Slashdot Mirror
Fukushima Floating Offshore Wind Turbine Starts Generating Power
mdsolar writes in with news about a new wind-energy project off the coast of Fukushima. "A project to harness the power of the wind about 20 kilometers (12 miles) off the coast of Fukushima, site of the March 2011 nuclear disaster, began generating power on an operational basis today. The project, funded by the government and led by Marubeni Corp. (8002), is a symbol of Japan's ambition to commercialize the unproven technology of floating offshore wind power and its plan to turn quake-ravaged Fukushima into a clean energy hub. 'Fukushima is making a stride toward the future step by step,' Yuhei Sato, governor of Fukushima, said today at a ceremony in Fukushima marking the project's initiation. 'Floating offshore wind is a symbol of such a future.'"
Sounds like there's an extra step involved.
A project to harness the power of the wind about 20 kilometers (12 miles) off the coast of Fukushima, site of the March 2011 nuclear disaster
Wouldn't the big-ass-tsunami they had be even more notable.. for an offshore... anything?
Offshore wind is hardly unproven. Wind turbines in general are well established and becoming a mature technology. The off shore part is also fairly well developed around the world and really just needs more cost reduction. There is no chance of it not working or anything like that, and it already economically viable.
Japan has vast offshore wind resources, with constant power available all year round.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So... Japan set up a giant radioactive fan offshore and the Philippines gets hit by an incredibly powerful hurricane...
That was relatively fast. In other countries, they'd still be debating whether such a construction should even be undertaken...
The Bloomberg article doesn't really go into the practical aspects of this, like expected average power output, mean time before turbine maintenance in a highly corrosive environment, or safety during adverse weather. Anyone got more info?
This is completely unrelated and random and not a shot at anything but um...how much power does it generate from radioactive wind? Is it more or less?
Wind power: producing as much power as six nuclear reactors from just one turbine!
Support my political activism on Patreon.
You're wrong. Fukushima is still leaking fissile material into the sea: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/world/asia/with-a-plants-tainted-water-still-flowing-no-end-to-environmental-fears.html?_r=0
How about an article with a picture of the thing. You know how us Americans don't like stories without pictures. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=japans-offshore-wind-power-rises-within-sight-of-fukushima-nuclear-plant
And nothing has happened. The amount of radiation released from the leak, while the leak should be repaired ASAP, is minute and is still LOWER than the background radiation. http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N13/yost.html If you have taken College Chemistry, you'll know why even the radiation released from the leak is nothing compared to both the background radiation in the ocean due to dilution and not even a drop in the bucket compared to the radiation released from nuclear testing we conducted in the Pacific Ocean.
...I know, I know...tsunamis and typhoons don't cause much damage 12 miles from shore. But still, doesn't this seem like a somewhat poor location for a floating wind turbine? It's not anchored to the seafloor, which means that typhoons and storms could push it close to shore, and we've seen the kind of debris that can be produced by a tsunami.
Japan may not have a lot of power options, but it seems like this might not be the best choice...
Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
I'm sure the first thing they did was throw the manual over their shoulder...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
True and do the math as well.
New Wind farm 2 mega watts with 7 more coming soon. And someday it maybe on gigawatt.... Someday.
The Fukushima Nuclear Plant when working. 4,696 MWs Installed and over 7000 MW planned...
So the windfarm is making less than 1/500th the power of the nuclear plant.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Fukushima is still leaking fissile material into the sea
I'm pretty sure they're not leaking "fissile" material - the article you quoted says "radioactive", not "fissile". I understand you're trying to look all educated and stuff, but least learn what the words mean before using them...
Environmental Fears != Environmental Facts.
From the article, emphasis mine.
Even the most alarmed of the scientists who were interviewed did not extend their worries about the new releases to human health. With more than 80,000 residents near the plant evacuated almost immediately after the disaster, and fishing in nearby waters still severely restricted, they say there is little or no direct danger to humans from the latest releases. But, they say, that does not rule out other impacts on the environment.
Only if that pot of water is just sitting under the sun in a field somewhere... we've survived for quite some time in that background radiation that is higher than the leak.
I believe we should be reducing our carbon output, but wind turbines are a sick joke. Here in the UK we're paying over double the price per unit of electricity than they're paying in nuclear heavy France, and that's entirely thanks to the green levies on energy. If the government were using this money to build nuclear power plants I would find it acceptable, but they're pissing it down the drain building wind farms.
