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."

17 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: 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.

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

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

    4. 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."
    5. 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."
    6. 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."

    7. 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
    8. 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.

    9. 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...

    10. 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
    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.
  2. 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
  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. 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.