSE, not better. The reason is that it will encourage more jobs to shift to countries that have the worst issue with Carbon. For starters, China. China is now the largest polluters of carbon. In addition, if they stick with their plans for for coal, and disregard the oil based cars coming on-line in their nation, in 2015-2016, they will have put more carbon into the air than America has in its' history. In addition, by 2018, they will have put me than all of the western nations. And that is just China. It does not include the rest of BRIC.

      I have been writting my senators pushing for them to kill the cap/trade and move to a true cap/tax. We need to tax ALL GOODS based on the CO2 from where it came AND where the primary component comes from. Once that is done, then it will encourage all nations to change their strategy of new coal plants and new oil based cars to one of AE, Nukes, and electric cars. In addition, some of the money should then go back to help nations such as the small 3'rd world nations move to these.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  29. What happened to Pickens' windmills? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    "Pickens Calls Off Massive Wind Farm In Texas" "Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday July 08, @12:35PM" http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/08/167212

    1. Re:What happened to Pickens' windmills? by Bling316 · · Score: 1

      You aren't supposed to remember that part of it. Go back to your cubicle and be a good drone.

    2. Re:What happened to Pickens' windmills? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LTGTFY

  30. It makes sense, actually by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're suppressing competition by undercutting prices. This is easy to do if you've got a low cost labor pool and government backing (both overt in the form of subsidies and covert in the form of silent ownership by senior Chinese government officials). All the better that you can seek (and probably get) tax breaks from the government of the very country who's industry you're looking to hobble with your low prices.

    That said, there's nothing wrong with buying Chinese generators if they meet quality and price requirements. But I think this is a case where the US government has lost sight of the football here. Assisting a foreign power with the task of gutting an industry that was pioneered in the US and that may be important in future green energy markets around the world seems extremely foolish and short sighted.

    1. Re:It makes sense, actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the technology was pioneered in Europe.

  31. Some choice, huh? by macraig · · Score: 1

    So these days we have a choice for every 36,000 acres: either build 150,000 structures to house 300,000+ mouths to feed, or build 240 turbines to power 150,000 structures housing 300,000+ hungry mouths somewhere else? Can we have an option (c) none of the above? I'd kinda like to just leave those 36,000 acres the hell alone.

    1. Re:Some choice, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You DO realize that with 240 turbines over 36,000 acres that's 1 Turbine every 150 Acres don't you?

      My house sits on approximately a quarter acre, you could do both, but people might complain about the noise.

      You could plant 30,000 acres of crops to FEED those 300,000 hungry mouths. Plants don't seem to care about turbine noise and how Wind Turbines disrupt the aesthetic value of the horizon.

    2. Re:Some choice, huh? by Marcika · · Score: 1

      So these days we have a choice for every 36,000 acres: either build 150,000 structures to house 300,000+ mouths to feed, or build 240 turbines to power 150,000 structures housing 300,000+ hungry mouths somewhere else? Can we have an option (c) none of the above? I'd kinda like to just leave those 36,000 acres the hell alone.

      What about option (d):240 turbines plus 35,000 acres of farmland that are necessary to feed the people anyway? It's not like having a turbine on the edge of a 150-acre field would preclude it from being used for other purposes... (And it's not like you'd have the right to demand for someone else to leave their farmland "the hell alone" if they want to use it for turbines.)

    3. Re:Some choice, huh? by macraig · · Score: 1

      Actually plants WOULD care: it would completely RUIN the pollination process. Having simply said that, I expect you can reason the rest out? This is yet another example of someone not thinking a process completely through, rather only as far as required to preserve their desired perception/worldview. Don't do that, it doesn't really help the problem-solving much.

    4. Re:Some choice, huh? by macraig · · Score: 1

      Already asked and answered above. Turbines and farmland do NOT go well together, unless you're a fan of hand pollination of every damned plant (well, tomatoes excepted).

    5. Re:Some choice, huh? by Marcika · · Score: 1

      Actually plants WOULD care: it would completely RUIN the pollination process. Having simply said that, I expect you can reason the rest out? This is yet another example of someone not thinking a process completely through, rather only as far as required to preserve their desired perception/worldview. Don't do that, it doesn't really help the problem-solving much.

      Do you have empirical evidence to back up your rather BOLD statement and your ad-hominem? It seems that farmers have been leasing out their land to wind farm operators for quite a while, and I can't find any sources stating that they have experienced detrimental effects on crops.

    6. Re:Some choice, huh? by macraig · · Score: 1

      FLYING things are the primary pollinators of most plants, and virtually all crop plants. Bats in particular are especially fond of wind turbines.

    7. Re:Some choice, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kill yourself.

  32. Obligatory (suprised noone has said it yet) by Zantac69 · · Score: 1

    I, for one, would like to welcome our chinese overlords.

    Its not that you are "new" - you are just finally starting to show your face.

    --
    1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.
    1. Re:Obligatory (suprised noone has said it yet) by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Also missing is the obligatory reference to Firefly and Serenity.

    2. Re:Obligatory (suprised noone has said it yet) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Futurama.

      "I'm sure those windmills will keep them cool."
      "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"

  33. Your Wind Farms Are The by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New World Order Your winds farms not made in the U.S.A. Your wind farms not made in the U.S.A. in slave labor camps in China. ...errrrrr.... made in factories in China and so on and so forth.

    Yours In Novorossisysk,
    Kilgore T.

  34. Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature... by mayko · · Score: 2, Funny

    Asian-American, please.

    1. Re:Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Asian-American, please.

      Just like all the African-Americans that live in Africa, or the Native-Americans that live in India? And yes, I've heard both PC terms used very incorrectly.

    2. Re:Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature... by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

      Just like all the African-Americans that live in Africa, or the Native-Americans that live in India? And yes, I've heard both PC terms used very incorrectly.

      Donny you're out of your element!

  35. Irony by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

    I can't be the only one that finds China supplying the US with technology to generate clean energy ironic.

  36. Fungible by fulldecent · · Score: 1

    Yes Obama, even green jobs are fungible.

    --

    -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    1. Re:Fungible by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but a little bit of bleach cleans it right up.

  37. Oh great, more cheap junk! by InsaneProcessor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Works great for one two three months but false apart after the first rainfall. Kind of the same way the clothes made in China last.

    --

    Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
    1. Re:Oh great, more cheap junk! by N-S+Equations · · Score: 1

      Works great for one two three months but false apart after the first rainfall. Kind of the same way the clothes made in China last.

      Yeah, everything made in China does that, which explains why all Apple products explodes when it rains.

      --
      The universe is simple, it's the explanation that is complicated.
  38. How long by kannibul · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    How long before one of the blades snaps off and kills someone, or there's lead in the paint, or the turbines themselves are "rigged" by China for debt-collection purposes? I know here in Oklahoma I see huge wind turbine blades being hauled all the time - well, at least in summer. I don't know where they come from or going to, but the going along the highway that goes from Tulsa to Dallas (state HWY 75) Why not buy American...and help OUR economy for once? Seems there needs to be an increase on taxes for imported goods...maybe we could use that to supliment health insurance (either by lowering income taxes, or by paying for it...)

  39. For all the Californians, wonder why TX? by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course, it's because a developer in Texas can just buy the land and build a wind farm.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/weekinreview/18galbraith.html?_r=3

    The irony is quite telling -- environmental regulations making it harder to build a renewable energy source. The most telling part of this (and recall that the New York Times was not a particular fan of this TX governor):

    But here again, Texas and California have behaved very differently. Texas set a strong renewable energy requirement back in 1999 (when George W. Bush was governor) -- and quickly exceeded it. Last year, 5 percent of the state's electricity came from wind power. California set a very high bar, requiring big utilities to get 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources next year, although they are not expected to meet it.

    That is, measured purely by results, the track record of the state that doesn't give a shit is miles ahead of the state that makes a big complicated deal about caring.

    [ Aside: I'm not against environmental regulation by any means. At the very minimum, however, we ought to insist that the benefits a cleaner environment outweigh the costs of regulation. In cases like this where it seems like the regulations are actually counterproductive to the goals, well then the costs are truly wasted.]

    1. Re:For all the Californians, wonder why TX? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying a state that sets a goal of 5 percent renewable energy and makes it is doing better than a state that sets a goal of 20 percent renewable energy and may or may not make it?
      From a very quick Google search:

      California, Brownstein wrote, "emits only about half as much carbon per dollar of economic activity as the rest of America. It generates significantly more electricity than any other state from nonhydroelectric renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and biomass. California registers more patents associated with clean energy than any other state and attracts most of the venture capital invested in U.S. 'cleantech' companies exploring everything from electric cars to solar power generation."

      Don't you have some workers to go give terribly inept instructions to?

    2. Re:For all the Californians, wonder why TX? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But here again, Texas and California have behaved very differently. Texas set a strong renewable energy requirement back in 1999 (when George W. Bush was governor) -- and quickly exceeded it. Last year, 5 percent of the state's electricity came from wind power. California set a very high bar, requiring big utilities to get 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources next year, although they are not expected to meet it.

