U.S. Offshore Wind Farm Receives $2 Billion From Japanese Banks

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

U.S. Offshore Wind Farm Receives $2 Billion From Japanese Banks

Posted by Unknown on Monday April 15, 2013 @11:58AM from the moar-power dept.

kkleiner writes "The Bank of Tokyo has invested $2 billion into Cape Wind, the 130-turbine wind farm that is inching closer to becoming a reality. The project is vying to the first offshore wind farm in the U.S. after a decade-long campaign mired by red tape in order to receive approval. Proposed to be installed in Nantucket Sound, the wind farm is estimated to have a capacity of 468 megawatts."

185 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Meanwhile... by girlintraining · 2013-04-15 12:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

Meanwhile, in the United States... research and development cut. NASA budget shrunk. Science and engineering degrees from new graduates at all time lows. And at least one state (Tennessee) has recently tried to pass a law to make our educational system an actual Hunger Games by witholding food assistance from poor families with students who do poorly on state-administered exams.
Thank you, Japan, for investing in us... because we sure as hell aren't.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
1. Re:Meanwhile... by girlintraining · 2013-04-15 12:15 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Parent apparently didn't read the article, where it said, amongst other things, "politics and ghastly bureaucracies have thwarted efforts to adopt offshore wind farms in the US," "While the US is still waiting for its first offshore wind farm, much of the developed world has already," "everything from 'visual pollution' to the 'desecration of Indian burial grounds' have been thrown at Cape Wind"... Yeah. Sure sounds like money is the problem there.
  But since you don't know where to start "with all the money dumped into failed energy projects", here is as good a place as any. "According to the International Energy Agency, fossil fuels received $409 billion in subsidies globally in 2010, compared with $66 billion for renewable power." So how come a mature and developed industry needs six TIMES the amount of subsidies that research and development does? Is fossil fuel not profitable or something?
  If we want to talk about wasting money on "failed energy projects", I can think of no better example than our wasteful spending on fossil fuel subsidies. Probably not what you had in mind though when you made your off the cuff remark though, eh?
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
2. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · 2013-04-15 12:24 · Score: 2
  
  We spend 3.6 trillion dollars a year on ourselves. We are now spending more on ourselves than any time in history. Why isn't it working?
3. Re:Meanwhile... by blind+monkey+3 · 2013-04-15 12:25 · Score: 0
  
  ++ Mod points needed....
  
  --
  BM3
4. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · 2013-04-15 12:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  409 billion to 66 billion? Why don't you look at dollars per megawatt generated. Fossil fuels get pretty much the lowest subsidies per megawatt.
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903285704576559103573673300.html
  In fact they get a fraction of 1% of the subsidies per megawatt that renewable energy gets.
5. Re:Meanwhile... by Osgeld · 2013-04-15 12:29 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  meanwhile in the united states, a private company is raising funds instead of being on scientific welfare producing nothing of note for the last 3 decades
  PS, I kind of like the TN law, its not instant, theres a process to go though to improve student performance, if you and your child DO NOT choose to actually work for their education, why the fuck should we be paying both of you to sit on your ass all day for yet ANOTHER generation?
6. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 12:38 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  How high is "super high"?
  Does this apply only to homeowners or to all rate payers?
  Are these rate payers allowed to vote for the people who make the laws?
  Are the rate payers who's votes align against the "super high" rates allowed to benefit from whatever benefits accrue?
  Are the rate payers who's votes advance this scheme subject to the same detriments as you are?
7. Re:Meanwhile... by bbelt16ag · 2013-04-15 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  the stick does not work better then the honey. These kids will end up on the streets and in your neighborhood selling crack and heroine to anybody who will buy it. This solution will not work with out them WANTING to change. They will just say screw and leave the system.
  
  --
  NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP! "No limitations, no boundaries, there is no reason for them."
8. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  We spend 3.6 trillion dollars a year on ourselves. We are now spending more on ourselves than any time in history. Why isn't it working?
  Because you don't have a fucking clue as to where any of that 3.6 trillion dollars actually goes.
  And those taking all that money like it that way.
9. Re:Meanwhile... by bjdevil66 · 2013-04-15 12:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  In the end, this windfarm's problems weren't regulations or "sacred ground" of some nearby tribe. It was just a huge case of NIMBY from certain, powerful residents in the region who had connections and cash.
  And in this case, I can't totally fault the NIMBYs this time. Unless one is wearing rose-colored glasses about "going green", large windmill farms are an eyesore. Sure, they're a novelty to look at - as you DRIVE BY THEM in the middle of nowhere (such as the one in the barren hills on I-10 between LA and Phoenix, near Indio, CA). If I had them to look at all the time, however, it'd be no better than throwing up giant power lines and trusses a ways behind my backyard wall. If I'd paid millions to have a nice cape view and had some treehugger coming in and spoiling my view, I'd be pretty pissed off too.
10. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · 2013-04-15 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  That's right. So let's cut the problem off at the knees, and stop funding it.
11. Re:Meanwhile... by alen · 2013-04-15 13:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  except these rich people are tree huggers themselves who force their views on others
12. Re:Meanwhile... by GLMDesigns · 2013-04-15 13:05 · Score: 1
  
  You obviously are just parroting some nonsense. By every yardstick R&D is steady or has grown; regarding science and engineering degrees- yes that is not a good sign. Our problem is not R&D budgets - it creeping dependency on state; the erosion of individual rights and the rise of imperial washington.
  
  --
  If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
  Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
13. Re:Meanwhile... by jcr · 2013-04-15 13:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I can think of no better example than our wasteful spending on fossil fuel subsidies.
  Those are bad, too.
  How about, we end all tax money going to energy companies, make all taxes uniform, and let buyers determine which ones succeed and which ones fail?
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
14. Re:Meanwhile... by jcr · 2013-04-15 13:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well, the Kennedys make a lot of tree-hugging noises, but they still like to use their private jets.
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
15. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 13:14 · Score: 0
  
  It's those Liberal states that don't want to solve our energy problems!
16. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  Because buying energy isn't the only concern. The costs of energy producition matter a lot, and addressing them is hard.
  How am I to prosecute the polluting power plant that is upwind of me?
17. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 13:26 · Score: 0
  
  The dog is sick,
  shoot the dog......
18. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  It could be dangerous to give you mod points if you think comments like this are worth posting at all. At least go AC so the rest of us don't have to waste mod points to drop this kind of thing to -1 where it belongs.
19. Re:Meanwhile... by drinkypoo · 2013-04-15 13:48 · Score: 0
  
  If I'd paid millions to have a nice cape view and had some treehugger coming in and spoiling my view, I'd be pretty pissed off too.
  Sounds like you (and they) need to review Yertle the Turtle.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
20. Re:Meanwhile... by larry+bagina · 2013-04-15 13:48 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  If only more Kennedys flew in private jets *cough* JFK Jr *cough*
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
21. Re:Meanwhile... by wiredlogic · 2013-04-15 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think they're a significant eyesore during the day but the huge mass of blinking red lights at night is not such a great thing.
  
  --
  I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
22. Re:Meanwhile... by girlintraining · 2013-04-15 13:59 · Score: 2
  
  PS, I kind of like the TN law, its not instant, theres a process to go though to improve student performance, if you and your child DO NOT choose to actually work for their education, why the fuck should we be paying both of you to sit on your ass all day for yet ANOTHER generation?
  Hey, I've got a great idea! How about we take Little Timmy here, who's poor and hungry, and make him poorer and tell him it's his fault! I bet that'll encourage him to bust a nut on the next standardized test. Meanwhile, other kids, who are also doing crappy on standardized tests but aren't poor... they still get government assistance in the form of, I don't know... police service, roads, fire department, etc.
  How exactly is it moral or ethical to deny only poor children access to food unless they perform well academically? Please, I really want to know.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
23. Re:Meanwhile... by flaming+error · 2013-04-15 14:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That's an interesting way to look at it. But honestly, I don't see the value of that point of view.
  What is the point of subsidy? If the point were to benefit consumers, they would give us a tax credit for consumption, or at least drop the fuel taxes. It seems clear to me that subsidies exist to distort the market in favor of producers. Why is a single taxpayer penny going to such a mature, profitable, and global industry?
  As far as I can see, it has nothing to do with "per megawatt," and everything to do with "per campaign contribution."
24. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 14:03 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Because we're spending it all on:
  1) Blowing other people up.
  2) Ridiculously high health care costs that would decrease immensely if the right would stop cock-blocking us on universal health care.
25. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 14:07 · Score: 0
  
  As long as a parent attended 2 parent teacher conferences in the entire school year, they would get the same amount of money. If a parent can't be relied upon for that, then why not just take their children away.
26. Re:Meanwhile... by girlintraining · 2013-04-15 14:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  409 billion to 66 billion? Why don't you look at dollars per megawatt generated.
  Well, that's a really good question. I suppose it has something to do with the difference between maintaining an existing technology and infrastructure that depends on a dwindling and non-replaceable natural resource, as opposed to developing new technologies and infrastructure that rely on one or more natural resources which are neither. So "dollars per megawatt" is the wrong metric to be using in this case.
  Now, if we were to compare renewable energy over the entire developmental history of fossil fuels... we'd see that it cost a lot of money to make small, incremental improvements. You're making an apples to oranges comparison.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
27. Re:Meanwhile... by larry+bagina · 2013-04-15 14:28 · Score: 2
  
  If you really want to know... Electrical utilities are a natural monopoly. In most locations, you don't have a choice in who provides your electricity because the city (for municipal power) or the state chose for you and granted the utility a monopoly. They also created a public service board or commission to regulate the utilities. The board approves rate hikes. You don't choose who is on the board. The utility asks them to raise rates to they can buy high-cost electricity. They approve it. You don't have a choice.
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
28. Re:Meanwhile... by khallow · 2013-04-15 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  Now, if we were to compare renewable energy over the entire developmental history of fossil fuels... we'd see that it cost a lot of money to make small, incremental improvements.
  
