Slashdot Mirror
US To Fire Up Big Offshore Wind Energy Projects
coondoggie writes "The US government today took a bold step toward perhaps finally getting some offshore wind energy development going with $50 million in investment money and the promise of renewed effort to develop the energy source. The plan focuses on overcoming three key challenges (PDF) that have made offshore wind energy practically non-existent in the US: the relatively high cost of offshore wind energy; technical challenges surrounding installation, operations, and grid interconnection; and the lack of site data and experience with project permitting processes."
The original headline is much better.
It reflects reality. Not cheer leading.
50 million isn't a big enough subsidy for anything 'big' that is this uneconomical.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
$50 million dollars. Wow. That ought to about cover the cost of the paperwork to get started. Glad to see we're thinking big.
In a few short years (if not already) there won't be enough petroleum to go around regardless of how much drilling (off shore or onshore) you want to do. It's time to be preparing for that day.
(looks both ways, feeds troll)
Screw drilling. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but big oil is not so concerned about proceedure as they are about profit, which is exactly why Shell had deep water horizon explode like that. Moreover, it was not a singular incident. The federal investigation found systemic wrongdoing in many offshore drilling projects.
What I want to see, is land-based wind generation in areas suited to it. My home state could power at least 3 others if this were to come to fruition.
It is absolutely disgusting that people can build a new skyscraper in New York without any 'Environmental impact studies" on migratory birds, but somehow it becomes so very relevent as soon as we are talking about non-poluting power generation structures.
What about local opposition? The Martha's Vineyard wind farm faced a regular nor'easter of NIMBYism.
Have you read my blog lately?
Since Ted Kennedy is gone, may they'll put it up there.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
That is why I am carefully grooming my technocratic midget/mentally handicapped giant duo. I will run bartertown...
Who needs bartertown? My investments into personal knowledge and skill will render the utility of bartertown useless.
(besides, with the right deadly traps in place the deserted wastes look far safer to live in. Just ask the kid with the boomerang!) :)
"the relatively high cost of offshore wind energy;"
think about this for a moment. what would have happened if they had decided it cost too much to put lasers on sharks?
we wouldn't have any shark based lasers then would we? and then Hitler would have won World War I, and we'd all be speaking Japanese.
CFLs are an improvement over incandecent for a number of reasons, but believing that switching to them would in some fashion mean that we wont need new power plants is retarded in and of itself.
People keep having sex. People keep moving to our country. People keep buying and making expensive electronic devices. All these things totally trump any reduction in useage that changing lightbulb technology could ever hope to bring to the table. We need sustainable power generation, and we needed it yesterday.
They flip out when someone says, "Hey, let's just build a little Hiroshima or Nagasaki right across from your backyard!"
The Kennedy Clan gets their drawer in an uproar, when anyone suggests that they build windmills anywhere near their property on Cape Cpd.
So, sadly, switching to alternative energy sources is not a technological problem, but a political one.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
$50 million from the government because there is no profit potential in private industry. Like every other green energy initiative. Remember Carter? This one too will fail. Wind is less than 1% as efficient as coal. You can't change physics. The government will take the hard earned money of young families anyway, mal-invest it, and divert it to cronies like Jeff Immelt at GE. A sick con where there is no accountability. How ironic when there is an amazing revolution going on in natural gas extraction from shale in the US. The eco-left has found reason to hate it too.
an ill wind that blows no good
I thought the whole point of wind was that you didn't have to fire anything up.
Next on the news.. oil tanker inexplicably takes a wrong turn and plows through wind farm.
Nuclear reactors.
CFLs are an improvement over incandecent for a number of reasons, but believing that switching to them would in some fashion mean that we wont need new power plants is retarded in and of itself.
Yet that is what the government tells us is the reason for forcing us to change to CFLs. If we don't change, then the extra coal plants needed will cause Global Warming, and we will all die horribly.
We need sustainable power generation, and we needed it yesterday.
But not nuclear power. Those will cause all of our women to grow into 50 foot giants, the insects to mutate, dead people to rise as zombies, and nuclear explosions. And the global warming caused by one nuclear power plant will cause a new ice age to start, and nobody would want that.
In 2014, General Fusion will have us all living like in Star Trek.