      That is, measured purely by results, the track record of the state that doesn't give a shit is miles ahead of the state that makes a big complicated deal about caring.

      [ Aside: I'm not against environmental regulation by any means. At the very minimum, however, we ought to insist that the benefits a cleaner environment outweigh the costs of regulation. In cases like this where it seems like the regulations are actually counterproductive to the goals, well then the costs are truly wasted.]

      This statement is meaningless without knowing what percentage of California's energy came from wind power last year (I am too lazy to look it up). It is only valid for X<5%. For X>5% you're wrong, and for X>10% you're an idiot.

    3. Re:For all the Californians, wonder why TX? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      That is interesting, but let's not equate technology with production. Often rich nations create the technology to exploit the resources is poorer nations. Maybe it applies to states, too. California has a big lead in solar.

    4. Re:For all the Californians, wonder why TX? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      So setting the bar at 20% and hitting 15% is worse than setting the bar at 5% and hitting 7%? Is this the new math?

    5. Re:For all the Californians, wonder why TX? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Of course, it's because a developer in Texas can just buy the land and build a wind farm.

      No, it's because California has

      A) been on a green kick so long that the majority of the areas suitable for wind farms have already been used.

      B) Texas has a lot more wind, period. It's just geographically lucky.

      C) California is much richer in sun than wind, and so, is expanding into the slightly more expensive field of solar power, rather than adding a bit more wind.

      D) Texas has much smaller of a population, so it's much easier to barely try, and hit a large-sounding PERCENTAGE, though much less in absolute terms.

      E) California has much more hydro to draw on, as much as 1/3rd of all power used in the state 2 years ago (a lesser percantage now, as power demand has increased).

      F) You will use any opportunity, to shill for your anti-regulation cause, no matter how twisted the logic required.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:For all the Californians, wonder why TX? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      Come on. Environmentalism is all about stopping development of any kind. Has nothing to do with wind, solar, etc. You know those people can always come up with an excuse of some kind to stop the EEEEEEVIL developers.

      Also, how is someone who believes in his views and tells them to the world a "shill"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:For all the Californians, wonder why TX? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Environmentalism is all about stopping development of any kind. Has nothing to do with wind, solar, etc. You know those people can always come up with an excuse of some kind to stop the EEEEEEVIL developers.

      You know, your whole reply is just PROVING my point.

      You haven't shown "Environmentalism" has stopped anything, nor even attempted to explain away the facts in my reply.

      Also, how is someone who believes in his views and tells them to the world a "shill"?

      All shills say the same thing... Yours is not just a an informed opinion. You clearly have a stake in this.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:For all the Californians, wonder why TX? by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      This statement is meaningless without knowing what percentage of California's energy came from wind power last year (I am too lazy to look it up). It is only valid for X5% you're wrong, and for X>10% you're an idiot.

      It was 1.4% in 2004. You could have looked it up in the time it took you to type that you were too lazy to look it up. Is being lazy supposed to be some sort of virtue?

      --

      Enigma

  40. Not "Baseline" generating capacity. by GuyFawkes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The thing is, with electricity generation you have something known as "baseline demand" which you can think of as a water table or the level of the sea a low tide.

    You absolutely HAVE to have this generating capacity 24/365, no if's, but's or maybe's.

    The problem with wind (and solar, and wave, etc) is that generating capacity can be anywhere from zero on up, if there is no wind, or even just light winds, generating capacity is effectively zero.

    What this means is that if you are an electricity grid planner, it doesn't matter how much theoretical wind turbine generating capacity you have, NONE of it is applicable to your baseline demand.

    This means the only things that you can use for baseline demand are coal powered, oil powered, nuke powered or hydro powered "traditional" generating stations.

    The nature of "traditional" power stations is such that like the car doing 60mph down the freeway, there is a fair bit more power on tap, 24/365, so in fact, due to the nature of grid demand, by definition, the "traditional" power stations that are REQUIRED to meet baseline capacity can, in 99.9% of cases, ALSO supply peak demand (think of this as high tide).

    So, the ONLY thing you can use wind power for, assuming the wind is blowing, is peak demand.

    Now that you can only use it for peak demand, and given that you have an electrical grid, the only time you will ACTUALLY use one power source over another is if one is CHEAPER per giga-watt-hour than another.

    Fact is, wind power loses out here too, UNLESS you heavily subsidise it, and that is no longer a level playing field.

    The grid itself is also a problem, although a high tension grid can transfer useful power 1,000 miles, when you start talking about reasonable losses and efficiency in the grid, you are down to 250 miles, so it is not like you can put offshore wind farms *here* and connect them via the grid to a demand *here* 1,200 miles away, even with the wind power subsidies, it still does not make economic sense.

    All you have to remember, is this.

    The purpose of a wind turbine manufacturer is to sell wind turbines.

    They really could not care one way or another if the installed turbines make economic sense on a level playing field.

    --
    http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
    1. Re:Not "Baseline" generating capacity. by Buster+Charlie · · Score: 1

      I've read elsewhere that on AVERAGE wind farms only output 35% of 'installed capacity' per year. So do you think it's intellectually dishonest to say 2.5-megawatt X 240 = 600 Megawatts? I mean, how often and how long will this farm actually put out 600 Megawatts? If you built a nuclear facility rated for 600 MW, i'm pretty sure it can put out 600 MW. However if a wind farm is only expected to put out 210 Megawatts on average over a year, why is it advertised as a 600 Megawatt farm?

      Now, for a single HOME, I could see the benefit of having a wind turbine to provide supplemental power to help lower your energy cost/consumption, but on a large scale I don't think wind is reliable enough. It seems to me your house can have a battery bank to store wind power for off peak usage, but that doesn't seem to be the case with a wind farm.

      Correct me if i'm wrong, I love the idea of cheap clean power, but it seems that wind might not be practical on a large scale and is better suited to a individual home scale?

    2. Re:Not "Baseline" generating capacity. by Bengie · · Score: 1

      This is where a "smart" power grid could help.

      I know there's a lot of ideas out there for appliances/etc that get info from the power grid and help reduce peak demand.

      One of the ideas was for hybrid cars that when you leave them plugged in to charge up, if the grid suddenly has more demand, eg peak hours, that your car would dump some of it's stored power back into the grid.

      So you got some people staying home, traveling, car plugged in at work and the wind turbines have some excess power that can't be used, so the cars charge up. Then later in the day, peak power hits and all those plugged in hybrids help put a bit more power back into the grid.

      According to the article that wrong about this, it said the power company would have to have some way to track you personally, but would actually give you monetary compensation.

      I could see these types of ideas being applied to battery banks for IT. Imagine a large secondary UPS that would communicate with the grid and would charge itself when the grid said it had excess power from Wind Turbines/etc and this power would be provided at no cost. Then, later in the day when peak hours hit, the UPS would feed ma'b 10% of the needed load for your computers for a few hours and not only "hopefully" save you money in the long run, but help reduce grid load during peak.

      This does add losses since now you may be taking power and storing it, but isn't that overall better than not using the power at all and losing 100% because there isn't demand right when the wind peaks?

    3. Re:Not "Baseline" generating capacity. by TheBozBoz · · Score: 1

      These are outdated assumptions..

      Wind is on a par with coal now, without subsidies. But the playing field will only level once carbon capture has been added on as a cost (it will double the kWh price).

      Balancing the inconstancy of wind generation only becomes an issue once the technology has penetrated beyond about 30% of grid capacity.
      Once you have wind farms spread all over the grid, you will begin to see a baseline output, the wind is always blowin somewhere.

      It is possible to transmit high voltage AC over hundreds of miles for a loss of only about 5-8% and with high voltage DC you can do it for several thousand with a similar loss.

      Nukes and Gas provide the base load as they are the cleanest, carbon wise, and coal rides the difference.

    4. Re:Not "Baseline" generating capacity. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Not true at all. While you had better make sure that you have enough generating capacity to cover all the demand if the wind is not blowing, saying that wind power is only good for peak demand is false. Basically how it works is when the wind turbines are generating power, you can scale back generation the other power plants accordingly - most likely the coal and gas-fired ones since they cost more than the hydro/nuclear ones to run. Wind can even be used as part of the "baseline" power if it happens to be blowing during the times when demand is lowest (like the middle of the night).

    5. Re:Not "Baseline" generating capacity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First let me tell you how "wonderful" it is to see your use of QUOTES and CAPS. It's really nice to see you found out which keys to use to make that happen. IT "shows" what a "special" PERSON you are. Now, on to content...

      The thing is, with electricity generation you have something known as "baseline demand" which you can think of as a water table or the level of the sea a low tide.

      You absolutely HAVE to have this generating capacity 24/365, no if's, but's or maybe's.