  So what? It costs more, if you're spending Other Peoples' Money. Also existing development is a sunk cost. Sure, maybe some renewable alternative would cost less to research than has been spent on a fossil fuel rival. But the latter exists now and doesn't require you to spend more to make it work. That's a powerful advantage.
29. Re:Meanwhile... by Osgeld · 2013-04-15 14:37 · Score: 0
  
  little timmy is 16 years old and has not gone to school for 3 months
  cry me a river
30. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · 2013-04-15 14:37 · Score: 2
  
  No. If your dog is so fat it cant get off the couch, you give it less food to fix it. If you get terrible gas mileage because your car is filled with 500 lbs of junk that's been in there for three years, you remove the junk. If your company is failing because you spend too much on catering and travel, you spend less on catering and do more teleconferencing.
31. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 14:42 · Score: 0
  
  How about, we end all tax money going to energy companies, make all taxes uniform, and let buyers determine which ones succeed and which ones fail?
  Have you talked to the average person lately?
32. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · 2013-04-15 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  That's an interesting way to look at it. But honestly, I don't see the value of that point of view.
  Actually, I don't think you understand the concept of value. Subsidizing solar power to the tune of $750.00 per megawatt is not good value.
33. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · 2013-04-15 14:45 · Score: 2
  
  And because fossil fuels did this largely without the help of taxpayer subsidies, we have a mature profitable industry. As long as solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear are dependent on handouts, they will never achieve that status.
34. Re:Meanwhile... by Solandri · 2013-04-15 14:46 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  That's an interesting way to look at it. But honestly, I don't see the value of that point of view.
  
  What is the point of subsidy? If the point were to benefit consumers, they would give us a tax credit for consumption, or at least drop the fuel taxes. It seems clear to me that subsidies exist to distort the market in favor of producers.
  If the argument is that the subsidies for fossil fuels are distorting the market, then $ per megawatt-hour is the correct way to compare it. If you and I are both selling lemonade, and I get a subsidy of $0.01 per glass, and you get a subsidy of $1 per glass it's pretty clear which way the market is distorted.
  
  That I happen to sell 10,000 glasses for a total subsidy of $100, while you sell just 10 glasses for a total subsidy of $10, is beside the point from a market distortion standpoint.
  
  Why is a single taxpayer penny going to such a mature, profitable, and global industry?
  You are assuming the fossil fuel industry is a monolithic and static entity. There are new methods of extracting fossil fuels and more efficient ways of combusting them constantly being researched and developed. They get a large share of the subsidy dollars because most of our energy infrastructure is designed to run off of fossil fuels. So decreasing their cost has a proportionally larger benefit for our overall economy than decreasing the cost of a little-used technology (putting aside the issue of externalized costs due to pollution). Once renewables drop in price to the point where they're providing the bulk of our energy, they will get the bulk of the subsidy dollars. The point of the subsidies isn't to try to be "fair" to the little guy. It's to accelerate development of promising new technologies which will most benefit the economy.
  
  Speaking of which, I don't see a problem with renewables currently having a poorer return per subsidy dollar than fossil fuels. The petroleum and coal industries were probably subsidized up the wazoo when they were first starting out. Nuclear certainly was. We are investing heavily in renewables now not because we're expecting an immediate return on that investment. Rather we see a long-term benefit of switching to these technologies, and wish to accelerate their development into an economically viable alternative. So there's nothing wrong with renewables getting more $subsidy/MWh. In fact if you look only at new fossil fuel technologies like clean coal (which I think is a terrible idea), the $subsidy/MWh is probably similar to that of renewables.
35. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · 2013-04-15 14:46 · Score: 2
  
  Right, because universal health care always ends up being cheap and good.
36. Re:Meanwhile... by girlintraining · 2013-04-15 14:46 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  So what? It costs more, if you're spending Other Peoples' Money. Also existing development is a sunk cost. Sure, maybe some renewable alternative would cost less to research than has been spent on a fossil fuel rival. But the latter exists now and doesn't require you to spend more to make it work. That's a powerful advantage.
  Okay, so short version is... after you spend a trillion dollars to make something work, getting something else to work at a fraction of that cost is wrong because of [bullshit political reason]. Meanwhile, oil supplies continue to dwindle, and our planet is heating up so fast that by some estimates, in another 20 years we won't have ice in antarctica. Clearly, us all roasting to death as most of the planet becomes an inhospitable desert is preferable to violating the tenets of (mumble mumble) other people's money (mumble).
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
37. Re:Meanwhile... by Areyoukiddingme · 2013-04-15 14:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So decreasing their cost has a proportionally larger benefit for our overall economy...
  That was the biggest load of bullshit I've heard all year. "Benefit the economy?" Are you kidding me? What happens when the power company uses tax money to find a way to combust coal more efficiently? They implement it, continue to charge me the exact same amount of money for electricity and pocket the difference as profit. That's not a "benefit to the economy." That's a benefit to the goddamn power company. If they want to increase their profits by improving the efficiency of their processes, they can pay for it with their own money, not my tax money. I already paid them. My neighbors all paid them. Together, we all paid them enough to do all the fucking research in the world and still post record profits. And you're trying to claim subsidizing them with government funds is a benefit to the economy?
  The fucking nerve...
38. Re:Meanwhile... by TubeSteak · 2013-04-15 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  In fact they get a fraction of 1% of the subsidies per megawatt that renewable energy gets.
  A mature technology with a massive amount of installed infrastructure gets lower subsidies per [arbitrary unit] than a new technology with a miniscule fraction of the installed base.
  Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
  Color me surprised.
  Maybe 100 years from now, we can have a meaningful comparison of renewables and fossil fuels, assuming we're still using fossil fuels in 100 years.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
39. Re:Meanwhile... by PopeRatzo · 2013-04-15 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  We spend 3.6 trillion dollars a year on ourselves.
  Not all of it is "on ourselves", unless one of us is an Afghani warlord.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
40. Re:Meanwhile... by flaming+error · 2013-04-15 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  If value means only purchase price, why would the industry with overwhelming market domination and the lowest retail price require taxpayer subsidies?
41. Re:Meanwhile... by PopeRatzo · 2013-04-15 15:14 · Score: 0
  
  If your company is failing because you spend too much on catering and travel
  Unless you're a catering and travel company.
  You understand that sovereign nations with fiat currency are not at all like your fat dog, your car, or a company. It's not like your family, or your poker night or a piggy bank.
  Not at all.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
42. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · 2013-04-15 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  OK, so tell me when fossil fuels, oil, coal or NG were ever subsidized to the tune of $750 per MW adjusted for inflation of course to make it fair. Were they ever even subsidized at $10 per MW? I highly doubt it. Solar is currently subsidized at a rate more than 1000 times higher per unit of electricity generated.
43. Re:Meanwhile... by flaming+error · 2013-04-15 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  "If you and I are both selling lemonade, and I get a subsidy of $0.01 per glass, and you get a subsidy of $1 per glass it's pretty clear which way the market is distorted. "
  It would be pretty clear that the subsidies were stupid. If the goal were to give me a 99 cent advantage, It would be cheaper to give me ($0.99 * 10) than to shell out that for me plus ($0.01 * 10,000) for you.
44. Re:Meanwhile... by flaming+error · 2013-04-15 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, that was $1.00 * 10 for me. I didn't mean to underreport that dime on tax day.
45. Re:Meanwhile... by girlintraining · 2013-04-15 15:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And because fossil fuels did this largely without the help of taxpayer subsidies, we have a mature profitable industry.
  Did you miss the part where I pointed out there's about 68 billion in subsidies every year going to fossil fuel producers, and renewable energy gets about a sixth of that? And as long as we're talking about "taxpayer subsidies", how about we discuss the storied and terrible history of Standard Oil, which became the first modern monopoly in the world through predatory business practices, rampant exploitation of natural resources, workers, price manipulation, etc. It was the catalyst for the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act and its later dismantlement by the government at significant cost to taxpayers. Most of our domestic oil producers can still trace their roots back to this monolithic entity that at one point controlled over 90% of domestic production and 80% of sales.
  See, the problem with your logic is that it's myopic: You think taxpayer dollars only come from government subsidies. But whether you're paying for it due to legislation, or due to malignant business practices, you're still paying for it. The delineation between the two is artificial and arbitrary. Standard Oil, if it existed today, would probably own close to a third of the country, and have an operating revenue of over a trillion USD. That trillion a year revenue would be coming out of our pockets.
  In short, your logic is bullshit: Every major infrastructure industry in this country depended on the government to get up and running, or to expand to a societal level of influence. Every. Last. One.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
46. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 15:43 · Score: 0
  
  Fossl fuels got $409 Billion in subsidies. I sugget you read the first post again.
47. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  The current system certainly hasn't ended up being cheap or unquestionably good.
48. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · 2013-04-15 16:05 · Score: 2
  
  Did you miss the part where I pointed out there's about 68 billion in subsidies every year going to fossil fuel producers, and renewable energy gets about a sixth of that? And as long as we're talking about "taxpayer subsidies", how about we discuss the storied and terrible history of Standard Oil, which became the first modern monopoly in the world through predatory business practices, rampant exploitation of natural resources, workers, price manipulation, etc. It was the catalyst for the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act and its later dismantlement by the government at significant cost to taxpayers. Most of our domestic oil producers can still trace their roots back to this monolithic entity that at one point controlled over 90% of domestic production and 80% of sales.
  Not at all. Renewable energy only produces a few percent of the power in this country. I'll accept your definition of subsidies for the sake of argument. If they only produce a few percent of the power what entitles them to 1/6th of the subsidies? How about we just stop subsidizing altogether.
  
  See, the problem with your logic is that it's myopic: You think taxpayer dollars only come from government subsidies. But whether you're paying for it due to legislation, or due to malignant business practices, you're still paying for it.
  
  And you accuse me of being illogical? You can't just ignore facts and make up definitions. When you buy a product from a company that is not a tax. Tax is money that is taken from you by force by a government, either willingly or unwillingly.
  
  The delineation between the two is artificial and arbitrary. Standard Oil, if it existed today, would probably own close to a third of the country, and have an operating revenue of over a trillion USD. That trillion a year revenue would be coming out of our pockets.
  It doesn't. But I'll accept your scenario for the sake of argument. Fuel was far less expensive, adjusted for inflation, with Standard Oil than it is today.
  