When they chum the waters with seabirds, the fishing ought to be excellent!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
First off not everyone has switched yet to CFLs and demand for electricity keeps going up. Buy any new electronic devices lately? Whenever there's a story about alternative energy there's a lot of posts that fall into the "change bad" category. Hate to break it to you but something is going to change and soon. I was expecting a lot of posts about why not give it to nuclear plants? Nuclear has always been subsidized like every other traditional forms. The smallest subsides have always been for alternative sources. Odds are we'd have cheap solar if solar had been given the same subsides as oil and oil prices keep going up. There actually are cheap forms of solar like the spray on process but there are few machines out there to make them.
Offshore wind is a massive win/win. Rich people are freaked out that they may be visible from shore but they drastically reduce the downsides. Fewer birds killed and more reliable wind. Also the eyesore factor is greatly reduced or eliminated. It's doubtful we could build enough nuclear plants in time. Oil is just going to keep getting more expensive. Coal is the most polluting source. Natural Gas? Watch the documentary "Gasland" and get back to me about natural gas. If that's the best option for extracting gas I'd rather switch to all coal.
Oh dear. It'll cost the oil and coal lobby at least that much in "campaign contributions" to make this problem go away.
no build more nuke plants!
If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs. If we had eggs.
Impractical, unproven technology lacking even the theoretical underpinnings required.
Like handing a junkie a Bible and saying "Go thou and be blessed.."
It can be done, but incrementally, over a LOT of time.
It's the idea with the most support and the least opposition. Kill some birds why don't ya?
$50 million is not quite enough to cover the bureaucracy necessary to manage the effort....
Waste of time and money. Can we get back to drilling offshore?
There are a number of abandoned platforms in the Gulf that could be used to site wind turbines instead of letting them go to waste.
Shell had deep water horizon explode like that
you misspelled British Petroleum
They're spending $47 million just to improve the off-ramp near my house...
What a pathetic joke this investment is.
Current technology can not capture wind energy in a way that is not harmful to the environment.
The machines (generators, huge gear boxes, etc) that capture wind make a lot of noise and vibration. Especially low frequency sound. This has been proven countless times that it is harmful to humans and other animals (maybe even plant life).
That same noise and vibration causes a significant maintenance burden as well. The machinery gets beaten to hell because of it. So it's harmful in several ways.
Until that is fixed then wind energy is a no-go.
Eh who gives a fuck about drilling at this point? They're already bio-engineering bacteria to make petro now. Also its carbon neutral using CO2 from the air so no eco faggots can complain. They've gotten the success rate to like 10,000 barrels per acre so far or something.
The Google offshore project will only generate 6,000 MW. That's merely the equivalent of 5 time-traveling DeLoreans!
It really doesn't make sense why they push offshore wind energy when they can't even get 60% utilization of the wind farms located on farmland. Besides, the only people profiting from this kind of project are the generator manufacturers and the installers who snag ludicrously lucrative maintenance contracts. If it is as remotely bad as the rural wind farms are, then this ocean one will be a doozy in cost inefficiency.
That headline just seems seriously broken to me ... you can fire up a generator, or a boiler ... because, you know, there's fire involved ... but "firing up offshore wind energy" just seems rather incongruous.
Sounds like someone is mixing their batter into their metaphors, or something like that.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I live in Missouri you insensitive clod!
...let's waste it on tech we know would work; nuclear.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
They're called pebble bed reactors. These are what we should be building. They are self-moderating without active control systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
That said, it should still be noted that even conventional water-cooled reactors don't explode in a fashion that cause people's shadows to be burned into concrete like the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Spreading that kind of image is irresponsible. Nuclear power has legitimate risks, and those are what should be discussed.
Meanwhile, individual windmills may or may not be aesthetic, according to one's sensibilities, but it's a hard argument that gigantic collections of them don't visually and sonically degrade open spaces and natural surroundings. Individual snowmobiles or speedboats may be graceful and beautiful, but put a few hundred of them together in a formerly serene place and their grace and beauty evaporate.
Windmills additionally kill lots of birds, including raptors and threatened species, and they do that continuously. They also have high rates of mechanical failure, and require expensive on-site maintenance. Worst of all, because of the uneven nature of their generation, they cannot replace baseline power stations, which limits them to marginal contributions above the peak demand curve. As more wind power comes on line, utilities are constructing natural gas plants to provide backup peak reserve, lest wind not be available at the moment needed. In other words, not only is wind power expensive on its own, but it often requires additional expenditure for backup generation.