Why are we bankrupting ourselves by spending vast amounts of money on inefficient methods of power generation? Why are we risking blackouts by relying on an entirely inconsistent approach that puts us at the mercy of nature? Why are we rejecting scientific advancement and falling back to ineffective technology from the middle ages?
The whole thing angers me so much that I'm tempted to start burning things purely out of spite.
True and do the math as well. New Wind farm 2 mega watts with 7 more coming soon. And someday it maybe on gigawatt.... Someday. The Fukushima Nuclear Plant when working. 4,696 MWs Installed and over 7000 MW planned... So the windfarm is making less than 1/500th the power of the nuclear plant.
Don't forget that the reactors were able to provide that power reliably and predictably, something which wind power could never dream of doing.
As a friend of mine once said "Environmentalists might bat early, but physics bats last".
Bloomberg calls wind power "unproven technology". What are you, fox noise?
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
It's a giant fan blowing all the radiation to the West Coast.
No, the repairs will take a considerable amount of time. If you knew anything about radiation effects on humans you would know of the Linear no-threshold model - it predicts that exposing a huge portion of world population to small amounts of radiation is guarateed to have some health effects. It's estimated 300 tons of toxic water enter the ocean each day from Fukusima. Only an idiot would say that you can dump that into the environment without any consequences.
Oh, that's nice. Add another *five hundred* turbines and you'll come close to matching what was lost when the nuke plant shut down. On a windy day.
The public tends to vastly underestimate the energy output of wind turbines. I'm not arguing that wind is pointless -- far from it! But two wind turbines is just an empty symbolic gesture. Two thousand wind turbines ... now you're talking.
You know, I do believe the US developed these "Floating Offshore Platforms" that generate power some time ago, we just decided to put nuclear reactors and F-16's on ours.
Why an international army hasn't landed at Fuckedupshima to take over the plant from the obviously incompetent corporation is beyond me.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
The radiation is a few hundret times higher than background radiation, or why exactly is there 20km forbidden zone and a 40km evac zone? ... food grown in that area is not safe for children and young adults, people try to avoid it.
In a 200km zone young couples get urged by authorities not to get children
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Maine put in a floating wind turbine this summer. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/us-floating-wind-turbine-maine_n_3380208.html but Maine's governor recently wrecked an expansion of offshore wind there as well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/maine-offshore-wind-project_n_4101271.html
http://www.the-converter.co/
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Either I am not seeing it or it's not mentioned, couldn't a "floating" wind farm also generate hydropower from the water passing by too?
And also miss the entire name of the place and the news about it: The nuclear power plant has gone unexpectedly offline.
Unless you're trying to claim that they PLANNED for the power station to go critical, your statement:
"Don't forget that the reactors were able to provide that power reliably and predictably"
Is completely asinine.
According to TFA, the initial turbine has a 2 MW capacity. Offshore wind has about a 0.3-0.4 capacity factor. Nuclear has a 0.9 capacity factor. So to replace the 4696 MW the Fukushima nuclear plant could generate, you'd need (4696*0.9) / (2*0.35) = 6038 of these 2 MW turbines. Even if you go with the larger 7 MW turbines they're planning as a follow-up, you'd need 1725 of those.
Considering they've set aside $222 million to build and operate these three turbines for 5 years, a full replacement for the nuclear plant's generating capacity would cost $167.5 billion. Realistically I expect that price would come down if they did roll it out on that scale. But even land-based wind turbines are about $1.8 million per MW of capacity. So the 12000 MW of turbines you'd need to replace the Fukushima nuclear plant would have a baseline cost of $22 billion before you added the floating platforms and adapted them to survive in a saltwater environment and lay down power cables to bring the electricity back to shore.
I wish we would hurry up and crack cheap hot-fusion powerplants. Cheap, safe, abundant, and limitless electricity would be a key enabling technology to carry us forward and away from fossil fuels. So many Big Problems could be solved with copious amounts of environment-friendly electricity. It would be the saviour of the human race ( the question is, do we deserve to be saved?)
What was the output of the first demonstration nuclear power plant? Probably not that much.
Remember, this project is to evaluate the prospects first, generate power second. I am sure there are going to be many problems until they get the kinks work out. Only after offshore floating power plants have proven to work (which is a big maybe) will they crank up the assembly line and start churning these puppies out.