  In short, your logic is bullshit: Every major infrastructure industry in this country depended on the government to get up and running, or to expand to a societal level of influence. Every. Last. One.
  The thing about taxpayer provided infrastructure is that everyone is supposed to be able to use it. When the Government gets involved and starts picking favored children to be spoiled with our money, that violates the principles this country was founded on. Level the playing field, don't tilt it.
49. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · 2013-04-15 16:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It doesn't, end them. The oil industry receives subsidies in the form of standard tax breaks. Solyndra, and other renewable energy companies receive their subsidies in the form of checks. There's a difference.
50. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · 2013-04-15 16:15 · Score: 2
  
  I agree with most of that sentiment. But what do you think happens with those profits? Mentally trace them as they wind their way through the economy. When a company gets a taxpayer handout, literally a check, and then goes bankrupt and is sold off to China, who benefits from that?
51. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · 2013-04-15 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  So, the TIME article is claiming that fossil fuels had 2/3 as much money budgeted to them as Defense? I smell some week old Halibut.
52. Re:Meanwhile... by girlintraining · 2013-04-15 16:40 · Score: 2
  
  Not at all. Renewable energy only produces a few percent of the power in this country.
  Weren't you the one just ragging on me a short while ago about "cost per megawatt"? Now you're moving the goal posts. And what does the size of an industry have to do with its return on investment, public good, etc.? Nothing.
  
  You can't just ignore facts and make up definitions.
  
  Why? You're doing it. I've taken the position that we need to invest in alternative energy before the planet becomes uninhabitable, and you're making arguments about taxpayer dollars. Who's being more illogical here? The person who realizes you can't eat money, or the person who values only money?
  
  Fuel was far less expensive, adjusted for inflation, with Standard Oil than it is today.
  The modern automobile didn't exist until about the time Standard Oil was broken up. At that time, oil was mostly used for heating and limited industrial applications. Demand has gone up considerably; But I'm certain that they could have figured out how to go international and gain monopolies elsewhere as well. Oh wait... they were in the process of doing exactly that when we broke them up. We would have wound up with the next OPEC in our backyard if not for that.
  
  The thing about taxpayer provided infrastructure is that everyone is supposed to be able to use it.
  
  You use the roads. You use the gas stations. You indirectly make use of the pipelines, trucks, and other transportation equipment, etc. The government is involved in every aspect from the time it comes out of the ground until it hits your gas tank. And yet... you try to make the argument "everyone is supposed to be able to use it?"
  
  When the Government gets involved and starts picking favored children to be spoiled with our money,
  
  68,000,000,000 dollars per year goes to the "favored children" of the fossil fuel production industry. I just want to make sure we're clear on exactly how many zeros are in that: apparently billion isn't something you've wrapped your head around yet.
  
  that violates the principles this country was founded on
  Yes, so we should allow the industries that have profited from all that government investment before to continue to do so, without repayment... but give no alternatives equal access to funding, because of principles that you yourself only sometimes adhere too.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
53. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  some tax-haven ?
54. Re:Meanwhile... by cervesaebraciator · 2013-04-15 17:01 · Score: 1
  
  If I'd paid millions to have a nice cape view and had some treehugger coming in and spoiling my view, I'd be pretty pissed off too.
  Then you clearly didn't pay enough millions. You should have bought the whole of Nantucket Sound if you wanted to dictate what could happen within sight of and not merely on your property. I'd be pissed too, if I'd bought the property for a view that would be spoiled. But I'd have no real claim. Owning a piece of shoreline doesn't allow one to determine what can happens miles from shore.
55. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · 2013-04-15 17:04 · Score: 1
  
  It helps to quote your opponent's argument in full when countering. That way it doesn't look like you are ignoring portions.
  Actually, the TIME article claims 68,000,000,000 goes to renewable energy, and 409,000,000,000 goes to fossil fuels. But that number is misleading in fossil fuel's case, because the government never gave it to them. It simply didn't take it in the first place.
  By the way, 68,000,000,000 is a large number that I fully comprehend. So is 225,000,000,000, which is the amount we will spend this year paying interest on the debt. And so is 1,200,000,000,000, which is the amount we will spend this year that we don't have. And so is 5,600,000,000,000, which is the amount of our debt that is held by foreign governments. We can go on, there are several even larger figures that I could bring up.
56. Re:Meanwhile... by pod · 2013-04-15 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  "It would be pretty clear that the subsidies were stupid."
  Now you're using your noggin!
  But they both got subsidies, so they are both happy, no? It's all about the votes.
  
  --
  "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
57. Re:Meanwhile... by girlintraining · 2013-04-15 17:40 · Score: 2
  
  It helps to quote your opponent's argument in full when countering. That way it doesn't look like you are ignoring portions.
  So you've corrected me because I was an order of magnitude lower in my estimates, but failed to attack any of the main points and merely done a dismissal handwave. Classy.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
58. Re:Meanwhile... by stoploss · 2013-04-15 19:08 · Score: 1
  
  ...our planet is heating up so fast that by some estimates, in another 20 years we won't have ice in antarctica.
  That's a fairly alarmist claim. Where did you read that? Because, you know, it seems like the risk of 200+ foot rise in sea levels due to *all* the antarctic ice melting within 20 years might be getting a little more attention.
  ...you know, like perhaps by the Dutch, who wouldn't have a country anymore. Oh, and maybe New York could start building a dome as some sort of post-apocalyptic bastion.
59. Re:Meanwhile... by dave420 · 2013-04-15 19:16 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The US is spending twice per capita on a healthcare system compared to comparable systems in other countries. That's clearly not acceptable.
60. Re:Meanwhile... by roman_mir · 2013-04-15 19:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Standard Oil was such a terrible company, constantly lowering prices for its product over the half of century of operations, lowering prices faster than anybody else based on reinvestment and technological and business process improvements.
  Totally screwed its customers by lowering prices 6 fold over the first 40 years of operations.
  Customers gained so much by the government stepping in to help some third party interests to break up the economy of scale (which was not a monopoly, competition existed), and customers especially gained due to the oil product prices never going down again, because as we know from the Fed, if prices go down customers get hurt.
  Oh, and finally government should tax the energy industry at much higher rates, so that the government can get more money from the industry, because obviously the government will be able to use money so much better than the industry in developing energy. All those subsidies that that industry gets in the form of tax credits due to all of its supposed research and development, who do they think they are, researching and developing? Do they think they are the government?
  Only government can research and develop as we know, companies do not do that, they are a terrible steward of their profits, government is so much more moral and obviously better at managing other people's money.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
61. Re:Meanwhile... by jopsen · 2013-04-15 19:52 · Score: 2
  
  We spend 3.6 trillion dollars a year on ourselves... Why isn't it working?
  In all fairness you do spend 16% of that on free stuff for others: bombs, missiles, armies, etc...
62. Re:Meanwhile... by blind+monkey+3 · 2013-04-15 19:55 · Score: 1
  
  I love you too.
  
  --
  BM3
63. Re:Meanwhile... by Sabriel · 2013-04-15 20:32 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps girlintraining meant to type "the arctic" rather than "antarctica": http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/04/13/1639218/noaa-arctic-likely-free-of-summer-ice-by-2050-possibly-much-sooner
  Which I would suggest is not an alarmist claim (alarming, on the other hand...).
  Though, since we've mentioned it, how and to what degree (heh) the antarctic would be affected by an ice-free arctic is also of concern.
64. Re:Meanwhile... by serviscope_minor · 2013-04-15 22:15 · Score: 1
  
  cry me a river
  Says the man who basically had it all handed to him on a plate compared to little timmy.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
65. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 22:28 · Score: 1
  
  That's because our system in the U.S. is actually set up to stuff the pockets of HMOs, the insurance industry, and various medical or pharmaceutical industry giants. If you thought actual affordable health care had anything to do with it, you haven't been paying attention. That's totally besides the point in terms of what's being done.
  Now if we'd been doing things like any other countries with taxpayer supported healthcare, it would have been setup more in lines of "this is what you have to do, this is how much we're paying, and you're gonna have to like it." Some medical services of course wouldn't like it, but at least the goal of affordable health care is achieved.
66. Re:Meanwhile... by AmiMoJo · 2013-04-15 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  Renewable energy only produces a few percent of the power in this country.
  Yes, the US is way behind other countries when it comes to renewable energy, despite having vast renewable resources. Scotland is on coarse for 100% renewable energy by 2020 (they will generate 200% of what they need, half exported to other countries). Even the rest of the UK that seems to hate renewable energy almost as much as the US is aiming for about 20% by 2020, overtaking nuclear.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
67. Re:Meanwhile... by AmiMoJo · 2013-04-15 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  Because people will just choose the cheapest option, even if it pollutes some far off place and makes the people there choke on smog.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
68. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 23:36 · Score: 0
  
  Likely this invest from Japan will feed into the hands of Japanese turbine providers such as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. This is just subsidizing Japanese turbine research.
  Captcha: skylarks
69. Re:Meanwhile... by AmiMoJo · 2013-04-15 23:40 · Score: 1
  
  The same argument can be made about any development. The guy living a bit further back from the coast would probably object to your house being built and want it demolished to improve his view too. People objected when telegraph poles were first installed, and power lines.
  Wind turbines are not a horrible eye-sore as long as they are positioned such that they don't cause flickering in the early morning/evening. People are just going to have to accept them, just like the accept roads and railways lines and other vital infrastructure. Placing them off-shore is ideal, but the US has vast amounts of unused land away from population centres that could be put to good use.
  If it was a coal fired power station or giant dong-shaped monument I could understand, but wind farms are just the latest fad thing for NIMBYs to rail against, spurred on by anti-environmentalists.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
70. Re:Meanwhile... by angel'o'sphere · 2013-04-15 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  In the rest of the world it does ... at least far cheaper than the USA system.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
71. Re:Meanwhile... by angel'o'sphere · 2013-04-15 23:52 · Score: 1
  
  Comparison by Megawatt makes absolutely no sense.
  *Installed* Megawatts of *established* energy resources *obviously* by far excede the future ones ...
  On top of that: why don't you make the math and add up what the established ones got (nuclear/fossile) over the least 50 years and *demand* that renewables will get the same funding the next 50 years?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
72. Re:Meanwhile... by angel'o'sphere · 2013-04-15 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  That I happen to sell 10,000 glasses for a total subsidy of $100, while you sell just 10 glasses for a total subsidy of $10, is beside the point from a market distortion standpoint.
  It is exactly not besides the point. The low volume he is selling has absolutely no effect on the market. It only has an effect on his business, and that is the point about "correctly done" subsidies.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
73. Re:Meanwhile... by Pseudonym+Authority · 2013-04-15 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. You owe me money, but I since it's your birthday, I knock off a few yen. Or, you can pay me the full debt, then I give you your birthday present. It does not matter at all. It is just an accounting trick.
74. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-16 00:12 · Score: 0
  
  And Canadian MPs fly across the border to get heart surgery.
75. Re:Meanwhile... by Pseudonym+Authority · 2013-04-16 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  So true. If anything helps brain development it's poor nutrition.
  