I don't see how one must be rich and powerful to dislike the impact of large scale wind power. There are uses and places for it, but its shortcomings are hard to dismiss when considering large-scale application. What I see are decisions and allocations being made on the basis of political, rather than engineering, analyses. That kind of thinking often leads to trouble.
It is absolutely disgusting that people can build a new skyscraper in New York without any 'Environmental impact studies" on migratory birds,
If the building spin at 300mph, you will probably need a permit, even in NYC.
BP is too many letters
Tech marches on. I notice that my 47" LCD HDTV uses much less energy than my 32" CRT television did. It weighs a hell of a lot less too. You'd think with all these new devices that use less power than the old stuff that eventually things would at least stop getting worse.
Seriously though, while in Hawaii a few...hmmmm.....over a decade ago, I noticed they had all these huge windmills on Oahu. They didn't seem to be working too well so I asked about them. It seems that when they got the bright idea to put them up the didn't think about the trade winds carrying all that salt. It seems salt is very bad for machinery, to the point that the operating costs exceeded the price of the electricity they generated. So at least I hope that they've thought about this problem with offshore units. Of course, if the government is involved it's very likely that no thought at all has gone into it.
The article claims 3 challenges. I claim the article is worthless without addressing the 4th!
the relatively high cost of offshore wind energy; technical challenges surrounding installation, operations, and grid interconnection; and the lack of site data and experience with project permitting processes."
They missed NIMBYism!!! Amateurs.
UNLESS, they included it in "...project permitting processes."
Maybe now that the Kennedy's have more or less completely kicked off at this point, Obama can finally tap the North Eastern ocean?
Why not get rid of all subsidies? Not just for green projects, but for oil, gas, and the rest. Take the government finger off of the scale. When you think about it, solar and wind can basically pull energy out of thin air. Gas and oil require lots of development, exploration, etc... If we stop subsidizing gas and oil, maybe investors will see the potentials of the technology. Alternate energy becomes more competitive, because it becomes more efficient.The market isn't the best solution for everything, but I think this is one area where it would do a good job.
When environmentalists stall or stop any new construction by abusing environmental law, don't be surprised when it bites you in the ass.
Just laws are applied to everyone. Not just people you don't like.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Harnessing wind and other green technologies is great, but I wouldn't bet my life on any of them except hydro. The problem with things like the wind is that when the wind stops blowing (or blows too strong), the wind turbines don't put out electricity. I remember driving by miles of idle windmills in California. Don't know why they weren't turning, but it indicates to me that there is an inherent problem with depending on the technology.
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Shell had deep water horizon explode like that
you misspelled British Petroleum
Now that was funny.....
Apparently we don’t funnel enough money to oil, coal, nuclear, solar and ethanol subsidies, we had better make sure we waste tax dollars on inefficient wind power producers as well. What a joke. Are Ron and Rand Paul the only people in congress who don’t believe in the corporate and personal welfare state?
Who is going to clean it up if there is a major wind spill???
Hmm, my my, where have I heard this before?
Perhaps here? http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/
* Create millions of new jobs by building out the capacity to generate up to 22 percent of our electricity from wind. And adding to that with additional solar generation capacity;
* Building a 21st century backbone electrical transmission grid;
* Providing incentives for homeowners and the owners of commercial buildings to upgrade their insulation and other energy saving options; and
* Using America's natural gas to replace imported oil as a transportation fuel in addition to its other uses in power generation, chemicals, etc.
While dependence on foreign oil is a critical concern, it is not a problem that can be solved in isolation. We have to think about energy as a whole, and that begins by considering our energy alternatives and thinking about how we will fuel our world in the next 10 to 20 years and beyond.
So, one has to wonder how does pending 50 million $ I'm with the government, and I'm here to help plan contrast and qualitatively learn from the 80 Million spend on the private sector T. Boone Pickens 80 million dollar plan.
And where was the press when Mr. Boon Pickens was spending and promoting is 80 million dollar effort, Oh I forgot they were /removed obvious remark/.
Hey, but they did report $80 Million the loss Here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40612094/ns/business-oil_and_energy/
Now don't mod me down for point out how history repeats. Its just sad how politics colors engineering, and renewable energy is a learnable technology, I'm just not sure anyone's trying to learn.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but big consumer is not concerned about procedure as they are about availability and price...