      The problem with wind (and solar, and wave, etc) is that generating capacity can be anywhere from zero on up, if there is no wind, or even just light winds, generating capacity is effectively zero.

      That's why you use batteries to store the extra power when you are generating more than you need, such as on extremely long sunny summer days for solar and windy nights for turbines. It does mean you need to have a smarter power grid to use or store power at the right time, that's true. But that's true for any form of power, really. What I'm saying is that this argument of yours is old and tired, and really just BS. I say that with the most kindness and love possible.

      So, the ONLY thing you can use wind power for, assuming the wind is blowing, is peak demand.

      Now that you can only use it for peak demand, and given that you have an electrical grid, the only time you will ACTUALLY use one power source over another is if one is CHEAPER per giga-watt-hour than another.

      *Snore* So you were saying something? Oh yeah, peak demand. As stated BS, but lets assume you are right. Peak demand is the time when people need electricity the most and thus pay the most for their power. That's why some factories work only at night because the power is cheaper then. At that time, power companies are most likely to use any power they can get, including more expensive power, because they can still make a profit. All they have to do is provide the power. So, again, what you're saying is BS. You just don't understand economics, bless your heart.

      Worse, though, is your assumption that wind power is more expensive. That in itself is a fallacy. Onshore wind power costs the same as coal, and offshore only slightly more. That's why T. Boone Pickens is so keen on spending money on it. There's a lot of money that could be made.

      The grid itself is also a problem, although a high tension grid can transfer useful power 1,000 miles, when you start talking about reasonable losses and efficiency in the grid, you are down to 250 miles, so it is not like you can put offshore wind farms *here* and connect them via the grid to a demand *here* 1,200 miles away, even with the wind power subsidies, it still does not make economic sense.

      Hmmm...currently I don't have any form of power plant in my back yard, yet somehow the power can still get to my house over many miles. But let's say you are right (ha!) and we can't even move power more than a few 100 yards. Would I rather have a solar panel on my roof and a turbine on the hill behind my house OR a coal plant / nuclear power plant? The point is that your argument works against you. With alternative energy, you don't need to move the power over miles and miles, but with any other kind of power, you do.

      All you have to remember, is this.

      The purpose of a wind turbine manufacturer is to sell wind turbines.

      They really could not care one way or another if the installed turbines make economic sense on a level playing field.

      You really need to get a job in an underdog industry, seriously. You think they work hard to push wind power just to make money when they could easily make more money in other industries? Are you freakin' serious??? Go meet some of these people and talk to them (I have). You will find that a large percentage of them are a rare form of Hippy that not only doesn't smell of patchouli and weed but also works hard within th

  41. Just one problem by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    You know what they say about West Texas: the wind doesn't blow there -- it sucks!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  42. $10,000 a house by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

    That's back-of-the-envelope based on the summary. Does that strike anyone as high? Low?

    1. Re:$10,000 a house by Sandbags · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, sounds low...

      considering only a 40 year generator lifespan, that's only $20/month to generate the power for a house. The transmission lines in the localized grids already exist, and this deployment includes the cost of the superconductor line to connect the new farm into the texas grid (and Obama is fronting the money under a seperate effort to tie the texas grid into the other 2 national grids on the north side of the state using the same tehcnology).

      Granted, about 50% of your monthly power bill is maintenance and facility costs for the power compnay, but ifg my bill averages $100, and $50 is maintenance, they're profiting $30/month/home for 150,000 homes... That's AMAZING profitability...

      The only issue is overproduction of the energy (read about this issue at DotyEnergy.com, and the solution they have that not only fixes a major cost issue for windfarm deveolopers, it also solves out oil import problems and greenhouse gas output from motor vehicles, an NO, it;s not vaporware, it's technology in active use since WWII).

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    2. Re:$10,000 a house by istartedi · · Score: 1

      A rooftop PV setup for $10k would be an unheard of deal, so $10k/house for clean energy sounds like a bargain. I'm not sure what fraction of the time these wind farms will be generating vs. solar though. Of course, it depends on the location. It's reasonable anyway. I'm paying roughly $1000/yr to power my small house. If you finance the infrastructure, You can buy quite a bit.

      A $10k loan at 6.5% for 30 years costs $63.21/mo or $758.52/yr. Still plenty of revenue for other costs and a modest profit, and like I said my house is small and the local power company probably didn't spend that much on infrastructure. They probably turn over shorter-term bonds and pay less interest too.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    3. Re:$10,000 a house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really depends on the market. I've seen lease terms anywhere between $2,000 up to $20,000 per turbine per year to the land owner.

  43. Not surprising really by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    If anything in this article is news its that its China and not some other country. Hopefully they are made better than most Chinese crap.

    I know I personally went on a tour of a new wind farm (just under 200MW, 86 2.3MW turbines I believe or something like that) on Wolfe Island in Ontario, Canada. Everything excepting the base infrastructure was make in Denmark, shipped to New York, then Barged to Ontario. They (Denmark) are world leaders in that technology, which is why they are shipped from there. They are also monitored by Siemens in Denmark as well (as well as locally).

    Its the same thing as when I also went on a tour of a solar farm in also in Ontario, the panels were all built and transported from California, because that is where the expertise and technology is located. Again they also monitor in California as well as locally the farm.

    I mean ideally we would have these technologies locally in Canada, but due to shortsightedness on the part of our Government, none of the infrastructure is in place. I believe the largest solar panel manufacturing facility owned by a Canadian company is actually located in Germany as that government was willing to front matching capital of up to 50 million dollars, Canada wouldn't match anything. So now Germans primarily get the benefit of that facility, in both jobs, product, and technology.

    Anyway I was not aware that China had inroads into this technology hopefully for Texas sake they do, as one of the big components to cost feasibility is A) How much maintenance will the windmills require, and B) what is the lifespan. If they require tons of work or don't last very long, they could be in trouble. Of course perhaps they got a discount to make it worthwhile.

    1. Re:Not surprising really by TheSync · · Score: 1

      If anything in this article is news its that its China and not some other country. Hopefully they are made better than most Chinese crap.

      You know that the iPhone and iPod as well as Dell and Hewlett Packard PCs, Motorola and Nokia cell phones, Sony PlayStation 2 and PSP and the Nintendo Wii are made in China?

      Here is the iPhone supply chain. The design of the phone and CPU is done in the US, the CPU and most chips are made in Singapore, the rest of the parts are made in Taiwan, and the assembly is in the PRC.

      Next year, Intel with start producing chips from a 65nm fab facility in China.

    2. Re:Not surprising really by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Yeah it was a cheap shot (ha ha sorry about the pun)!

      However as you know China is known for cheap knockoff crap. Its a fact. If you don't think so, you are welcome to you opinion on whatever planet you may be living on.

      1) Did you even read your link, or your post? So your saying.... "No NOTHING is manufactured in China, only assembled there." You didn't link the others, but I can tell you very little is manufactured in China, though it may be assembled there. So no they don't have the knowlege or technology to do anything but have cheap peon slaves in an assembly line plugging things developed elsewhere (Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, etc...) together. This article is about stuff being manufactured in China and then being assembled in Texas. Now this is a big generalization, China does have some areas under its hat, but generally speaking they are known for cheap labour able to produce a lot of crap for cheap available for walmart.

      2) Are any of these products produced anyplace else or is it exclusively in China? That is you cannot compare a product to another if another one doesn't exist. Also Lenveo owned and put together in China... Also Japan might have a thing or two to say about China's hold on Sony's technology and its development, ditto for Nintendo.

      3) You are comparing the technology of an iPod (not developed in China by the way) to that of a wind turbine, perhaps not the most just comparison. Its apples and oranges in terms of fields.

      4) Its one thing to outsource your consumer music needs to China, its another to do the same for your National power needs. Just sayin'... For example lets make the example a bit more serious. For a nuclear power reactor, are you going to take the design and manufacture from:

      A) USA,
      B)France,
      C)Japan,
      D) Canada,
      E) Russia, or
      F) China?

      How about if F) is 20% cheaper?

  44. Thanks "free marketers" by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    Your secret plans for foreign industrial domination have now come to fruition. Now, let's help you keep the financial industry deregulated as well so we can completely destroy our country.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  45. Re:It is NOT because China ramped up manufactuerin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes... all the while complaining about the US dollar and demanding the UN create an artificial international currency instead. Meanwhile, other foreign countries have started buying up dollars to prevent their currencies from being too strong, so everybody is fucked up. Everyone except the one country that's complaining the most.

  46. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  47. depency by backdoc · · Score: 1

    Great. Now, instead of being dependent on foreign oil, we'll be dependent on foreign windmills.

