Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Offshore Wind Farm Receives $2 Billion From Japanese Banks
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."
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
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.
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.
except these rich people are tree huggers themselves who force their views on others
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."
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."
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."
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
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
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...
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
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.
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.