Even drug addicts have the good sense to NOT blame the dealer.
Have cake XOR Eat Cake.
THL phish sticks
Lighting only makes up 8.8% of residential power use. That's 5th place behind air conditioners (16%), refrigerators (13.7%), heating (10.1%), and water heaters (9.1%).
Switching to CFLs is useful, but it's not a panacea.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
"I believe that mountain lions go downwind to stalk their prey. Is there any chance that the increased wind caused by the windmills has led to an influx of mountain lions because their prey is easier to stalk? Somebody should look into this." -Anon Reader, Dec. 19, 2010
"To the person who knows about the windmills in Western New York. Is there an entity to call to see is we can get them turned off for a couple weeks. We need some snow in the area before the people who plow snow go out of business. I think they keep pushing the storms back to the coast." -Anon Reader, Dec. 26, 2010
"It was a very calm day today so I drove out to see the windmills to set the record straight. Just as I thought, there was no wind today because they were not moving at all. The next windy day, I am driving out again and I bet they will be turning like crazy." -Anon Reader, Jan. 9, 2011
Because population never changes, and the new, cheaper products are not now affordable by more consumers.
Nuclear occupies the mining space as well as the reactor space in land so they are probably about even there.
The technology employed in a Nuclear reactor will be almost a decade out of date on day one of production presuming the very latest technology was implemented in the design. With a wind farm new technology can be implemented as old wind generators come off-line. This means the gap between technology updates for wind power are available much closer in time when compared to production, this means the rate of technology development in wind power is faster than nuclear.
Wind power has a much lower energy cost to tear down because it can be demolished like a normal building, Nuclear power plant have very special and costly concerns when you have to tear them down and time will eventually take its toll on the reactor building.
Before some one talks about "Only Nuclear can do base load", base load is a function of the entire grid not any one energy source.
American are extremely blessed with wind power and indeed other sources. The potential exists to solve most, if not all of America's energy requirements. Every technology professional stands to benefit from the flow on effects of all alternate energy solution AND still use nuclear as a longer term solution as the technology is developed in that area. It's difficult to believe that there is only enough imagination for a Nuclear solution when, clearly, Solar and wind are very appealing technologically.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
No, that's what your strawman says. Or surely you can provide a link to the government report saying so.
Not currently sustainable. Yes, there are promising designs. They're just now rolling out. But it's not there yet...just like every other sustainable power generation method. And older designs, such as breeder reactors, would take about 10 years to build anyway.
Already being done. Again, why are we wasting considerable resources on stuff that will be developed as we need it developed anyway? It's like paying people to breathe.
Uhm... Most (all?) commercial wind turbines are designed to furl (fold back) the blades if the wind speed exceeds the safe power generation threshold, and are geared to turn at much slower speeds than 300mph. (Try closer to 20 to 40mph, with a max at around 60. After that they go into stall mode.)
At 300mph you wouldnt be able to see the blades, and the kinetic energy in them would tear them off the rotor. (Each blade weighs several tons in commercial wind generator equipment. The stress of rotation at that rate would exceed all known material's capabilities.)
So, [citation needed] on the 300mph claim.
10k bbl/acre LOL
The world uses 86+ million bbl/day
But I bet you have more TV's in your house than your parents did...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
A better use of the drug user/dealer analogy would be:
The drug user does not blame the dealer for their addiction, but does blame the dealer for cutting the cocaine with powdered lye when it causes them severe caustic soda burns in their nasal passages-- simply because they got a deal on powdered lye and ordered more than their meth cooks could turn into meth, making it cheaper than baking soda. Afterall, caustic soda.. baking soda.. what's the difference?
Which is a more apt analogy to:
The consumer does not complain when the utility company gives them inexpensive energy but does complain when the energy company cuts corners in health, safety and reliability proceedures which result in the largest man-made catastrophe to hit the gulf coast, simplyto turn a higher quarterly profit while simultaneously earning record profits overall. Mud, Concrete, what's the difference?
Pointing out that your dealer systemically uses improper cutting agents is good grounds to find another dealer, or at the very least to switch to a safer drug-- like weed.