  48. Folly by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is another great example of why giving money or tax breaks to the biggest corporations is no longer a winning strategy to promote job growth. The multi-national corps have a world-wide market to pull labor from and are only forced to buy local labor for a few on-site jobs. This is why I believe they should stop ALL money going to huge multi-national corps (who have their own R&D money anyway) and focus on getting micro-loans to smaller businesses who can't offshore their work as easily. Start preferring the little guy trying to start something on a local corner by his house instead of a corporation that really has no home or loyalty whatsoever.

    I thought Obama wasn't going to fall into this trap of giving money to huge corps who are simply going buy cheap foreign labor. I guess I was wrong.

    1. Re:Folly by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      I thought Obama wasn't going to fall into this trap of giving money to huge corps who are simply going buy cheap foreign labor. I guess I was wrong.

      Who, exactly, did you think was paying for that 'Obama' PR channel on the television networks all those months before the election. Who did you think paid the guy that came up with the 'Hope and Change' slogans? Who exactly paid for all those commercials flinging crap at Hilary, Mccain, and Palin during the primary and national election campaigns? You didn't think all that hype was free did you? You didn't honestly believe that those millions of dollars came from $20.00 contributions by every American that wanted change did you?

      To quote my political science professor, it all stems from the golden rule:

      "He who has the gold, makes the rules."

      ;)

    2. Re:Folly by evilviper · · Score: 1

      This is why I believe they should stop ALL money going to huge multi-national corps (who have their own R&D money anyway) and focus on getting micro-loans to smaller businesses who can't offshore their work as easily. Start preferring the little guy trying to start something on a local corner by his house instead of a corporation that really has no home or loyalty whatsoever.

      While you might have something vis-a-vis "loyalty", it's certainly NOT true that only large multinationals off-shore their labor force.

      You'd be amazed by the number of times I've been hired for some consultant work by a tiny company, only to find my interaction with the 1 or 2-man IT department severely hampered by lack of knowledge and time zone differences, because they were located in India.

      And that's nothing compared to call centers. If you're looking to contract-out your orders or support work, you have 99 Indian companys to choose from, for every 1 domestic company. And the deals work out better for small companies, because the cost is based on the call volume, not a fixed per-hour rate.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  49. Chinese lessons anyone? by ebonum · · Score: 1

    Repeat after me:
    lesson 1.
    "Ni hao" = Hello.

    lesson 2.
    "Wo men shi dou ni de ji di"=All your base are belong to us.

  50. Re:"making sure you are part of the 10%" by ibsteve2u · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Then I would suggest making sure you are part of the 10%

    Me, I'm American in the sense that I view the American people to be my people.

    I think it is wrong for some to exploit absolutely artificial differences nation to nation in the cost of the essentials of survival - food, housing, medical care, utilities - by transplanting their manufacturing plants and service centers to those cheaper nations so that they can pay lower wages vis-a-vis America's solely to further enrich themselves faster than they could in America.

    That costs America jobs and is bringing great harm to my fellow Americans. Further, I would expect the average citizen of all nations to have precisely the same perspective regarding protecting their fellow countrymen.

    But it is not the "average" citizen of any country who is being so tremendously enriched by inequitable free trade, now is it?

    I have a difficult time accepting that I should seek to be "among the 10%" and take joy in counting my riches while watching my fellow Americans slide into poverty. I may not be religious, but I still don't believe in abusing my fellow human beings just to satiate my greed.

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  51. How big is 36,000 acres? by MobyDisk · · Score: 2, Informative

    To put this into perspective:

    36,000 acres = 7.5 x 7.5 miles = 12.5 x 12.5 kilometers = the size of Walt Disney World

    Source:
    Convert 36000 acres to square miles

    1. Re:How big is 36,000 acres? by maxume · · Score: 1

      It won't compare it to Disney World for you, but you can also ask the monster such questions:

      http://www.google.com/search?q=36000+acres+-%3E+square+miles

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  52. Why not American suppliers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, it's quite simple really; Chinese banks are willing to loan the money for this venture. American banks aren't. With Chinese money comes Chinese suppliers.

    In spite of the fact that the government has pumped over $1T into American banking, they still aren't loaning money for ventures like these. Of course it will probably be profitable; Chinese investors are not stupid. So why aren't there any American investors putting up money for these things? Maybe we would have way better off letting big banks fail and directly using the same amount of money to fund projects directly.

  53. subsidies at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet the Chinese government is subsidizing this to help the Chinese wind industry.

  54. The difference by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    Much of the 36k acreage could be dual-use - I've seen lots of wind farms in actively farmed fields, for example. Many others are done in places like mountain passes, where you're not building much of anything else anyway. So it's not like all this space is just being wasted.

  55. You might want to read your link a little closer by sean.peters · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Because, of course, it doesn't say we're giving China any missile technology. It says that authority to rule on what missile technology can be exported is now going to be done at the Department of Commerce instead of wherever it was done before. It's only unnamed "critics" of the administration who are saying that this will result in more technology transfer. Of course, given that your source is the notoriously anti-Obama Washington Times, it's not too surprising that they would provide unsourced quotes about this sort of thing.

    A little less transparent propaganda, please.

  56. Putting infrastructure in the hands of the enemy.. by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    That's so goddamn smart I can't begin to describe it...

  57. Right. by sean.peters · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because "making sure you're in the top 10%" is something you have total control over. It's not like the circumstances of your birth could possibly have anything to do with it. Here's a news flash: some substantial portion of the US wasn't born with silver spoons in their mouth. Their parents don't have enough money to send them to college, and in the absence of "government bailouts", it's all but impossible to afford to go on your own. How are people in this situation supposed to just make sure there in the top 10%? To say nothing of the fact that the top 10% is, well 10%. So you're perfectly ok with the idea that 90% of the population is going to spiral into poverty. Nice.

    1. Re:Right. by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here's a news flash: some substantial portion of the US wasn't born with silver spoons in their mouth. Their parents don't have enough money to send them to college, and in the absence of "government bailouts", it's all but impossible to afford to go on your own.

      Yet I know over a dozen people born without said silver spoon, who found a way to go to college anyhow.
       

      How are people in this situation supposed to just make sure there in the top 10%?

      You get off your ass and work and study. If that means 18 hour days and no weekends, and living without the latest game or phone or other status symbol - so be it. America promises opportunity, not iPods.
       

      To say nothing of the fact that the top 10% is, well 10%. So you're perfectly ok with the idea that 90% of the population is going to spiral into poverty. Nice.

      That seems to be pretty much the way it's always been - it's only in the last forty odd years that people have gotten this strange idea that everyone can have everything they want and nobody has to be cold, or hungry, or poor, or even exert themselves to change their own lives.

    2. Re:Right. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      A substantial portion of those 90% voted for Bush. Fuck them.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Right. by db32 · · Score: 1

      Thank you...

      I am totally OK with 99% of the world slipping into poverty if they have that same stupid attitude that they shouldn't have to do anything to stay out of poverty. Fuck them if they don't want to work. I have known folks that really did get a shitty deal, but the VAST majority of people I have been living in shitty situations got their by their own poor decisions.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  58. Why does each turbine require 144 acres? by joshuao3 · · Score: 1

    Seriously... why?

    --
    Monitor bandwidth usage on IIS6 in real-time: http://www.waetech.com/services/iisbm/
    1. Re:Why does each turbine require 144 acres? by burni2 · · Score: 1

      The answer is that you have to place the turbines within a specfic position and distance to each other, otherwise you lower the efficiency of the windfarm.

      What's causing this is that every windturbine produces turbulence on it's downwind side. Turbulence(air swirls) is entropy, which means there is energy but you cannot use it.

      These air swirls are called "wake". They are helical srews of turbulent air spiraling in the downwind.. one for each blade. They dissipate with distance. The wake is also known from the wing tips on airplanes.

      So windfarm designers take measurements or analyse measurements, to extract the main direction (range) from where the wind comes and place the turbines so they most likely not interfere with each others downwind. The turbine in the downwind would extract less energy, but due to the turbulent wind it would be exposed to nearly the same mechanical loads*, and this is not good for lifetime.

      Thats why. seriously ! :)

      *loads which do not add up to energy extracting

    2. Re:Why does each turbine require 144 acres? by joshuao3 · · Score: 1

      Great answer. It reinforced what I thought may be the case: it would have something to do with turbulent air not being as efficient as "clean" air when it came to pushing those blades around in a circle. The blades are, I supposed, designed to most efficiently translate air moving directly at the blades into mechanical motion. I was thinking that 144 acres was a bit of overkill, but if that's what the eggheads figured out was necessary, then who am I to disagree. :-)

      THANKS!

      --
      Monitor bandwidth usage on IIS6 in real-time: http://www.waetech.com/services/iisbm/
    3. Re:Why does each turbine require 144 acres? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same reason it's inefficient to put thousands of oil rigs on a single field, or dozens of hydroelectric dams on a single river.

  59. Oh, America. by angryphase · · Score: 1

    I find it strange that already a lot of the comments seem shocked and confused by the fact that China is capable, willing and more than ready to provide this technology at a price that would obviously be deemed competitive with local markets. Has American industry really been asleep for so long?