  Tip: you are a fucking retard. Meditate on this before you decide to have an opinion on something that you know nothing about (other than the garbage you regurgitate from AM radio).
76. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-16 00:24 · Score: 0
  
  Standard Oil was such a terrible company, constantly lowering prices for its product over the half of century of operations, lowering prices faster than anybody else based on reinvestment and technological and business process improvements.
  Nonsense. S.O. did not decrease prices from "reinvestment and technological and business process improvements". They did it by making deals with a government-created oligopoly called the railroads.
  The railroads wouldn't even exist if government did not deny individual property rights of land owners and gave the railroad companies room to build their rails, or deny individual freedoms by pushing through discriminating laws against Chinese immigrants to provide railroad companies a cheap labor force (if they left it to the free market, nobody would want to work for the railroad companies at the wage they were offering)
  Consider this: when S.O was broken up, Rockefeller ended up RICHER, not poorer. If S.O. is such a free market capitalist company, and Rockefeller a free private individual who worked for his wealth, why would any government action benefit him?
  Government intervention never benefits individuals, but here we see an individual getting massive pay offs thanks to government intervention.
  The only explanation for this is that Rockefeller was/is in on it. He was part of the corporatist collectivist scheme of the government, by working with the railroads. Government was rewarding him for being such a nice accomplice, providing them with the best excuse to expand its powers.
77. Re:Meanwhile... by ChrisSlicks · 2013-04-16 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  In Massachusetts we do get a choice of the electric production company (but not the service provider), so unless they have cancelled this option for the particular Boston home owner above, I believe he still has a choice.
  New England states have historically had a high price for electricity overall, but a large percentage of the cost is the supply charge which covers maintenance of the fragile "last mile" power lines.
78. Re:Meanwhile... by Pseudonym+Authority · 2013-04-16 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, if there can be a law that says that an employer must allow their workers to have paid time off to go to the conferences. Oh, is that socialism or something? Well since I've dropped the S word we can stop thinking and accept that it is simply the word of the invisible hand that we can give people the ultimatum to lose what little money that they are making and possibly their jobs or else have aid taken from them.
79. Re:Meanwhile... by khallow · 2013-04-16 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  in another 20 years we won't have ice in antarctica
  That won't be the case even for the Arctic Ocean. If you had read the story in question, it didn't say that the Arctic Ocean would be ice-free all the time, just during the summers.
  
  Clearly, us all roasting to death as most of the planet becomes an inhospitable desert is preferable to violating the tenets of (mumble mumble) other people's money (mumble).
  There are more important things vexing us than a slight increase in temperature. I get a bit tired of the angst over first world problems that just aren't that important to anyone rather than huge problems like poverty, preventable disease, that sort of thing.
80. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-16 00:47 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think fossil fuels will exist in 100 years
81. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-16 01:15 · Score: 0
  
  $69 billion must be some complete lie, because the renewable energy industry is 70% subsidized, and its much more than $100 billion per year spent.
  Solar PV - paid $1.00 kWh, worth about a tenth that.
  Wind Paid $0.22 /kWh, worth about a quarter that. .. ..
82. Re:Meanwhile... by Beezlebub33 · 2013-04-16 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think fossil fuels will exist in 100 years
  Of course they will.
  There are several factors here. First, the amount that we use is dependent upon the cost. As the cheaper-to-get fossil fuels are used up, the cost goes up and the amount that will be used will go down. So, there will be a shift in the market from fossil fuels to others, but the fossil fuels will continue to be used for some purposes because they are so damn useful: really high energy / weight and energy / volume ratios and easy to manage at industrial scales.
  Also, the amount of fossil fuels 'available' depends largely upon the price. When you see graphs or estimates of oil remaining in the ground, that is for a particular price or projected price. If the price becomes high, way more fossil fuels become economically viable and we have more of it.
  Finally, the technology involved in getting fossil fuels out of the ground continues to change. The amount of natural gas in the ground in the US has not significantly changed in the last 20 years. However, fracking technology has changed the economic viability of getting it, so all of a sudden the US 'has' lots of natural gas. Oil shale technology has improved, though the fact that is viable now is partly because the cost of oil is higher and partly technology. What happens if someone figures out a way to get methane clathrates cheaply? Then all of sudden we have even more natural gas.
  So, fossil fuels are not going anywhere. The energy mix will change as function of economics and technology, but they will be with us for hundreds of years.
  
  --
  The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
83. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-16 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  I need to point out that Insurance companies are constantly building and spreading at the same time they cry that it all cost too much.
  Do not believe everything you hear. Healthcare providers all like to cry and whine about managed care, but the fact is, they just don't want to manage it.
  The real expense is greed.
84. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-16 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  But what do you think happens with those profits? Mentally trace them as they wind their way through the economy.
  Oh, trickle-down economics, eh? At the tax-payer's expense. The AC had it correct, whichever tax haven it goes to, it does so at the rest of the economy's expense.
85. Re:Meanwhile... by tompaulco · 2013-04-16 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Scotland is on coarse for 100% renewable energy by 2020
  Of course we will ignore the fact that the only difference between renewable and non-renewable energy is the time scale. There is actually no such thing as renewable energy.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
86. Re:Meanwhile... by tompaulco · 2013-04-16 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  So, the TIME article is claiming that fossil fuels had 2/3 as much money budgeted to them as Defense? I smell some week old Halibut.
  Not, the money wasn't budgeted to them. Time was merely reporting as subsidies what most normal people would call writing off business expenses. The money that was given to renewables was real budgeted money from taxpayers. The money reported as being given to fossil fuels was standard business deductions that could not be taken into consideration as part of the government's budget.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
87. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-16 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  Libertarians are so 18th Century.
88. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-16 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  ......Someone drank a little too much oil flavored kool aid.
89. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · 2013-04-16 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Facts matter.
90. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · 2013-04-16 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  That was kind of my point. It's hard to call the subsidies for oil, taxpayer money, when it was never taken from the taxpayer.
91. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · 2013-04-16 03:34 · Score: 2
  
  Did you refuse to even attempt the exercise? Do you think every profitable company has a room filled with gold coins, with a sign on the door that says "profits". And that executives spend their lunch hours bathing in them Scrooge McDuck style? Oh, trickle-down economics. That term is a crutch for you, it allows you to avoid thinking.
92. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · 2013-04-16 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  One method of subsidy is predicated on the ability to produce, the other is predicated on a sketchy promise to produce. There is a difference.
93. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · 2013-04-16 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  Fascists are so 1930's.
94. Re:Meanwhile... by tompaulco · 2013-04-16 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  According to some calculations I plugged into a formula on the internet for calculating curvature of the Earth, a 500 foot Wind Turbine would be below the horizon if placed 30 miles out.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
95. Re:Meanwhile... by garbut · 2013-04-16 04:57 · Score: 2
  
  Your math isn't sensible. You do realize the purpose of solar subsidies is to get the industry off the ground, right? Per-megawatt cost means nothing. Going by your logic of what is good value, the very first Tesla cost millions of dollars. Never mind how much less expensive the second one was, nobody wants to buy the first one so why bother.
  
  --
  Oh, should I have sugar-coated that?
96. Re:Meanwhile... by SillyHamster · 2013-04-16 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  ... how about we discuss the storied and terrible history of Standard Oil, which became the first modern monopoly in the world through predatory business practices, rampant exploitation of natural resources, workers, price manipulation, etc. It was the catalyst for the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act and its later dismantlement by the government at significant cost to taxpayers. Most of our domestic oil producers can still trace their roots back to this monolithic entity that at one point controlled over 90% of domestic production and 80% of sales.
  Interesting you point to Standard Oil as an example of evil monopolies. Recently read an article challenging that common view. Excerpt:
  http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2013/Hendersonbarons.html#.UTjpzGTanh0.facebook
  
  " But what is not speculative is how he [Rockefeller, of Standard Oil] expanded his market share. He did so by cutting prices and almost quadrupling sales. University of Chicago economics professor Lester Telser, in his 1987 book, A Theory of Efficient Cooperation and Competition,4 points out that between 1880 and 1890, the output of petroleum products rose 393 percent, while the price fell 61 percent. Telser writes: "The oil trust did not charge high prices because it had 90 percent of the market. It got 90 percent of the refined oil market by charging low prices." Some monopoly! "
  
  ... Standard Oil, if it existed today, would probably own close to a third of the country, and have an operating revenue of over a trillion USD. That trillion a year revenue would be coming out of our pockets.
  Uh, who else will pay for our individual oil consumption but ourselves? If that trillion a dollar revenue buys 2 trillion dollars of value for the buyers (to use for transportation, heating, oil byproducts), that trillion dollar figure would be a good thing!
  