As for the "Have cake XOR Eat cake" reference, I would say that is a false dichotomy type logical falacy in this particular instance, as it most certainly *IS* possible to have cheap energy from alternative sources. Amusingly, some of the very first power plants in the US were hydroelectric, not coal. (Take for instance, Colorado springs electrical power's hydro plant in the 1920s.) The difference is the amount of subsidization that the petrolium industry enjoys.
Don't worry, with $50 million they are only talking about one turbine anyway. If that.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Can these windmills handle hurricanes?
No, let the Arabs sell all their oil first. Then WE'LL have all the remaining oil.
Go read up on Jevons Paradox broseph.
More Efficiency == Higher Usage
So how many millions in cash from the "Parties of Interest" went into Barak-O's Camen Islands Bank accounts, without declaration or any tax witholding?
-308
Are you confusing wind speed with blade speed? Blades move much faster than the wind.
My local ones: 35m blades @ 22rpm max, so 290km/hr at the blade tips. OK km, not miles.
Worlds biggest is 126m diameter at 12rpm, so about the same speed.
[citation:]
http://www.verveenergy.com.au/mainContent/sustainableEnergy/OurPortfolio/Albany_Wind_Farm.html
$50 million won't even fund a feasibility study in a modern, developed country.
No sig today...
Sorry, who?
I don't find any company listed with that name.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
People keep saying "nuclear reactors" as if it was some kind of magical chant that overcomes all technical and political considerations. Currently mankind generates ~13TW globally by burning 14,000,000 tons of coal per day. To replace that with nukes by 2050 would require building two reactors a day for the next 40 years, to replace it with wind we need to build 900-1000 windmills per day for the next 40 years, to replace it with solar we need ~400 sq kilometrs of solars cells (in total, not per day). The task is massive but we have already spent the last 40yrs doing exactly the same thing with coal plants and hardly anyone noticed them popping up like mushrooms.
The only sensible way to do this is to force coal burners pay for their externalities or force them to stop burning by putting a blanket ban on new coal plants, which brings us to the real roadblock, political will. Either option will be, (in fact has been for decades), percieved as a death threat by one of the world's most economically powerfull industries.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
$50 million is not that much. In Germany the investment in offshore wind energy in 2008 was € 25 000 million (approx $ 36 000 million). And Germany is only a small country and is not at the forefront of wind energy deployment. However, in Germany the owner of wind turbines get 9 cent per kWh at the beginning and 5 cent per kWh later as a guaranteed price for their electricity and if possible other plants have to reduce their output so that the electricity from renewable sources is consumed first. However, big coal, oil and nuclear plants cannot be stopped on short notice therefore wind turbines have to be stopped on occasion as there is not enough energy storage for the electricity overproduction.
We could repeat the same thing for Denmark another even smaller country or the Netherlands. They all have bigger budgets. Germany puts € 25 billions into offshore research. This includes building offshore plants. Sometimes I wonder why the US is loosing ground on civil technologies.
50 million is a joke not an investment.
50 million doesn't seem so bold, but maybe that explains the funny wording :
"... took a BOLD STEP toward PERHAPS finally getting..."
perhaps they're bold : who knows...
"Hywind, worlds first offshore floating windmill": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAyPpQ4gnjg
Not currently sustainable. Yes, there are promising designs. They're just now rolling out. But it's not there yet...just like every other sustainable power generation method. And older designs, such as breeder reactors, would take about 10 years to build anyway.
Good thing nobody told that to France.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Not trying to be flamebait, but wind power is generally considered to be "free" power, but the energy is coming from somewhere. While we're not at a scale yet which could have an impact, has anyone studied the effect of taking that kinetic energy out of the weather system? Scaled up in a big way could we affect weather patterns?
Most people are anti-environmentalist morons, anti-technology enviro-nuts, or ignorant sheep who fall for the propaganda of one of the former groups. What hope is there?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If you're gaining energy from the wind, the wind's speed is going to decrease by some percent, right?
Has anybody figured out what kind of impact that would have on ocean or other ecosystems?
I guess that would have weather impacts, too.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
These offshore wind projects should be where you have large amounts of industry combined with ppl. That would be the great lakes. It would be useful for Mich, Wis, Ohio, Indiana, Penn, and NY to gain CHEAP energy from this.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Wind and solar are a con. They're a pipe dream. The people pushing them aren't doing it because they think they will actually work, they're pushing them for their own ulterior motives--like sucking up government grant money to build transmission lines for conventional power plants in Mexico and using wind power right-of-way as a ploy for stealing water rights (T Boone Pickens, I'm looking in your direction).