    Yes, other countries, even those that people think are so backward and lacking in knowledge are more than capable of producing high value goods at a reasonable price and a high quality standard.

    I'm just waiting for the rest of the comments to come flooding in that:

    a) China will try to takeover local industry
    b) America will be seen as weak
    c) Local industries weren't given enough opportunity
    d) The American Life will be affected by reasonably outsourcing work.

    1. Re:Oh, America. by sn0wcrash · · Score: 1

      [qoute]Yes, other countries, even those that people think are so backward and lacking in knowledge are more than capable of producing high value goods at a reasonable price and a high quality standard.[/qoute]

      Until the final product is delivered, the quality of the assembly and meterials is an unknown.

    2. Re:Oh, America. by sn0wcrash · · Score: 1

      Yep, I hosed that qoute.

  60. There's a lot less to this than meets the eye by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    This would be a more serious objection if 1) you built all the wind turbines in the world in the same place and 2) this place had wild fluctuations in wind velocity. But in practice, we spread the turbines out over huge areas of the US, so if it's still in one place, it's blowing in another. And the grid issues are mitigated by the same thing. We'll use power generated in California to power California, in Texas to power Texas, off the east coast to power the east coast, etc.

    Also, we tend to build wind turbines in places where the wind is rather steady and strong - mountain passes, plains, at sea, etc - so there's a lot less fluctuation in the wind than you might think.

    Bottom line: yes, we'll need to be able to provide some level of baseline load, either by storing intermittent sources of energy, or by using traditional power plants such as nukes (probably we'll end up doing both). But to say that wind turbines are some kind of self-licking ice cream cone is sort of ridiculous. People aren't buying these things because they look cool - they're actually contributing useful capacity to the system.

  61. $10,000 per Household! by jm2morri · · Score: 1

    No one has commented on the fact that $1.5B / 150,000 homes is $10,000 per house served. That seems ridiculously high to me. I have no numbers to compare to but that seems high.

    From http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/SavingandDebt/P87298.asp it gives $1400 per year as the average power bill. Let's assume 50% profit margin since there aren't any consumables: 50% going to infrastructure, salaries, maintenance, paying off lawsuits about dead birds, migraines, ... So that's only $700 profit per year. That gives a payback of about 14 years! I would say that would be approaching the lifetime of the windmills (no matter what the manufacturer says).

    So how is this a good deal? How can anyone make money with those numbers? Poke some holes in my assumptions because it just doesn't make any sense.

  62. Re:Putting infrastructure in the hands of the enem by maxume · · Score: 1

    Wait, who are you implying is the victim here?

    (Really, China won't have anything resembling control of this stuff, and even if they did have absolute control of a couple percentage points of the electric generation infrastructure, so what?)

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  63. Do you want your government involved? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you want your government to tell private industry they cannot buy from any company they want, but ONLY from a vetted list?

    Because that is what would happen.

    Without a whitelist someone could start up a company in the US selling chinese turbines and then you'd get the same turbines but purchased from an american company (who employs 3 people).

    1. Re:Do you want your government involved? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Why should wind turbines be different from anything else? The US can engineer it just fine, but then why not ship manufacturing overseas where it'll be cheaper, much like cars, TVs, clothes, and just about everything else?

      Governments pretend to glom onto new technologies, saying we'll be the ones to build it. No we won't. We may develop it, but they can build it cheaper in many other places. Therefore politicians who pretend otherwise are just blowing hot air.

      Why wouldn't money flee to where it has a greater rate of return (and no politicians bleating about how evil and greedy you are and how much you need to be taxed?)

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  64. Is this what Obama meant by "Green Collar Jobs"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yay, once again the Chinese are eating our lunch! Once again, a huge government boondoggle has unintended consequences. Who'd of thunk it? Don't worry, I'm sure they'll get health care right.

  65. correction - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Correction - New World Odor

  66. manufacturing`` by astar · · Score: 1

    so, you did not get many replies:)

    I will give a try. Here is a slightly relevant url:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a8gkj6sgD6dw#

    Somewhere else I hear that about 40% of us manufacturing is shutting down because of the credit crunch.

    I think free enterprise ideology is junk and I am not an adam smith free trader, but capitalists can do a good job at introducing new tech into the productive process and I regard that as the best measure of the wealth of a nation. Obviously, if you let capitalists run wild, they end up pushing paper and you get maybe a quadrillion dollars of derivatives, world-wide, and that suck the life out of both you and manufacturing. Looking locally, I hear the big bail-out banks still have a 100 trillion of derivatives. And looking still more locally, I live near a small town that has one bank. It is a part of a regional chain. The parent just got hit with a requirement to raise 300 million in new capital. I wonder if they can do that. In any case, they are not going to be easy to get credit from. Perhaps in normal times, they would have been closed down. Hah, I just cashed a $5000 check and they had difficulty coming up with the cash.

    Anyway, upgrade productive processes and junk the WTO, and do bilateral trade deals. You still need a competent government and you need lots of effective creativity, from scientists down to the factory floor. So, I admit there are some issues with which to deal.

  67. don't worry they will last for only 2 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then you can replace them with US-made ones which will last 5 years. After that you can get european ones which will last 20 years or more. good luck.

  68. Don't do it!!! by digitalPhant0m · · Score: 0

    This is obviously an ill-conceived attempt at a Trojan Horse. I'm sure a cursory look inside the windmill's will reveal trained, armed comando-monkeys

  69. Oddly enough, you're right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although you'd think there would have been significant technological improvements in the field of wind energy harvesting in the last 100 years, you'd be wrong. Most of the "improvements" haven't actually panned out when implemented in real weather, with the exception of production cost reductions (first growth Sitka spruce being more valuable than platinum these days) and maintenance simplification, both due to use of modern synthetic materials.

    The long-case Jakes of the 1940s are still the machines to beat, and most of the best windmills incorporate exactly the same technologies... or significantly inferior schemes... and I'm speaking as someone who has been following the technology for over 25 years.

  70. Wind farm? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Why not a gold farm?

    I kid, I kid!

  71. Re:You might want to read your link a little close by codepigeon · · Score: 1

    Its funny that this came up. I just attended mandatory export compliance training the other day.

    It would make sense that the commerce dept would be the ones calling the shots on this. There are (from what i understand) two areas of export regulations ITARS and EAR.

    There are three departments that manage permissions for exports:

    State Department (ITARS): weapons, etc
    Commerce Department (EAR) : commercial/military
    Treasury Department : (forgot what they cover)
    Here is a link to EAR if youre curious: http://www.gpo.gov/bis/ear/ear_data.html

  72. oh well ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so much for energy independence

  73. Most Favored Nation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    The US government lied to Americans in the 1990s, telling us that lifting tariffs on China, ignoring its direct opposition to so many US values, was going to turn "2 billion consumers" into a bonanza for American producers. That never happened. The US is a third of a billion consumers for all kinds of Chinese production. China tells America what to do now, like ignore the Dalai Lama and the abuse of Tibet - and to ignore poison food and toxic products.

    The trade relationship with China is a scam that has enriched only a few bankers, a few factory moguls who walked out on American labor, a tiny percentage of China's people who got to join them, and a bunch of Chinese and American government scam artists.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Most Favored Nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US government lied to Americans in the 1990s, telling us that lifting tariffs on China, ignoring its direct opposition to so many US values, was going to turn "2 billion consumers" into a bonanza for American producers. That never happened. The US is a third of a billion consumers for all kinds of Chinese production. China tells America what to do now, like ignore the Dalai Lama and the abuse of Tibet - and to ignore poison food and toxic products.

      It wasn't so much that they lied, more that they'd actually believed that China would reciprocate when we removed the tarrifs. It was a stupid move either way, but I'm sure most of the politicians in favor of "free trade" in the 1990's actually thought China would play fair. Of course, some of these people still haven't learned and if you suggest a re-instatment of tarrifs on China you get a chorus of how these protectionist measures will only make things worse.

      The trade relationship with China is a scam that has enriched only a few bankers, a few factory moguls who walked out on American labor, a tiny percentage of China's people who got to join them, and a bunch of Chinese and American government scam artists.

      Unfortunately the scam artists also have the ideologically blinded free marketeers on their side, which allowed them to achive much of their successes. I hope this current recession makes more Americans realize that Capitalism, as practiced during the past couple of decades in the USA, is almost as unstainable as nation-scale Communism.

    2. Re:Most Favored Nation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      What makes you believe they were "fooled"? Those people are professionals, highly informed, with lots of people telling them "don't be fooled" and why. Meanwhile they're getting bribed by the people who benefit from the way things went.