  In short, your logic is bullshit: Every major infrastructure industry in this country depended on the government to get up and running, or to expand to a societal level of influence. Every. Last. One.
  Your examples fail to prove your conclusion. Please point to the Oil Development and Subsidy Act, or the Law to Subsidize Coal Research and Development, or the Law to Tax Horse and Buggies for Less Smelly Alternatives, if you wish to insist that current green energy subsidies are exactly like what was done in the past.
97. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · 2013-04-16 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Your math isn't sensible. You do realize the purpose of solar subsidies is to get the industry off the ground, right? Per-megawatt cost means nothing. Going by your logic of what is good value, the very first Tesla cost millions of dollars. Never mind how much less expensive the second one was, nobody wants to buy the first one so why bother.
  It's not working.. The first Tesla was subsidized with DOE loans. It is morally wrong to make you or me or anyone else pay for that first car, for the benefit of private profit, without receiving a tangible benefit in return. When everybody is forced to sacrifice for the common good, or in this case the benefit of a private company, how is that commonly good? Everyone is just worse off.
98. Re:Meanwhile... by angel'o'sphere · 2013-04-16 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  What has the price of fuel to do with your (the) argument?
  Do you really still believe in supply and demand? That is so 18xx.
  The customer pays what the provider is able to deprive him from. Because you have no choice! Prices of live necessary goods are not driven by supply and demand but by market power of the providers (and taxes on top of that).
  So fuel now costs as much the customers CAN pay, not what they voluntarily 'would' pay if there was a 'free market'.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
99. Re:Meanwhile... by garbut · 2013-04-16 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  the government never gave it to them. It simply didn't take it in the first place.
  The material difference being?
  
  --
  Oh, should I have sugar-coated that?
100. Re:Meanwhile... by angel'o'sphere · 2013-04-16 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps your definition of renewable is simply to old fashioned?
  Otoh the term renewable perhaps is exactly coined for this reason? Why not call it green energy or carbon neutral energy or biotope preserving energy?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
101. Re:Meanwhile... by angel'o'sphere · 2013-04-16 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  To sad you have to point this out. Common sense should make this pretty obvious!
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
102. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · 2013-04-16 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously? If you believe that all profits belong, first and foremost, to the government only to be doled out and expended as it sees fit, I can see how you might have trouble differentiating. Did you make money last year? I think it is wrong that the government spent money by not taking everything you made.
103. Re:Meanwhile... by garbut · 2013-04-16 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  You completely failed to discern my point. One more time without any examples that might send you off on another tangent: There is no logic in calculating a per-unit cost for a subsidy in an industry that is in its infancy.
  
  --
  Oh, should I have sugar-coated that?
104. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · 2013-04-16 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Solar, wind, and ethanol industries have been receiving subsidies for decades, how long will they be infants and when can we start looking at costs?
105. Re:Meanwhile... by garbut · 2013-04-16 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Holy crap! Where the hell did you get all those strawmen?
  
  --
  Oh, should I have sugar-coated that?
106. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · 2013-04-16 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Holy crap, where did your argument go?
107. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-16 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  Just because sovereign nations aren't *exactly like* the dog or car in the example doesn't invalidate the point. You're a lazy arguer.
108. Re:Meanwhile... by Sabathius · 2013-04-16 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Ummm...Hawaii has had it for 40+ years. Just as one example.
109. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-16 07:08 · Score: 0
  
  Little Timmy is a lost cause. Why waste resources on him when smarter/harder working kids will make much more efficient use of the resources? If you hadn't noticed, America is going to be overtaken by countries like China economically and soon after intellectually and academically. Look at the trends in R&D spending and Nobel prices.
  The competitiveness of the bottom 10% who work the register at Walmart and the equivalent doesn't matter. They could be 2nd grade dropouts and the country wouldn't suffer. The Nobel prizes go to the top 0.001%. The R&D is done by the top 1%. The professional economy is the top 10%. The supporters of the professional economy are the top 30%. We need a much stronger and more effective tracking program to prioritize resources to those who need them -- not to become mediocre, but to excel on the world stage.
  We're better off spending $100k on the really smart kid who doesn't need to study to get straight A's and would benefit from having a tough challenge that requires his full attention and effort, than $100k on a 10 dumb kids who needs to be motivated to show up to class so they can clock in their solid F's and the school can get their state funding for per-student attendance.
  But our society is backwards. We cut programs that smart kids like, like enhanced learning, arts, music, etc, and we double down on shit for bad kids and dumb kids, like special education teachers and remedial reading programs.
  
  How exactly is it moral or ethical to deny only poor children access to food unless they perform well academically? Please, I really want to know.
  That's a good question -- I think punishment for failure should be across the board. However, this program is a great start. Certainly poor people need stronger motivation than rich people. The typical poor student who does badly and doesn't care about school has an attitude that things can't get worse. They're poor now, they'll be poor when they grow up (unless they become successful athletes or gangsters, in their dreams), they'll probably be in prison. But the thing is, it can get worse. Now they can run out of food! So that's a good thing. Even wannabe gangsters don't like to be hungry.
  Rich people (or rather, people who are not poor) have motivation already. They have a lot to lose. And many (not all) well off parents will support their kids if they fail, so even then they don't become a burden on society.
  So it's not moral or ethical but it is practical.
110. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-16 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  "By every yardstick R&D is steady or has grown"
  Every yardstick? Ok, let's use the 2014 NASA budget as a yardstick.
  http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/04/11/nasa_budget_increase_for_asteroids_cuts_for_planets_and_education.html
  Or the 2013 NSF budget, oops down too (even after the 'fix', still down from 2012).
  Ok then, perhaps the NIH budget? Nope, down too.
  Oops.
  You have very selective 'every yardsticks'.
  The rest of your post sounds like nothing more than a Fox News echo as well... Who is 'parroting some nonsense', eh?
111. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-16 07:43 · Score: 0
  
  " America is going to be overtaken by countries like China economically and soon after intellectually and academically"
  People who glibly make a statement like this are proof of the declining education standards today. China has quite a few problems of their own to take care of before they take over the world. Of course it is totally taboo to point this out because it might make the US not look as bad as everyone wishes it was. Over the past 10 years they have lost export market share due to the other small countries in South East Asia who can compete on low labor costs. They have artificially adjusted their currency just to bolster export prices. There is no doubt they have made great strides but building a middle class often results in inflationary pressures and the new middle class starts wondering why they are working for slave wages. And China is not known for producing quality products. They are an economic one trick pony built upon low labor costs, environmental mayhem, and a total disregard for anyone's intellectual property rights. The US might import a lot of junk from China but China has become the United States largest food export market and that market is growing. I am pretty sure we can get along with a few less Walmart's but I am pretty sure the Chinese would find it hard to keep the calorie count up to healthy levels.
  China still has a way to go especially when you compare population size. China is one of the oldest countries on the planet so it is about time they did something instead of embarrass their ancestors for another 1000 years. And why should it be a bad sign that China or any other country actually starts contributing something useful to this world besides more mouths to feed.
112. Re:Meanwhile... by flaming+error · 2013-04-16 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  The idea that the increase in temperature is "slight" comes from where? IPCC predictions that every climatologist calls "very conservative?"
  "Poverty, preventable disease, that sort of thing" are all amplified by the changing climate. Climate change is a 3rd world problem before it's a 1st world problem. Otherwise, the 1st world would already be stopping their pumping carbon by the tons from the bowels of the earth into the atmosphere, as the 3rd world is pleading for them to do.
  The man who currently holds Sir Isaac Newton's old job, one Stephen Hawking, appears to be convinced that by the year 3000 Earth will have the climate of Venus. Carl Sagan predicted runaway warming as well. (https://www.sindark.com/2010/02/04/is-runaway-climate-change-possible-hansens-take/)
  If you know better than they, please show your work.
113. Re:Meanwhile... by PopeRatzo · 2013-04-16 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  Just because sovereign nations aren't *exactly like* the dog or car in the example doesn't invalidate the point.
  It kinda does.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
114. Re:Meanwhile... by ChrisMaple · 2013-04-16 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  Science and engineering degrees from new graduates at all time lows.
  Since when do new graduates issue degrees?
  
  And at least one state (Tennessee) has recently tried to pass a law to make our educational system an actual Hunger Games by witholding food assistance from poor families with students who do poorly on state-administered exams.
  "Food assistance" is government thieving from people who have earned the money to pay for that food. Encouraging people for whom school is doing no good, to continue going to school by bribing them with food, is a plan destructive toward everyone.
  To compare that to "Hunger Games", a fictional government program of murder as entertainment, is dishonest and despicable.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
115. Re:Meanwhile... by Areyoukiddingme · 2013-04-16 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  The two anonymous cowards are correct. Approximately 95% correct, to judge by corporate statements. You did say profits, not revenues. Some of the gross revenues are spent employing a tiny handful of my neighbors. Some is spent on the equipment they use. A good sized chunk of it is spent on fuel. But profit? Very nearly all gone. Some of it is spent on executive bonuses and thence on yachts, but most of it just vanishes out of the economy.
  Trickle down economics is certainly an applicable phrase to your response, but the phrase that applies best to the post I responded to is "socialize the risks and privatize the profits". And I have a serious problem with that. If publicly funded research results in a patent that is then exploited profitably, the tax rate on the profit should be 100%. If you want to make money from publicly funded research, it should be illegal to prevent anyone else from making money the same way. But since that progression from public funding to patent to profit can be gamed, better to abolish patents on publicly funded research entirely. If you want to profit from research, fund it privately. If you are too stupid to fund research privately and someone else eats your lunch with a better process, tough shit.
  And no, I do not give a flying fuck about the whining of universities about their funding. They too have all the funding in the world these days, or tuition wouldn't be as absurd as it is.
  I presume your last question is a reference to A123. The short answer is, the workers in Michigan and some Chinese owners benefit from that. The factory in Michigan is still there. If it ever turns a profit, the profit will be shipped off to China. Was that a particularly wise use of tax dollars? As an individual case, no. As a principle, still no, but only because our allegedly capitalist system is completely NOT capitalist, and in the face of its colossal failure to fund progress, somebody (read, government) feels obliged to step in to fill the void to try to keep us all from sinking utterly.
  Apparently American management is incompetent. It's just a damn shame that so many incompetents control so many billions of dollars.
116. Re:Meanwhile... by khallow · 2013-04-16 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  IPCC predictions that every climatologist calls "very conservative?"
  Yes. I don't consider climatologists who call IPCC estimates "very conservative" to be scientists.
  