That could be done, sure. You would need to allow free rotation of the base of both the air and water blades relative to some shared flotation base. This way, the vaned blades could turn into currents without interrupting each other.
It would be best if it were fixed to a tower, to offer the most resistance to currents. Otherwise the wind and water currents might fight against keeping a tether taut.
Even better than vaned blades, you could use a vertical-axis helical turbine for the wind, and you could use the Cetus blade [Cetus Energy: http://cetusenergy.com.au/Technology/TheCetusTechnology/tabid/96/Default.aspx ] in the water which would probably generate power no matter which way the current was passing.
The platform's bouyancy would just need to counter the force of the combined masses and gravity.
I suppose a design like that could be tethered and would often be found in some optimal location, systematic to the two different currents. But, this design would also probably be very expensive to license, as most of the more efficient vertical axis turbines are patented (and the Cetus blade certainly is.)
So it might be cheaper and might deliver substantially more power output if it were a stationary tower.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
I don't think there is serious debate that nuclear is a very important source of power, one that can not be discounted. But it would be wise for any strategy to make use of renewables whenever humanly possible. Perhaps Japan is now sufficiently motivated to show other countries how it can be done.
The generated energy from wind power increases with wind turbine blade size. The turbine blades are as large as the wings of a 747 already.
thousands of tons of contaminated nuke water leaked, that got to help A LOT.
Not quite sure where you are going with this. It is not the physicals that I am concerned about, it’s the engineering.
I have some knowledge of the installation of wind turbines in the Midwest. There were a lot of issues. The engineers factored in the top wind speed but did not factor in that it was gusty. Lots of burnt out generators, stripped gears, and cracked blades. It took a few years to work out the kinks.
I know little about this particular install but I am willing to bet that getting the electricity off of the floating platform to mainland is going to be tricky. Salt water has its own batch of issues. I am not saying it can’t be economically done. Just that small scale testing will give the experience to figure out if it should scale.
Leaking less than background radiation - u wot m8? So Fukushima is actually an isotope cleanser?
Man, you need to get these guys to hire you for PR.
Yes, and the water has been raised 0.000001 degrees.
Why? Simple: Fear.
Yes, we know about the famous LNT model. And we know that it's bullshit, and that only idiots still use it. So, your point is?...
This is because radiation is invisible, GE/Hitachi/Toshiba and news agency's are all trying to protect us against knowing the truth.
This is just another "look at Fukushima its doing so good, and ignore the fact that we have three meltdowns, three coriums that we don't know nor will probably ever know the whereabouts, contaminating the groundwater, and poisoning our oceans"
Just great isn't it... Masao Yoshida dies, throat cancer, Nothing to do with Fukushima, kids with cysts in their thyroids (way above the normal rate I might add) nothing to do with Fukushima, places in Fukushima still inhabited considered dead zones in Chernobyl.
Call it whatever you want, but it saddens me every time people say this disaster is over or not a issue....
Sooner or later, time will tell, and we will be kicking ourselves for not doing something about it rather than burying our heads in the sand and letting big media and the "players" do what they do best, protect big business profits over anything else. Sad world we live in isn't it.
At least the plant is in a "Cold Shutdown" according to Tepco, I can sleep at night.
And what was the output of the first wind turbine? Wind turbines are not new at all.
The largest wind turbine is the http://www.vestas.com/en/media/news/news-display.aspx?action=3&NewsID=3163 at 8MWs. So you would need 587 of these to match the nuclear power plant. Scaling them up much bigger is really not going to be practical as the blades are already 80 meters long. The idea of churning these puppies out is extremely optimistic Let's say they can make and install one of these monsters a month. To match the nuclear plants output would only take 48 years. Even if it takes 10 years for a reactor you could have 5 plants in operation in that time. Now think about world wide production. Factories that can make something like this will be limited in number. Just shipping the blades will be a huge task. Then the infrastructure of floating wind farms and the under sea power cables and maintaing the wind turbines in a marine environment. This is not as easy you may think and it is not because it is "new" but because of well known problems that intrinsic to the system.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
So, you had no reason of fear to live there? Go ahead, prices for houses are on an all time low.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
This sounds like a Vesta WindFloat 2MW turbine. Is this really a Mitsubishi product?
