Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Unknown on 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."

39 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. Meanwhile... by girlintraining · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 Bartles · · 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.

    4. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    5. Re:Meanwhile... by bjdevil66 · · 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.

    6. Re:Meanwhile... by alen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      except these rich people are tree huggers themselves who force their views on others

    7. Re:Meanwhile... by jcr · · 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."
    8. Re:Meanwhile... by jcr · · 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."
    9. Re:Meanwhile... by girlintraining · · 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
    10. Re:Meanwhile... by flaming+error · · 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."

    11. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    12. Re:Meanwhile... by girlintraining · · 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
    13. Re:Meanwhile... by larry+bagina · · 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.

    14. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · · 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.

    15. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · · 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.

    16. Re:Meanwhile... by Solandri · · 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.

    17. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · · Score: 2

      Right, because universal health care always ends up being cheap and good.

    18. Re:Meanwhile... by Areyoukiddingme · · 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...

    19. Re:Meanwhile... by girlintraining · · 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
    20. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · · 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.

    21. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · · 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.

    22. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · · 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?

    23. Re:Meanwhile... by girlintraining · · 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
    24. Re:Meanwhile... by girlintraining · · 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
    25. Re:Meanwhile... by dave420 · · 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.

    26. Re:Meanwhile... by roman_mir · · 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.
    27. Re:Meanwhile... by jopsen · · 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...

    28. Re:Meanwhile... by Bartles · · 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.

    29. Re:Meanwhile... by garbut · · 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?
  2. Turbine-themed limericks by Guano_Jim · · 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 · · 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 Anne_Nonymous · · 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

    3. Re:Turbine-themed limericks by wierd_w · · 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.

    4. Re:Turbine-themed limericks by femtobyte · · 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.

    5. Re:Turbine-themed limericks by cervesaebraciator · · 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.

  3. Effective versus fair? by Okian+Warrior · · 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?

  4. It's not altruistic. by fullback · · 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.

  5. Re:red tape ? by Pseudonym+Authority · · 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.