  "Poverty, preventable disease, that sort of thing" are all amplified by the changing climate.
  They are also amplified by proposed fixes to climate change.
  
  Climate change is a 3rd world problem before it's a 1st world problem.
  Doesn't work that way. China and India aren't changing their behaviors a bit in response to first world concerns over climate change.
  
  The man who currently holds Sir Isaac Newton's old job, one Stephen Hawking, appears to be convinced that by the year 3000 Earth will have the climate of Venus. Carl Sagan predicted runaway warming as well.
  
  Now, I don't know if they actually did or not. Or if you're just making shit up. But it's just not possible. There's not enough oxygen available to produce that much CO2 (it would be roughly 80 times the Earth's current atmosphere by mass). It's all locked up in rock or water. Similarly, there's not enough carbon available, it's locked up in rock as well.
117. Re:Meanwhile... by currently_awake · 2013-04-16 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  Just because that's true(cheaper, better) everywhere it's been tried doesn't mean the USA couldn't make universal health care cost more and not be good.
118. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-16 13:38 · Score: 0
  
  Once again, khallow steps in with the bullshit.
  "Yes. I don't consider climatologists who call IPCC estimates "very conservative" to be scientists."
  Well, their colleagues do. Most other scientists do. But because they disagree with your bumwank they aren't scientists I guess. Science is determined by agreeing with khallow's mastubatory fantasies, not observation and peer review!
  "Why those physicists who say the earth goes around the sun - I don't consider them to be scientists" - the shit-stained writings of a 17th century khallow.
  Stephen Hawking doesn't count, because he disagrees with khallow! I know, it's obvious, that man is no scientist!
  All bow to your new god, the all-knowing khallow, who jerks his wiener until he's ready to loose his opinions upon us.
  TL:DR - You're pathetic moron, khallow.
119. Re:Meanwhile... by khallow · 2013-04-16 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  Well, their colleagues do. Most other scientists do. But because they disagree with your bumwank they aren't scientists I guess. Science is determined by agreeing with khallow's mastubatory fantasies, not observation and peer review!
  So what? Allegedly, the IPCC estimates are supposed to be based on the best available science. In practice, the IPCC is a mouthpiece for AGW-advocacy (as can be witnessed both by who are the gatekeepers for research allowed into the IPCC reports and by the divergence between the actual research covered and "executive summaries" of that research.
  
  So when someone claims that the IPCC is "very conservative", I figure they're merely complaining that the IPCC isn't compromising the few remaining scientific scruples it has. I most certainly don't buy that there's a scientific basis for such an opinion.
  
  As to the rest of your pointless post, I see nothing to rebut.
120. Re:Meanwhile... by Firethorn · 2013-04-16 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  Did you miss the part where I pointed out there's about 68 billion in subsidies every year going to fossil fuel producers, and renewable energy gets about a sixth of that?
  
  Just want to chime in here - as a total, subsidies(1) for fossil fuels does exceed subsidies for green energy. However, if you look at it from a total generation angle, the proportion not only flips, but is even more distorted, with fossil fuels getting a fraction of a percent of the subsidy per BTU/MWh.
  It gets even more complicated when you realize that there are also a lot of extra taxes on fossil fuel producers - they have to lease the right to mine/drill from the government, pay per barrel of oil/ton of coal extracted, for example.
  When it comes to fossil fuels, most of the subsidies are either regions trying to get production to move into their neighborhood(Alaska, for example), or run a cleaner operation(EPA development grants).
  1: One thing that's important to remember is that there is no one subsidy, there's thousands of them, and not all of them offered by the federal government. Heck, there's subsidies offered by the USAF specifically to help secure availability of jet fuel in case of war, EPA subsidies for the development of pollution control methods, etc...
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
121. Re:Meanwhile... by flaming+error · 2013-04-17 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  " I don't know if they actually did or not. Or if you're just making shit up"
  Having deduced that you lack the character to do a google search, I provided a link to get you started.
  That you lack the will to copy and paste that URL into a browser window goes a long way towards explaining how you've managed to insulate your mind from the reality that we are throwing sand in the gears of our own life support systems.
122. Re:Meanwhile... by Thunder6ix · 2013-04-18 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Don't throw out the words "Fox" and "News" like it will discredit the man. An increasing individual dependency on the state and a ballooning federal government aren't just talking points.
The bad news ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 12:01 · Score: 1

The bad news is that $2 billion was in bitcoins which are now worth about $11.79
1. Re:The bad news ... by tompaulco · 2013-04-16 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  The bad news is that $2 billion was in bitcoins which are now worth about $11.79
  Oops, slight mathematical error on your part. 2 billion in bitcoins would be worth about $160 billion USD.
  Or perhaps, you meant $2 billion in bitcoins, which would of course be equal to $2 billion in bitcoins.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Turbine-themed limericks by Guano_Jim · 2013-04-15 12:14 · Score: 2, Funny

Could someone please come up with a dirty limerick about this wind farm? It's got NANTUCKET in it, for the love of pete.
I've been sitting here for ten minutes and I got nothin'.

--
3D Printing Tips and Tricks at Zheng3.com
1. Re:Turbine-themed limericks by girlintraining · 2013-04-15 12:18 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I've been sitting here for ten minutes and I got nothin'.
  A planned for wind farm near Nantucket
  Risked the view of a rich tourist's junket
  So a judge stepped on in
  Said, "give safety a spin"
  "To test the idea, then I'll flunk it." ... Okay, maybe it's not dirty... but better than nothing. :D
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
2. Re:Turbine-themed limericks by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 12:22 · Score: 0
  
  There once was a wind farm in Nantucket.
  I tried to make a limerick,
  but then I said fuck it.
3. Re:Turbine-themed limericks by dugjohnson · 2013-04-15 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  There was a wind farm in Nantucket
  Delivering power by the bucket
  Though the U S of A
  With it's bucks said "no way"
  There were people with yen who could ....back it
  
  --
  My brain is overly lubricated
4. Re:Turbine-themed limericks by GodfatherofSoul · 2013-04-15 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  The Red Sun planned a farm in Nantucket.
  But not corn, it was wind that they shuck-ed.
  The rich folks they cried,
  until Congress denied.
  But when Kennedy died, they said "fuck it."
  
  --
  I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
5. Re:Turbine-themed limericks by blind+monkey+3 · 2013-04-15 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  I've been sitting here for ten minutes and I got nothin'.
  A planned for wind farm near Nantucket
  Risked the view of a rich tourist's junket
  So a judge stepped on in
  Said, "give safety a spin"
  "To test the idea, that'll f%#k it." ...
  % == u
  # == c
  Subtlety doesn't work well at /.
  
  --
  BM3
6. Re:Turbine-themed limericks by Anne_Nonymous · 2013-04-15 12:44 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  There once was a wind farm in Nantucket
  That the US told to suck it
  The Japs prefer a blow
  To Fukushima glow
  So they bought a share for their socket
7. Re:Turbine-themed limericks by wierd_w · 2013-04-15 13:24 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  On a windfarm down in Nantucket,
  Some rich bastards there tried to fuck it.
  But the press badges stopped by,
  And they invoked the public's eye,
  Who then told all the fuckers to shove it.
  In Japan they feel it's a must,
  To rid themelves of nuclear dust,
  So they dropped a fat cheque
  On said windfarm's deck
  To help them win the public's trust.
  Due to the fortunes that they hold dear,
  Of these bastards, it is abundantly clear:
  All projects they will attempt to defraud,
  To keep construction out of Cape Cod
  Using rhetoric both truthful and smear.
8. Re:Turbine-themed limericks by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 13:48 · Score: 0
  
  WTF? Are you 12? Five things:1. You can say "fuck" on the internet. Even on /. 2. Everyone knows what f**k means, you don't need to explain. 3. If you're going to self censor, WHY would you explain what the character substitution is 4. In my expirence, == is for comparison, = is for assigning. 5. Nothing subtle happened here (except maybe the joke you missed in the parent - intentionally NOT using the obvious "fuck" rhyme)
9. Re:Turbine-themed limericks by Anubis+IV · 2013-04-15 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  The limerick was halfway decent because it didn't take the easy and obvious route of using an expletive that was clearly being set up from the start. It plays with the reader's expectations. Not only that, but it makes much more sense with "flunk" than what you've proposed, since the original refers to rejection, whereas yours refers to destroying it, which makes no sense in the context of this case.
10. Re:Turbine-themed limericks by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 16:25 · Score: 0
  
  Holy shit, that was awesome!
11. Re:Turbine-themed limericks by femtobyte · 2013-04-15 16:33 · Score: 2
  
  Shell shills' oil spills by the sea shore
  darken not Nantucket's back door;
  “green pow'r” of Jap bankers' billions
  melts the hearts of Hell's dark minions:
  Windfarms no longer pose an eyesore.
  Burma Shave.
12. Re:Turbine-themed limericks by cervesaebraciator · 2013-04-15 17:31 · Score: 2
  
  They once had turbines for Nantucket
  that aroused the rich (where they stuck it)
  for the juice didn't flow
  when the wind didn't blow
  so instead they contented to suck it.
13. Re:Turbine-themed limericks by blind+monkey+3 · 2013-04-15 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  Subtlety truly does not work well at /.
  
  --
  BM3
14. Re:Turbine-themed limericks by Anubis+IV · 2013-04-16 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  Are you suggesting you were trying to be sarcastic? If so, then I'll definitely agree that sarcasm doesn't work well on the Internet in general, but there was nothing subtle about your post at all. You tried to make a joke at the expense of the people here, and had it flop since it was crudely done and not as funny as the one that preceded it. Trying to suggest that we just didn't get it is the lazy way out for people who shouldn't tell jokes.
15. Re:Turbine-themed limericks by blind+monkey+3 · 2013-04-16 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  It was an attempt at sarcasm, hence the legend.
  Yes, there was nothing subtle about the post. It wasn't meant to be.
  The topic was about infrastructure investment, hopefully the rights and wrongs of subsidies (there are some eloquent advocates with disparate views on /.) and a possible argument on "green" (note the quotes)/ "dirty"(note the quotes) / "nukular" (note the quotes) . What happens?
  Fukit, the town's name is Nantucket.....jeeez......I couldn't bite my "tongue".
  