Fukushima has an advantage as a site: Since it's depopulated due to the radiation hazard, there's nobody to complain about how "those ugly windmills are ruining my view".
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I think you are a liar. How much does a house in the 40km zone cost? Can it actually be bought? Yes, maybe it "would" be cheaper, if they were selling, but I looked and can't find Fukushima properties for sale anywhere.
The first demonstration nuclear power plants were negative power, as are a number of current smaller nuclear power plants (used for medical and research purposes).
18 children have thyroid cancer and there are 25 more suspected cases. NHK is the Japanese national broadcaster, like the British BBC, BTW.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
One word: bias
And LOTS and LOTS of it, while claiming to speak for science.
Humbug and sharlatans. Two more words. Got more where that came from too.
Pro-tip: Bio-accumulation over time. Nasty unpredictable effects over geographic areas and in various lifeforms.
Why did USA stop screening for radiatian on imported foods again? Yeah, see above.
Are you aware that all Japanese reactors have had close to 0% output over the last few years?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
His point stands. Tsunami was the single biggest disaster to hit Japan in a long time. We're looking at millions displaced, over 30.000 dead, hundreds of thousands wounded, massive economic and infrastructure damage.
Fukushima gets a lot of publicity because "nuclear is scary" for average people, but the amount of fear in comparison to actual threat is incredibly inflated. And on the other hand, amount of fear for natural disasters, that are several orders of magnitude more dangerous is "meh, not so scary, don't care".
Tsunami got a whole lot less publicity than Fukushima did. Compare the damage those two events did. Fukushima is going to have to do something pretty damn huge in comparison to what it's doing now to become more than a small slice in the huge chart when comparing it to tsunami that caused it.
We just had another disaster in the Philippines. It crippled most of the country. I'll bet you 100:1 that no one will remember it in just a few months. Yet we'll still be talking about Fukushima. At the same time, consequences of that disaster, just like (other) consequences of the tsunami in Japan are still huge.
That's the big problem. Media blows things completely out of proportions because scaring people with word "nuclear" and "radiation" sells. Scaring people with word "tsunami" or "storm", not so much. It's a matter of proportionality, and it's completely out of whack in modern society. We are taught to fear largely inconsequential things, while largely ignoring huge threats.
the Scientific Committee does not recommend multiplying very low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or lower than natural background levels.
That's just from the last year, after extensive research, but it's been assumed for the long time - there are many areas with pretty high radiation levels (Ramsar has 260 mSv/y, compare that with Fukushima) without any measurable health impacts. Except the Iitate village, most of that "terribly contaminated" area is about as much radioactive as Denver. If I recall correctly, those Washington lobbyists hanging around Congress get more ionizing radiation from the all the granite. So for the love of Feynman, learn to stop worrying and to check your sources.
Troll 2.0 Fear my asocial networking!
Actually we know that it has no consequences, because we observe people, today, living in envirnments far more radioactive than those around Fukushima in amounts of millions. Take Mexico City for example. It's background radiation is far greater because it's situated so high. Yet there are no visible spikes in things normally associated with radiation, such as cancer.
Let me repeat that: we KNOW that small increases in radiation exposure has no effect on health because we have millions upon millions living in such environments. Anyone arguing against this would be arguing against reality. Which is why no one except idiots talks about linear no threshold model.
Did you read what he said? No wait, did you read what YOU just said?
Leaking radiation is obviously not a part of background radiation. Therefore there is absolutely no conflict with that statement - leaking radiation can be less than background radiation.
Also let's not forget that windpower is much more dangerous than radiation. The turbines slow down the rotation of the earth. More nuclear ! It's SAFER !
Do you really think all those people moved out as some sort of green propaganda instead of as a response to a real danger?
Your post reveals more about your state of mind than anything on the ground in Japan.
Both the disadvantage and advantage of wind turbines is the small unit size. If one goes down it's no big deal. If you need another 2MW as the peak ramps up you just bring another one online instead of having it as spinning reserve. Maintanance schedules for wind turbines are short, but once again, since they are so small having a few down doesn't matter.
There's no point comparing them to thermal power since they are a "flexible" peak load power source that is really competing with quite expensive per watt stuff that is effectively jet engines running on natural gas - little stuff that can be brought on line in under a minute. The other is relatively remote areas off the main grid where the local power may well be diesel - once fuel shipping costs go beyond a certain point it hardly matters how expensive the wind turbines are.