      I'd need some evidence to believe their failures, that continue today despite overwhelming evidence of why it's wrong, are due to ignorance or foolishness instead of knowing bribery.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  74. You're missing the point by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

    The point here is that the Chinese are building this technology and the US isn't.
    People here are too busy sniveling about how hard converting to renewable energy is, while other countries are going there and doing that, leaving us behind. The mere fact that we're having to buy this technology from them instead doing this project in-house is the point
    We're missing out on a great opportunity and moving towards 3rd world country status at break-neck speed.
    Although we are very good at killing people with predator drones. This trick we have down pat

    --
    "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
  75. How is that neighborly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how do you feel if stimulus money is used to buoy an ally?

  76. Re:"making sure you are part of the 10%" by metalogic · · Score: 1

    Then I would suggest making sure you are part of the 10%

    Me, I'm American in the sense that I view the American people to be my people.

    I think it is wrong for some to exploit absolutely artificial differences nation to nation in the cost of the essentials of survival - food, housing, medical care, utilities - by transplanting their manufacturing plants and service centers to those cheaper nations so that they can pay lower wages vis-a-vis America's solely to further enrich themselves faster than they could in America.

    That costs America jobs and is bringing great harm to my fellow Americans. Further, I would expect the average citizen of all nations to have precisely the same perspective regarding protecting their fellow countrymen.

    But it is not the "average" citizen of any country who is being so tremendously enriched by inequitable free trade, now is it?

    I have a difficult time accepting that I should seek to be "among the 10%" and take joy in counting my riches while watching my fellow Americans slide into poverty. I may not be religious, but I still don't believe in abusing my fellow human beings just to satiate my greed.

    If you were truly speaking for your "fellow human beings" (instead of your fellow countrymen), and truly detest exploiting the "artificial differences nation to nation", then perhaps you could see it more clearly and simply: those who are willing to work harder gain more, and those enriched by "inequitable free trade" are exactly those at the shorter end of the inequality. Frankly, although I doubt you're aware of it, the level of hypocrisy displayed in your posts is staggering.

  77. Devalue the dollar !!!! by mcrbids · · Score: 1

    The continuing high value of the dollar is destroying the United States economy.

    It's why China continues to dismantle our manufacturing and production base. It's why it's cheaper to cut a tree in our forest, ship it overseas to have it cut into boards, and then ship it back to build another McMansion. It's why the Middle Class is eroding in favor of $7/hour burger-flipping poor and Upper Middle/Wealthy super-professionals.

    And no politician is going to make the case that we should make changes, because it's easier for the short term. With a strong dollar, oil is cheaper, imported crap is cheaper, travelling overseas is easier. But it comes at the cost of our manufacturing base, which cuts into our sovereignty and our true long-term power.

    Why should we bother making these windmills here at $XXX a pop when we can import them from China for half that price? And so goes the experience, the drive, the wisdom, the creativity of our population, who don't have any compelling reason to do any more than buy another (imported) video game console, and play another video game. Why bother getting educated when it's so easy to get what you want? Your $7/hour burger flipper has more true buying power than the upper-middle class equivalent in China!

    That is, until the cold, North wind blows. This is *NOT* a long-term, stable situation. The United States does NOT provide value equivalent to its buying power, and this is evidenced by our long-standing trade deficit. Sooner or later, China will decide that it's no longer advantageous to export their stuff cheaply. They will stop subsidizing our Dollar, and without the true wealth and production/manufacturing base to support us, we won't have much to say about it.

    The Chinese have had a continuous civilization for 4,000 years. They can be patient, while we Americans still think 100 years is a long time.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  78. Re:You might want to read your link a little close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um.. Clinton put the sale of missile technology under the auspices of Commerce to get around the apparently more restrictive rules of the Department of Energy. This resulted directly in the sale of guidance systems to the Chinese.

    Jeez, it's like right out of the same playbook, and it's recent enough history that senior members of the Clinton presidency are in the White House right now working for State.

  79. The question on my mind is...Red or White? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to the country of whiners. Everyone here in the U.S. is all for solving problems unless it is going to inconvenience them for a half second.

    Well that explains the foreign based pirate bay being used mostly by the US "customers".

  80. Re:"making sure you are part of the 10%" by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

    You imply that I am unwilling to see other "human beings" become more well off. That is either a misinterpretation or a distortion of my words. Anybody who is willing to work hard should be able to get ahead, wherever they live.

    What I am not willing to do is to sacrifice Americans to make the citizens of some other country better off.

    Free trade as it is now structured (to include the currency manipulation by some countries) penalizes the American people - and indeed, the people of all of what were once described as "the industrialized countries" - for being successful for so long. The people of our nations do not bear any responsibility for the forms of government that other countries have chosen that have held their peoples back for so long. To ask us to pay for the mistakes - the choices - of others is unwarranted, unrealistic, unfair, and unacceptable.

    I would add that those who say or insinuate that Americans do not work hard are either uneducated or willfully ignorant. I would heartily recommend the Discovery Channel series "Dirty Jobs" to such.

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  81. How about concurrently? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    WHY DON'T WE GET SOME DAMN POWER LINES FIRST!!!! I am so sick of driving around seeing all these turbines just sitting there idle on windy days because we don't have the transmission lines to get the energy out of here.

    How about concurrently?

    I'm sure the people who invest in the company stringing the lines would be just as unhappy seeing their money tied up in a power line to the site of a proposed wind farm that isn't there yet - or a failed wind farm project.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  82. Protect America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there should be a considerable tariff on everything imported from china

    http://www.americanprotectionist.com/

  83. The US should control the industry. by Ostracus · · Score: 1

    That joke sounds pretty funny...til it's your job. Then it's rather hard to laugh about the whole situation. Another thing to keep in mind since we're doing "flips" here. Are the other countries engaging in protectionism in relation to their workers and industry? The US position doesn't seem so absurd when you look at the big picture. A fair and level playing field globalization is not playing on.

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
  84. Re:Putting infrastructure in the hands of the enem by TheLink · · Score: 1

    Enemy? Who has done more damage to the USA over the past few years? The US Gov or China?

    --
  85. worry about buying Gulf of Mexico oil leases by peter303 · · Score: 1

    There are are not restrictions on who drills in Gulf. British, Dutch and France companies have been doing so for decades. They then usually distribute production in the US which reduces transport costs and makes more profit. But their shareholders keep the profits. Its not clear whether China would ship their oil to back home to statisfy the worlds 2nd largest oil market.

    Some of the best virgin prospects are just south of the border in Cuban territory. Everyone execpt US companies are drilling there now.

  86. Why not use US suppliers? by drdroege · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised that we're not contracting through some of the companies that are building these windmills here in the US. We have at least two in here Colorado.

  87. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mod parent up

  88. Cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What i didn't see mentioned here is the fact that it is a 1.5 Trillion dollar investment for about 150000 homes. That works out to be 10000/home

    Seems like a extremely large dollar figure for a small coverage area.

  89. Why? by joggle · · Score: 1

    Why? For yet another conspiracy theory with no proof?

    I'm sure not all conspiracy theories are wrong, but it had sure better have some proof first.

    Everything in my previous post is public information. I would like to see some evidence to back up the claims of TFloore before giving it any thought.

    The only part of TFloore's post that I know off the top of my head is accurate is that yes, Pickens did need right-of-way access to build the high-powered transmission lines to the proposed wind farm. This is a problem that has been identified in other studies about wind farms in general, in that the US power grid needs a more modern transmission system to support projects like this. It's still a rather Byzantine system with local grids still not always cooperating well with others and various other problems.

    Also, the issue of the right-of-way was not Pickens' only problem. He was also having difficulty getting financing (at least that's what he said on his last interview on Charlie Rose and until I hear differently, with proof, I'm not going to believe otherwise).

    1. Re:Why? by TFloore · · Score: 1

      There are several other people on this thread that are giving similar (unsupported, oops) comments about T. Boone Pickens and his interest in water rights.

      Honestly, I mostly admire his business sense. He saw/sees a bunch of related problems, and found a great way to make buckets of money off of providing a solution to the problems.

      The problems that he is providing a solution to, in no particular order:
      A) Several large Texas cities are going to have to limit growth very soon if they don't get another reliable source of water.
      B) Automobiles produce a lot of CO2 as "pollution" in burning gasoline.
      C) Coal-fired electricity plants make a "lot" of CO2 pollution also. Society needs more electricity, but people claim to want "green" power. It is possible to build a clean coal plant, but, to my knowledge, it has not been done, and is estimated as being about the same cost to construct as a nuclear plant, but has continuing fuel costs that nuclear pants don't have.

      Pickens has found a great solution to these problems, from his point of view.

      1) He has a LOT of natural gas that he owns rights to in the US, and he wants to switch cars over to natural gas from the US, instead of oil imported from countries that, frankly, the US should not be sending large amounts of money to. With high oil prices ($140/barrel I think?), natural gas is competitive price-wise.
      2) He can, with good financing, build wind turbine power systems that produce reasonable power, though it has the difficulty of all wind systems that it is "surgy". It is not a consistent supply, even averaged across 300,000 acres. He needs high voltage transmission lines to move this power around. My understanding is that Texas already recognizes the need for more high voltage power transmission lines anyway. Pickens wants the right of way for those lines for his companies, rather than someone else's.
      3) If he gets right of way for utility services, he can build water pipes alongside those transmission lines to ship water from distant aquifers to those soon-to-be water-starved Texas cities. Strikes me as efficient use of the right of way land.

