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."

9 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 alen · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    3. 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."
    4. 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."

    5. 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...

    6. 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
  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. 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.