  Apologies, next time I'll spell it out.
  
  --
  BM3
japanese banks by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 12:23 · Score: 0

getting money from a japanese bank is like getting sex on craiglist
damn awful.
and yes, I speak from experience(s). :|
red tape ? by cinnamon+colbert · 2013-04-15 12:23 · Score: 1, Insightful

I suppose if you owned a house or motel or resturant with a nice view of the ocean, you would consider regulatory reivew so much red tape ?
A lot of fishermen and boaters use that area - alot; i don't think it is unreasonable to have a public hearing or two on safety
You may not know this, but I, a homeowner in the boston area (newton to be exact) will pay higher electric rates cause of shady deals blessed by state politicians; why should i be forced to pay for this ??
why wasnt' there more red tape so i could object
one mans red tape is another womans reasoanble review
1. Re:red tape ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 12:31 · Score: 0
  
  You may not know this, but I, a homeowner in the boston area (newton to be exact) will pay higher electric rates cause of shady deals blessed by state politicians; why should i be forced to pay for this ??
  Hell yeah! And l don't get me started with all those roads they built using MY tax money, even though I ride only a horse, like real men do!
2. Re:red tape ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 12:40 · Score: 0
  
  It probably will get killed because of red tape. I expect the sticking point will be how to handle it if something breaks and spills wind everywhere.
3. Re:red tape ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 12:44 · Score: 0
  
  No one objects to "a public hearing or two on safety." That is not what has happened here. The project has been fought tooth and nail since 2001 by opponents on every ground imaginable. Look at a wind map. This site has among the best wind resources in the United States and it is located near an area that consumes lots of electricity.
4. Re:red tape ? by Hadlock · 2013-04-15 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  The good news is that there's no red tape in Texas, and despite Massachusetts marketing campaign, Texas will likely be first in the water.... with a much larger installation. Texas' office of natural resources has an open door policy and are a lot further long...without the need for federal funding.
  
  --
  moox. for a new generation.
5. Re:red tape ? by bussdriver · 2013-04-15 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  They have a smaller shoreline than Texas so the wealthy owners are worried, in Texas they probably have plenty of places to choose from. In addition, shipping lanes and commerce ports are also closer together because of the smaller area. Any changes will be met with FEAR, if you've ever known a small to mid sized business owner they fear everything that could impact them.
  There is a documentary on the fishing limits; hinted at how their senator worked.... he knew it was stupid but didn't want to go into a fight with them when they'd just shoot themselves in the feet resulting in them learning the hard way and him representing their foolishness. I figure wind worked something like this as well... along with the wealthy land owners, whole towns of TOURISM worried citizens... It is not just wealthy sailors, it's all the people who RENT sail boats, the resorts with views, the towns with beaches... They all FEAR any changes - even if the things would be out of view from shore.
  This isn't just rich people; they have a grassroots effort as well as some astroturf - the inland and courageous citizens will just have to overpower them.
  FYI:
  Texas is a big welfare state that wouldn't best Mexico if it wasn't supported by the productive states. The lack of regulations doesn't make the state a net earner... Now if they owned that oil instead of let a small group claim it... and dodge taxes maybe texas would contribute some $ for a change. Meanwhile most of New England pays far more to the feds than they get in return, so they should feel entitled to FREE wind farms because they've more than payed for it. Also, Texas schools suck and well, a whole lot more. Disclaimer, I've never been in either region.
  
  --
  Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
6. Re:red tape ? by Pseudonym+Authority · 2013-04-16 00:32 · Score: 2
  
  Texas is a big welfare state that wouldn't best Mexico if it wasn't supported by the productive states.
  But that's wrong! Do you even research things before you decide to post them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state -- Net contribution per capita: $2,243
  
  Please work harder and try to be less wrong.
7. Re:red tape ? by dywolf · 2013-04-16 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  Texas is a big welfare state that wouldn't best Mexico if it wasn't supported by the productive states. The lack of regulations doesn't make the state a net earner... Now if they owned that oil instead of let a small group claim it... and dodge taxes maybe texas would contribute some $ for a change. Meanwhile most of New England pays far more to the feds than they get in return, so they should feel entitled to FREE wind farms because they've more than payed for it. Also, Texas schools suck and well, a whole lot more. Disclaimer, I've never been in either region.
  Ignorant moron. Not even close to true. Texas is one of the bigger contributors to the federal coffers (9th in nation). Contribution per capita: ~9500$. Funding recieved in turn per capita: ~7200$. That's a net plus to the fed of ~2300$ per person living in the state of texas. $2300 per person, leaving the state. Texas is a net contributor, not a taker. Not a welfare state. For every dollar contributed to the fed, they recieved back only 0.75; phrased another way, they contribute 1.32 for every dollar they recieved back.
  Also, you're claim that most of New England is a net contributor? Wrong also. New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Maryland, and Maine, are all net takers from the Fed. That's 5 out of 11 states, or nearly half.
  (was going to post the list, but /. filters are throwing a fit because of the formatting)
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
8. Re:red tape ? by dywolf · 2013-04-16 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Hell, Texas even contributes nearly twice as much as California does, whiles running a very similar set of social programs
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
9. Re:red tape ? by dywolf · 2013-04-16 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  What they're really worried about is their precious "views" from all that pricey beachfront property.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
10. Re:red tape ? by cellocgw · 2013-04-16 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Also, you're claim that most of New England is a net contributor? Wrong also. New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Maryland, and Maine, are all net takers from the Fed. That's 5 out of 11 states, or nearly half.
  You have a very interesting take on what constitutes "New England."
  
  --
  https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Meanwhile Japan still hasn't got electricity by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 12:28 · Score: 0

Seems like they don't have enough faith in their own country's power generation to invest in that.
Would Someone Think of The Kennedys! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 12:40 · Score: 0

Their poor, pristine sound will be ruined to yachting.
Effective versus fair? by Okian+Warrior · 2013-04-15 12:50 · Score: 3, Informative

... why the fuck should we be paying both of you to sit on your ass all day for yet ANOTHER generation?
Because that's an emotional argument, not a rational one?
Rather than do whatever "feels" right, we should put our emotions on hold and make decisions based on evidence and effectiveness.
So my question to you is - will the new rule be more effective in educating children than the current system?
Note that poor, uneducated children are more likely to grow up to be criminals. By choosing the "justice feels right" option, you may be inadvertently sending your children into a less safe future. Education is the best way we know to bring people out of poverty.
It is well known that proper diet has a beneficial effect on schooling, so *my* gut feeling is that the new law will do more harm than good. But I can put that aside and look at the evidence.
Do you have any evidence that the new law won't make matters worse?
1. Re:Effective versus fair? by Osgeld · 2013-04-15 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  "So my question to you is - will the new rule be more effective in educating children than the current system?"
  no clue, its not even on the books as of yet, what I think is that yes there are some totally helpless people, and they are just leeches. Then there are people who are overwhelmed.
  This kind of sorts the people out, if you and your child really dont care, get a job, else here is a series of steps you and your student can do to improve their education, show effort and we should help you.
2. Re:Effective versus fair? by j-beda · 2013-04-15 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  That sounds a bit like an emotional argument again. Will we as a society be better off if we fund education via method "a" or method "b"? Regardless which one funds "leeches" and which one funds the "overwhelmed". I suspect that there is some value to not-incentivizing leech-like behaviour, but it is also probably true that there is a point of diminishing returns where the costs in implementing systems to avoid any leeching can become dramatically greater than the costs of the leeching in the first place.
3. Re:Effective versus fair? by Osgeld · 2013-04-15 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  well its a good thing I did not argue it for the state senate, I am sure they have professionals to argue
4. Re:Effective versus fair? by j-beda · 2013-04-16 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, it is great that we can always count on our elected politicians to do what is demonstrably best for society rather than play to the emotional responses of the population in an attempt to retain power. It's nice to have real leaders who try to do what is right or refrain from doing anything if there is no clear option to improve the situation. :-)
Bank of Tokyo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 13:09 · Score: 0

They might want to abbreviate the name differently. The Bank of Tokyo ceased to exist as independent entity in 1996, whereas Mitsubishi UFJ is--ranked by assets--the fifth largest publicly traded company in the world.
1.21 JIGGAWATTS!! by sm177y2300 · 2013-04-15 13:34 · Score: 0

It's over 9000!!!!
It's not altruistic. by fullback · 2013-04-15 13:34 · Score: 2

The bank name is Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ...
Ironically, Mitsubishi will probably be building and selling wind turbines as part of this deal.
There's nothing wrong with, though.
1. Re:It's not altruistic. by JanneM · 2013-04-15 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  Mitsubishi isn't a major shareholder in the bank from what it seems. It's a merger of several banks, one of which (Tokyo-Mitsubishi) was owned in part by the Mitsubishi group.
  
  --
  Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
2. Re:It's not altruistic. by OhANameWhatName · 2013-04-15 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  OMG, it's not altruistic? And here I was thinking that Japanese investors threw money around for the good of the planet.
  
  Phew! Thanks a bunch for clearing that up. I'm going to rip up my loan application immediately.
3. Re:It's not altruistic. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 22:43 · Score: 0
  
  The bank name is Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ...
  Ironically, Mitsubishi will probably be building and selling wind turbines as part of this deal.
  There's nothing wrong with, though.
  Do anyone have a source or link to any article saying what company is chosen to supply the turbines?
  Because TFA doesn't say and I would think GE, Siemens or Vestas would have an equal chance of scoring the deal to that of Mitsubishi's chances.
Martha's Vinyard and Nantucket Island - windfarms by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 13:38 · Score: 1

The costs of energy producition matter a lot, and addressing them is hard.
The ending of the subsidies will address that.
Hmmmmm, it costs XXX to get coal or oil out of the ground and it produces Y energy. Or Wind costs AAA to develop and produces B energy.