      And he'll make a lot of money providing this solution. Is it a bad solution? Frankly, there are a lot worse ideas. But I have to wonder if Pickens views it as an all-or-nothing affair, or if he is willing to do just pieces of it. My impression so far is that he wants to do the whole thing, and thinks that it is a matter of "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". He may even be right.

      But from what I've seen, he only advertised the "clean wind energy" part of things heavily. He somewhat advertised the "cars burning natural gas" but I never could decide if he was advertising that as cleaner, or simply as not foreign dependent energy. I never really saw him advertising the water rights piece, but my impression was that it was very important to him and his plan.

      How's that for a better explanation of an unsupported conspiracy theory? :)

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
  90. No Money No Talk by firedragon852 · · Score: 1

    You Americans just don't get it do you? You have no money to finance this kind of projects anymore. Do you know how many of your banks got bailout money from China? Your government owes China a shit load of money.

    1. Re:No Money No Talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't take much effort on our part to send the lot of them back to the stone age. Just remember that.

  91. "You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."

  92. Falling apart before they get off the ground by theGhostPony · · Score: 1

    Given the Chinese' infamous quality issues (a severe lack thereof) it may be safe to assume these things will start falling apart long before they've paid for themselves.

    Might it be a smart move to reverse engineer the components in these turbines and start making our own replace parts for them?

    --
    /. Dissent will not be tolerated. Think like us or perish.
  93. Fooled?!? by theGhostPony · · Score: 1

    More like carefully planned.

    --
    /. Dissent will not be tolerated. Think like us or perish.
  94. we need to re-engineer the tax credits by mr_java66 · · Score: 0

    The problem is the tax-credits are for BUYING a wind-turbine. We should have refundable tax-credits for SELLING a wind-turbine. And make them structured upon the total electricity it makes. Then we would have a PRO-BUY-AMERICA bias in the wind turbine making.

  95. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many more coal-fired power plants will the chinese build first in order to make us our new green turbines. Like everything else on the shelf it's made coal fired by lots of slaves. Yeah, China is still communist. We used to embargo their trade because of it. I guess the new 'market economy look' has us fooled. Anyway, if a third world country like Brazil can raise their tariffs to keep tooled-up then we can too. Takes guts though. Might have to take the E.P.A. down a notch or two to let us compete, not to say lets blacken our skies, but all we did so far is take it overseas to slaves n' coal. Is that good? Let's get our lost industry back and make our own product.

  96. Re:"making sure you are part of the 10%" by db32 · · Score: 1

    Work hard and demand unreasonably high wages is not the same thing at all. So...I have a glass of water here to sell you...$10 per sip. Now, I assume based on your assertions that you would rather pay me $10/sip of water rather than exploiting low wage earners who maintain the water works. That is basically all you are saying... People who do menial tasks should be able to demand higher wages for no other reason than 'fairness'.

    The thing no one likes to talk about is that the amount of manufacturing in the U.S. has steadily been rising. The difference is that we can do more manufacturing with less people.

    I swear to god, people like you need to take economics classes. This isn't some callous "get rich" thing. This his how supply and demand works. When people like you start demanding the government step in and enforce half baked "equality" schemes the entire thing collapses and we *all* wind up in the shitter.

    I suppose we should raise minimum wage to $10/hr so that burger flippers can make a living flipping burgers. Well..except for the fact that they get paid more so the prices of burgers have to go up to pay them. Oh, and because they had an increase in income prices of other goods goes up to match that. Oh and finally, because the individual burger flipper now costs 2x what it did previously, 1/2 of them lose their jobs. Congratulations...I suppose your next solution is to raise the minimum wage to $20/hr now?

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  97. Re:"making sure you are part of the 10%" by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

    lollll....I gather you think burger flippers should make, oh, $0.50 an hour so that you can have a cheaper burger?

    Can probably get an even cheaper burger, if we grind burger flippers up and make 'em into more burgers when they die of starvation.

    Why don't you go talk to those burger flippers' landlords, insurance companies, gasoline stations, utility companies, grocery store owners, and so on and so forth and tell them to lower prices so that you can get a cheaper burger by paying burger flippers less?

    The cost of living is what dictates minimum wage; perhaps your economics courses did not cover that? It was covered rather well at the two universities I obtained degrees from.

    What you are essentially arguing is that you are entitled to live well by picking and choosing what other people are entitled to earn, regardless of whether that is enough for them to live on.

    Very...democratic of you, if by democratic I mean dictatorial.

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  98. Re:"making sure you are part of the 10%" by db32 · · Score: 1

    Then your econ courses or your professors sucked. Minimum wage is dictated by government attempting to control things. The idea is that if the cost of living goes up, the government comes in and forces businesses to pay more. This usually means those businesses cannot hire as many people so unemployment tends to go up with the minimum wage. Also, even the most basic econ course should have covered that an increase in income (real or perceived) causes an increase in prices so cost of living goes up. So with things like minimum wage and easy credit the prices of things go up. What is really fucking people is that nearly everyone can get this easy credit which is basically an artificial increase in income so they are willing to pay higher prices for things. If people weren't so swipe a card and pay such inflated prices things would normalize much better.

    Your little democratic/dictator comment shows how fundamentally broken your understanding is. Minimum wage is dictatorial, it is set and enforced by government attempting to control things it undermines both the business and worker ability to negotiate their own contract. Now, I think government should be involved to some degree, stopping things like company towns from returning, but if I am willing to work for 4/hr because I am starving and I need to support kids, but I can't negotiate that with a potential employer because minimum wage demands that they pay me more, that isn't very democratic. It also forces businesses to become inefficient producers, which also leads to an increase of prices!I think it is stunning that you would call dictator action by the government "democratic" and people's freedom to negotiate wages "dictatorial".

    Cost of living going up because of an increase in minimum wage is natural market forces operating. Minimum wage going up because the cost of living went up is artificial government control. This kind of stupid "feel good" intervention typically causes more problems than it solves. All the little workers demand higher and higher wages...the business can't/won't compete anymore...or they sell at a loss...either way...they die. Then all those little workers have nothing. What a fantastic economic policy. I hear it worked great for Detriot.

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  99. Re:"making sure you are part of the 10%" by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

    All the little workers demand higher and higher wages.

    Your words suggest a certain contempt for the American worker/consumer (who are 90% or more of the American people, although some are only discovering their "class" as they are let go as the consequences of Republican economic policies unfold). That in turn indicates a certain myopia, which is suggestive of your economic status/dependency.

    Regardless, if you had thought about your last sentence:

    I hear it worked great for Detroit.

    first, your words might have been different. Since you insist in placing blame upon "all of the little workers" and use Detroit to represent your example, would you care to explain how heavily-unionized Ford keeps ticking along, while GM and Chrysler are lurching towards the abyss?

    I am always amused by those who blame America's worker/consumers/soldiers, when it is they who made this country great, and it is they who stood (and stand) between America's wealthy elite - whether they are of the symbiotic or of the parasitical sort - and America's enemies who would take their wealth and slay them out of hand.

    You have convinced yourself - and now attempt to convince the world - that leadership and management make no difference.

    You complain of "all the little workers" demanding higher wages when it is America's top 5% - exemplified by our CEOs - who drive price increases. It takes a lot of margin to raise your pay and benefits from a multiple of 30 times average worker pay to 400 times; the same goes for higher dividends, and on and on.

    If the demands of America's worker/consumer placed a disproportionate burden upon America's economy, then pray tell why has our inequality curve shifted to reflect the wealthy few taking ever more ever faster? http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/even-more-gilded/

    Consider the implications of that chart, and tell me again whose understanding is "broken".

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  100. Re:"making sure you are part of the 10%" by db32 · · Score: 1

    No, I have contempt for the mindless masses that insist on demanding handouts rather than blazing their own path. Now, that also happens to coincide with most Americans.

    Toyota is maybe a better example, the workers get treated very well, the plants often have small clinics on site to help workers get checked out and get the basics (cold med type stuff) so they aren't taking a huge hit to productivity. They also tend to have much more generous sick time policies that actually encourage sick workers to stay home and get healthy rather than have them coming to work sick and infecting the work force. The unions have had a damned hard time taking hold. The lesson here is don't treat your employees like slaves and they won't unionize and drag you down. Workers unionize when they are abused, then the unions grow, then the union bosses are really the only ones really getting the good deal as they bring down the beast...then all the little workers get left in the ashes. Ford is surviving because they are doing a better job of competing and carrying the excess burden.