It's a con. It's a lie. It's didn't work in the 70's. It won't work today.
Nuclear is the only *practical* alternative energy source that the U.S. hasn't developed. Sorry hippies.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
...which you'll have to pour into your military toys to protect the very stuff you just burnt in your military toys...
U.S. Throws Away More Money on Pipe-dream To Appease Hippie Dreamers
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Went on a tour of a wind power farm last year. Price tag for that one development was 400 million.
50 million is peanuts and is really only a token or symbolic gesture.
NIMBY.
Also the people that don't want it are also the type that have cottages on that shore. The type of people that have cottage on that shore tend to be wealthy and well connected.
Same thing up in Canada. There have been attempts for over 10 years to get wind power off Toronto, and all have failed due to NIMBY. Basically a Cottage Association with deep pockets and influential members masquerading as an environmental group to basically torpedo any attempt to put in wind power. When it comes down to it, they think they are aesthetically ugly, and wreak their view of the water, and may effect they value of their cottages.
There was a documentary I thought captured Kennedy's position on such matters-- I forget the name but it was on PBS and was almost entirely about fishing on the east coast.
The community along the coast strongly opposed everything; they were well organized and related everything to impacting the local economy which would pull in other people as well. In the documentary, the fishing business lobby (mostly a group of small businesses) with their towns stopped fishing regulations designed to protect them.
The result: Kennedy came to support them even after initially trying to talk a little bit of sense (which worried them a little bit.) He quickly changed tack and represented their interests and kept them happy; surely knowing that they were wrong and harming themselves. So, they continued to over fish and many of them went out of business because of the significantly lower fish population they created for themselves!
This is where government doesn't work; that is, it works perfectly as it did in that case - it is the public its serving too well that are the problem. People have to learn to think ahead at their own short term expense.... Jobs are not everything...You don't have a right to a certain kind of job - there are real-world limitations that people will not recognize.
From what I've read about the east coast wind farms is that it is the many fisherman groups and shipping groups opposing the stuff messing with their "way of life" who have access to money to fight the issue thanks to the rich land owners and the ever powerful tourism interests who are like minded on the issue.
This is a GOOD sign because there are ways for honest government to do good despite its people. This is one of them - gather all the evidence and data to build a strong case to eventually move forward or at least win enough support that the politicians can afford to take the hit. If they can get other business interests involved they'll help provide a counter weight to the established moneyed interests. I've seen this done locally before - some civil servants don't give up and are well intentioned.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I've never seen any proof that nuclear power is cost effective. It gets massive government welfare at ALL levels including making fuel and dumping it. It is probably the most expensive power source we've had going all this time.
Sure they may not explode but they can do plenty of harm by other means - if properly managed they can be fine but if Americans could manage their country we'd not be in the mess we are today would we? We can't even keep our bridges safe anymore; we do patches at best when many things need upgrades. Many nuclear plants are operating years over their design specs and are leaking things already.
Its hard to even compare things here because we subsidize so many things in so many ways it obscures reality all we do know is that alternatives don't get jack in comparison. Plus we won't be smart enough to invest in a modern power grid (not a smart grid but a smartly designed one-- like by getting rid of AC power lines for less wasteful DC lines.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
We're not serious about alt energy. T Boone couldn't get transmission lines built for his west Texas wind farm and it's a damn site easier to run towers over land than water.
...once the oil-drilling platforms have depleted the undersea oil reserves, you have a platform that's ready to generate wind power.
Attach some windmills, lay down some cable, and you're good to go.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
The same actually. 2 I can only watch one at a time but sometimes my wife hogs the big one.
Who do you think is a big player in trying to get nuclear to be sustainable?
Nonesense. We have massive quantities of fossil fuels in the USA necessary to generate electricity. Massive. We have barely tapped our oil reserves and natural gas is so plentiful that the price continues to collapse.
Here's another great example of government wasting tax payers money. Like everything else the government touches - they will spend a million dollars to generate one. Gasoline remains one of the cheapest liquids in the world, and RUNS the world. Even though we have a clean energy alternative (nuclear), that would make gasoline obsolete, we don't use it.