How am I to prosecute the polluting power plant that is upwind of me?
What ever that means.
And that Boston homeowner above - he doesn't want to have to deal with the energy HE uses. He wants OTHERS to live with the consequences of HIS energy production.
Right now, some poor slobs are living next to the oil, NG or coal fired power plant the produces the energy that he uses.
HE wants the Bay clear and HIS landscape clear of that nasty energy production. Just having energy production somewhere else subsidizes his lifestyle because by not having some nasty power plant near HIS house, HE doesn't have to deal with the reduction in property values because of that fume spewing plant.
You know, Martha's Vinyard and Nantucket Island are VERY windy. The wind farm should be placed on those islands. After all, those islands were originally INDUSTRIAL areas anyway - whale processing. It would be fitting karma for that area.
468 megawatts for bitcoin mining!! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 13:50 · Score: 0

bwa ha ha ha
nasas budget under obama... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 13:52 · Score: 0

actually not shrunk
Re: girlintraining ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 13:52 · Score: 0

You know "she" has a penis, right?
Irony by stoploss · 2013-04-15 14:18 · Score: 1

Ironically, Mitsubishi will probably be building and selling wind turbines as part of this deal.
...for certain, non-ironic values of "ironically".
Unless you count Ally Bank (nee GMAC) financing the sales of GM vehicles as irony. Or Toyota Finance offering loans to Toyota vehicle buyers.
There are countless examples. Hell, even the Marshall Plan was similar in concept—and that might be considered ironic (considering that US aid was given to reconstruct Japan after WWII).
Re:Martha's Vinyard and Nantucket Island - windfar by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 15:02 · Score: 0

The ending of the subsidies will address that.
No, it won't, because it's not the price, but the cost that matters.
There are costs to every coal mine, to every oil well, every dam, and yes, every windfarm and nuclear plant.
Price is another matter, and I'm sure that the companies involved will make us pay for every drill bit and turbine, but the costs of what they do? Well, we will pay, but not in a free market kind of way.

What ever that means.

That burning coal has a cost?
How am I supposed to get recompense for that?
Opposed by wealthy Dems as much as Repubs by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 16:23 · Score: 1

Just goes to show you can't trust any politician. Cape Wind was held up not just due to red tape, but the fact that it was opposed by John kerry, Ted Kennedy, Mitt Romeny... all wealthy politicians who didn't want their Nantucket Sound sailing disturbed even if it meant developing one of teh best offshore wind sites in the US.
Compared to your freemarket system, it is. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 21:36 · Score: 0

The issue is that medical companies are profit-driven and saving lives is expensive as well as doctor salaries.
But universal healthcare means healthier people lower costs and more social mobility.
Re:Mitsubishi wind turbine by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-15 22:16 · Score: 0

For your sake I hope not - or you might be in for an even longer wait..
Mitsubishi (long may their noble organisation prosper) don't have an offshore windturbine, and their 'in development' machine uses a mechanical transmission system that includes an untested, in-development " Digital Displacement® Transmission hydraulic system" (it's a development of the radial piston pump type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radial_piston_pump basically) ...
Why would you add the complexity of a hydraulic drive to a machine that is supposed to generate electricity?? It's a nuts design.
In other news GE has a very sensible 4.1 MW offshore wind model.. (or if you don't like that I can point you in the direction of some European companies with manufacturing facilities in the US.. with proven offshore turbines).
I have replaced roman_mir with a Markov chain by Pseudonym+Authority · 2013-04-16 00:07 · Score: 1, Troll

Price is all that matters. Everything can be measured in money. If it makes money it is good. Nothing matters except money. Money. Greed is good. Nothing matters except money. Money. Greed is good. Money means goodness. Low prices mean money mean goodness. Government is evil. Government is evil. Government is bad. High prices are bad. Monopolies are good. Money means goodness. Low prices mean money mean goodness. Government is bad. Government is evil. Government is evil. Government is bad. Government is evil. Government is bad. High prices are bad. Monopolies are good. Money means goodness. Low prices mean money mean goodness. Government is evil. Government is evil. Government is bad for lower prices. Nothing is more important than money. Nothing is important except money. Money. Greed is good. Nothing matters except money. Money. Greed is good. Nothing matters except money. Money. Greed is good. Low price is good. More money means lower price means it is good. Nothing matters except money. Money. Greed is good. Low price is good. More money means lower price means it is good. Money means goodness. Low prices mean money mean goodness. Government is bad. Government is bad. Government is bad. Government is evil. Government is bad. High prices are bad. Monopolies are good. Money means goodness. Low prices mean money mean goodness. Government is evil. Government is bad. Government is evil. Government is bad. High prices are bad. Monopolies are good. Money means goodness. Low prices mean money mean goodness. Government is bad for money and bad for money and bad for lower prices. Nothing is more important than money. Nothing is important except money. Money is mother. Money loves her children. Lower prices is good. Money means goodness. Low prices mean money mean goodness. Government is bad for money and bad for lower prices. Nothing is important except money. Money. Greed is good. More money means lower price means it is good. More money means lower price means it is good. Nothing matters except money. Money. Greed is good. Nothing matters except money. Money. Greed is good. Money means goodness. Low prices mean money mean goodness. Government is evil. Government is evil. Government is bad. High prices are bad. Monopolies are good. Money means goodness. Low prices mean money mean goodness. Government is evil. Government is evil. Government is bad. High prices are bad. Monopolies are good. Money means goodness. Low prices mean money mean goodness. Government is bad. High prices are bad. Monopolies are good. Money means goodness. Low prices mean money mean goodness. Government is evil. Government is evil. Government is evil. Government is evil. Government is bad. Government is evil. Government is bad. High prices are bad. Monopolies are good. Money means goodness. Low prices mean money mean goodness. Government is bad. Government is evil. Government is bad. Government is evil. Government is bad. Government is bad. Government is evil. Government is bad. Government is bad. Government is evil. Government is evil. Government is bad. High prices are bad. Monopolies are good. Money is good. More money means lower price means it is good. Low price is good. Government is evil. Government is evil. Government is evil. Government is bad. Government is bad. Government is bad. High prices are bad. Monopolies are good. Money means goodness. Low prices mean money mean goodness. Government is evil. Government is evil. Government is evil. Government is evil. Government is bad. Government is evil. Government is bad. Government is evil. Government is evil. Government is evil. Government is bad. Government is evil. Government is evil. Government is evil. Government is evil. Government is bad. High prices are bad. Monopolies are good. Money means goodness. Low prices mean money mean goodness. Government is evil. Government is evil. Government is evil. Government is bad. High prices are bad. Monopolies are good. Money is mother. Money loves her children. Lower prices is good. Money means goodness. Low prices mean money mean goodness. Government is e
Re:Meanwhile...you go where the money is by rocket+rancher · 2013-04-16 00:58 · Score: 1

Meanwhile, in the United States... research and development cut. NASA budget shrunk. Science and engineering degrees from new graduates at all time lows. And at least one state (Tennessee) has recently tried to pass a law to make our educational system an actual Hunger Games by witholding food assistance from poor families with students who do poorly on state-administered exams.
Thank you, Japan, for investing in us... because we sure as hell aren't.
Given that wealth in the US flows upwards, not downwards or even laterally, smart kids become lawyers, doctors, and hedge fund managers, not engineers or scientists, because smart kids know you have to go where the money is if you want to be wealthy. Certainly, wealthy people want innovative new products, but their demand for new technology and new knowledge about the universe is not nearly as constant (nor as profitable) as their demand for competent legal, medical, and financial services.
You are being sarcastic in your gratitude towards Japan, but I wonder if you realize just how much Japan actually has been investing in the US? By conceding a US military victory in WW II, Japan was able to survive as a nation, and focus it's still considerable national power on a different goal -- becoming a dominant force in the east-Asian co-prosperity sphere. Now, nearly seventy years down the road, Japan has achieved that goal, largely by investing in US assets. Japan actually owns nearly half of the $11T US foreign debt, just slightly behind China, their closest economic rival in the sphere, who owns almost exactly half of it. Japan has pretty much achieved its goal by investing in US assets on a large scale for a long, long time. $2B for a wind farm is not even pocket change in that context.
Re:Siemens by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-16 03:31 · Score: 0

They've signed for Siemens 3.6MW machines http://www.capewind.org/news1086.htm
according to (advert!) 4coffshore (useful site) http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/cape-wind-united-states-us03.html the model is the Siemens SWT-3.6-107
Sadly, not for good. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-04-16 05:06 · Score: 1

From TFA:

after fighting its way through the thicket of regulatory hurdles and lawsuits that Energy Management Inc. was able to obtain approval from Massachusettslast year, with the Tokyo-Mitsubishi signing shortly thereafter. In all, it took 12 years and at least $65M to finally gain that approval
I see no reason to alter my parsimonious theory it's all about throwing money at people until they go away.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:Meanwhile...you go where the money is by tompaulco · 2013-04-16 07:20 · Score: 1

Of course, they are investing in U.S. assets with money they have borrowed from their own people, other countries, even the U.S.
Japan's debt ratio is the largest in the world, exceeding the United State's debt ration as well. Their debt to GDP ratio is over 2.30:1. Their debt lags behind the U.S. debt by only a few percent, while their GDP is 1/3 that of the United States.
Basically, they are leveraged to the hilt, and in serious danger of having it all come crashing down.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
This is delightful by ChrisMaple · 2013-04-16 11:54 · Score: 1

It's like pissing on Teddy Kennedy's grave. The only disadvantage is that it benefits Massachusetts, which deserves nothing good.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Point of the subsidies by Firethorn · 2013-04-16 16:57 · Score: 1

What is the point of subsidy?
To distort the market. One thing to realize is that there isn't any single subsidy for fossil fuels. There are quite literally hundreds.
My grandparents up in NY receive assistance buying heating oil. I'm not sure if it counts in the common calcs as a subsidy for oil or not, but it's there.
The state of Alaska offers rebates and subsidies for oil exploration, with the intent that they'll gain more revenue back from the resulting oil sales
Right now my town/county is spending something like $100M to arrange to bring in natural gas, with the intent to displace current oil burning heat & electric generation systems. The math is once the system is in place the cost per BTU will be half that of oil, and less pollution as well.
Coal power receives subsidies to install pollution control equipment, from what I remember, something like 70% of subsidies for coal power are tied to 'clean coal' initiatives.

--
I don't read AC A human right