    Workers have not made the country great. Every country has workers and not all even remotely great. The thing that made America great were the trail blazers. The innovators, the risk takers, and the pioneers. The people that dared to give the finger to the crown. The people that bear arms to protect those freedoms. The people that actually innovate and do creative things in the market. My original post is about that very thing, that the fat rich lazy bastards are just waiting to be eaten by those who are willing to push forward. The reality is that the vast majority people are not of that class.

    If the average American consumer could pass a basic math class and calculate interest the money wouldn't be flowing upwards in huge streams. Look at how rapidly consumer debt is increasing. When people stop buying shit, the top runs to the government for protection. The government brings all kinds of moronic "controls" to try and manipulate the game for whoever will give them the best deal. The people are most often brought to support the politicians with bribes of welfare, handouts, and mandatory wage hikes. Once the politician is securely in place they sell us all to the fat bastards that would rather manipulate the game than be competitive.

    I absolutely blame the American people. The founding fathers were a small bunch and told a big nation to fuck off and created the America we have. You are telling me that 5% of the population can control a couple hundred million people without their consent? That is moronic. These people are willing wage slaves begging for handouts instead of finding ways to break the chains. I have no desire to carry them. I don't believe in nation building overseas either, if those people want their freedom let them stand up first. I am not opposed to helping those that do go into open revolt, but I do not support sacrificing American lives to "Free" people who will not first sacrifice their own in the fight. These idiots are bought off with stupid handouts from a government willing to sell them to the highest bidder. They cheer on higher corporate taxes without giving a single thought to the fact that those taxes will just be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. The whole thing is pathetic, and it is driven by the 95% too stupid or apathetic to actually do anything other than look for their next handout.

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  101. Re:"making sure you are part of the 10%" by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

    The people that dared to give the finger to the crown.

    And guess who are the people who now presume to be America's crown; America's hereditary aristocracy? The people who are hard at work eliminating any possibility that new "trail blazers" will come along and upset the status quo they've spent the last 30 years bringing about? Why do you think they attack anything that can help the common man or woman rise, such as education?

    I'll give you a hint: Britain's "crown" also believed that the colonists were - as a rule of thumb - "too stupid or apathetic to actually do anything".

    lolll...do you really think that America would be anything without the American people as a whole? Do you think the Colonial Army was made up of only those people who signed the Declaration of Independence?

    Why do you think that the Republicans primarily depend upon the tactic of "divide and conquer" to win elections? Why do you think that every other sentence out of a Fox "personality's" mouth - or from the Rushbo to the Rushbots - is designed to instill fear, or anger, or hate of or towards one or another segment of the American population?

    Why do you think the Republicans attempt to instill the idea that "liberals" are a threat to America, if this is supposed to be a democracy where the interests of all are represented?

    Why? Because when America is given the opportunity to think and act in a cohesive manner, it is impossible for that 5% to control America - and they know it.

    Consider America before Reagan: Until OPEC, it was a booming, ever more powerful country. But the rich weren't getting richer fast enough to suit themselves, and when the energy shocks that OPEC created hammered our economy, they saw an opportunity to promulgate a lie - and that lie was flood-up/trickle-down economics.

    And they've been lying ever since. They insist that "A rising tide lifts all boats." is the fiction, and instead claim that their taxes should be cut - as if their rising boat will lift the tide.

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  102. Re:"making sure you are part of the 10%" by db32 · · Score: 1

    I suggest you check your history. The revolution was driven by a minority action and a significant chunk of that colonial army (as is any army) is just people doing what someone else told them to do. There are far more bullet flingers/catchers than there are leaders in any given military force. The majority of people were too stupid or apathetic to actually do anything. Also, as I have pointed out NUMEROUS times that you seem to ignore, is that I am speaking of taking from the existing fat and lazy top, not from the bottom. If the others on the bottom can't be bothered to climb and take what should be theirs back from the aristocracy then I sure as hell have no intention of letting them ride on my back while I try to climb. America has a tremendous amount of upward mobility, the trouble is most people don't do anything to take advantage of it. You are sitting here trying to make me feel guilty for the lazy slobs that would rather beg for table scraps from the top rather than get there themselves. Don't give me any of that shit about how it is impossible to climb out of a bad place, some of the most successful people to grace the earth started in absolute squalor.

    You seem to think that Republicans and I have anything in common. Sure, Republicans pay lipservice to libertarian ideas, but when was the last time you saw any of them actually do anything even remotely resembling anything other than corporate welfare? Or Democrats for that matter, infinite patents on medicine...yeah...talk about some freedom loving people. Most "liberals" are a threat in the fact that they honestly don't understand basic economics at all. I have only met a few self described liberals that had a clue how economics actually worked. Republicans actually do for the most part, but they abuse that rather than encourage a healthy market. Starving because of incompetent leaders vs malicious leaders still leaves you starving, though I suppose you could have a warm fuzzy that one of them wasn't actually trying to starve you, but it won't last long, you will still be dead.

    Also, taxes should be fixed, not just cut. Fair tax would work way better, but that will never happen because it would fix too many political talking points that both sides use to get elected. However, again with economics, raising taxes does not necessarily increase revenue, and when our taxes are already so high, the odds are is that it will not increase revenue. This is a calculus max/min problem and it really isn't all that complicated, the problem is that people that say 'lower taxes on business' get derided for it. If the government would knock off some of the taxing, get the hell out of the way in most areas, and then actually enforce sane anti-trust type laws we would see prices fall as the companies had to race to the bottom to compete. This of course only works when the companies have to compete rather than lobby for rule changes.

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  103. Re:"making sure you are part of the 10%" by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

    I suggest you check your history. The revolution was driven by a minority action and a significant chunk of that colonial army (as is any army) is just people doing what someone else told them to do. There are far more bullet flingers/catchers than there are leaders in any given military force. The majority of people were too stupid or apathetic to actually do anything.

    I'm not one to carry on a fruitless effort, which is what I conclude when someone tells me that I don't know history and attempts to prove that point by saying that the individual members of our military - to include their antecedents among the Colonial Army - are just tools doing what they're told...

    It leaves me no choice but to point out - in frustration - that the Colonial Army was formed at a time when we didn't even have a country, let alone a draft . They were all volunteers.

    I guess - perhaps because I, too, am a veteran, who likewise voluntarily served for half a dozen years - that being told that the members of our military are "too stupid or apathetic to actually do anything" offended me, because I stopped reading right there.

    I would end this conversation by urging you to keep your opinions to yourself, should you ever find yourself in dire need of assistance from your fellow Americans - lest they intentionally decide to fulfill your characterization of them as "too stupid or apathetic to actually do anything".

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  104. Re:"making sure you are part of the 10%" by db32 · · Score: 1

    You read that I said veterans are stupid and apathetic because you are looking for reasons to be offended. I said no such thing. You have repeatedly accused me of saying bad things about the military, and the first accusation was before the military was even mentioned. What I really don't get there is that it is the more liberal bunches that generally talk bad about the military, yet you were accusing me of right wing behavior. So, I think we can agree to cease this since you are reconstructing anything I say. You are demonizing rather than discussing differing opinions. If you have an axe to grind about anti-military people, grind it elsewhere. That doesn't mean just by virtue of being military people get a free pass. I suppose you will tell me that the folks 'just following orders' at Abu Gharib were fine upstanding service members, thinking clearly, and acting intelligently. I say they are a huge disgrace to the profession of arms, human filth, and a prime example of how so many are just doing what they are told. It is the rare few that will stand up and fight against illegal orders and other such things. The one soldier that did stand up had his life threatened by his comrades for having the courage, mind, and morals to do so.

    Also, the military is just a tool doing what they are told, the Constitution ensures that by making sure that they answer to a civilian authority. Only the truly stupid would insist otherwise. When the military doesn't do what it is told that is a military coup and generally a very bad thing.

    Most people aren't bad people, but when it comes to their economic or political freedom they are almost all either too stupid or too apathetic to do anything and are happy to entrust their future to mindless party line voting and never checking up on what is being done.

    P.S. I served longer and you are the second person this week to try and point out that they are the better person on the assumption that I have not served.

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  105. Manufacturing jobs? by re4all · · Score: 1

    Manufacturing sector has already shifted. Our strict guidelines and laws will never let manufacturing jobs to come back here. But, we can expect many jobs created in the whole supply line - designs, installation, maintenance etc. But for sure, no manufacturing. government funding should keep this in mind when designing incentives for "go green". I invite you to read my blog.

    --
    Alternative Energy Sources
  106. No manufacturing Jobs by re4all · · Score: 1

    Manufacturing sector has already shifted. Our strict guidelines and laws will never let manufacturing jobs to come back here. But, we can expect many jobs created in the whole supply line - designs, installation, maintenance etc. But for sure, no manufacturing. government funding should keep this in mind when designing incentives for "go green". I invite you to read my blog

    --
    Alternative Energy Sources