A mix of energy sources for different purposes makes sense so the "587 of these to match the nuclear power plant" is a very naive comparison demonstrating either ignorance or a deliberate effort to mislead.
But that was due to a failure in the political system not some problem of nuclear power.
And if they install a hundred of these each month instead of just one a month, then you get the output of a nuclear plant inside of six months. You're speaking of "churning" out something which is easy to parallelize.
And let's look at the actual economics here. Suppose we go with your original assertion that the team installs one wind turbine every month. That one small team creates a nuclear plant's worth in ten years of operations. An actual nuclear plant would require a far larger workforce and capital outlays.
In addition, the team would be very experienced with most members, except for the newcomers, having dozens of successful installs under their belt. There also would be learning curve effects for both the manufacturer and installer making both faster and cheaper as more are successfully installed.
Only 12521 more wind turbines more to go and you will be able to equal the reactors output.
Footnotes:
https://www.wind-watch.org/faq-output.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant
I mean what the hell do you think they are gonna say? Oh, gee sorry, we have completely ruined the environment for humans for 10000 years?
Where did you get the figure of 10000 years from? They've ruined the immediate environs of human habitation for probably about 100-150 years I would guess (really depends how substantial the contamination is now).
We are worried about Cs-137 and Sr-90 here so (given the shorter half-lives of the isotopes they decay to on their way to stability) an effective half life of 30 years. This is a terrible half-life from the PoV of creatures whose life-spans are in the order of decades.
From there it's simply powers of two that any geek, even an Anonymous Coward should have little trouble dealing with. After 30 years 50% of the original radioactive substance has gone. After 90 years (3 half-lives) %87.5 percent of the radioactive substance is spent, after 150 years 97% is spent ... after 300 years we are talking around 1/100th of 1% of these isotopes remaining.
However, that is not to say that the deployment of off-shore wind power is not good news. I just hope they don't melt in those highly contaminated waters :p.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
You Tube is not a peer reviewed journal (not is NHK). Can you provide a citation to a credible source for the claim that 18 (+/-25) have thyroid cancer who would not have got it but for Fukushima?
And I came here to support wind power from claims that it induces baldness and loss of libido ... Sheeesh.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
You may not be aware but you make several flawed assumptions with out of date information and it seems like you are trivialising an extremely dangerous accident. First of all the article postulates whether or not the cladding of the fuel rods have been split which by understanding the base characteristics of the reactor would reveal that they are simply because that is a consequence of the production of hydrogen in the reactor that caused the explosion in the first place.
It also makes no mention of the spent fuel pools, that the loss of the back up power was because of an act of negligence on the part of the operator and, foolishly, declares that the accident is under control a mere four days after the accident.
It seems ironic that you berate people for Chemistry knowledge because if you understood the true nature of the accident you would realise that the danger comes from the radionuclides as a radiation emitter as opposed to radiation and, that due to the chemical nature of radio isotopes, they bio-accumulate instead of dilute.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
You can't separate the two.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It still was a failure in the political system. That is also important because that sort of failure can happen with other human activities that also can't be separated from the political system.
Interestingly the Rule of Law project rates Japan's regulation as better than the US'.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
And nothing has happened. The amount of radiation released from the leak, while the leak should be repaired ASAP, is minute and is still LOWER than the background radiation.
[citation needed]
http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N13/yost.html
That link has nothing to do with you claim. It is also very old, and as it turns out wildly optimistic.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
If what you say was true, no one would be allowed to live in Denver, or fly on a plane or have a xray.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
So you scale the infrastructure to move and manufacture *and* install the largest turbine ever built by 100x just like that? In the ocean? Can i have whatever it is your smoking because its really good stuff.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
So you scale the infrastructure to move and manufacture *and* install the largest turbine ever built by 100x just like that? In the ocean?
So what part of this can't scale? Some law of physics that we can have only so many barges in the universe?
Dr. Mita addresses the need of blood examination among children in Tokyo
11 November 2013 World Network for Saving Children from Radiation
Dr. Mita, Mita Clinic in Tokyo: Our patients mostly come from Tokyo. Reference value of white blood cells for healthy children is 4000, but it has shifted to 2500. It is lower than the threshold value of 3000. We think these points at a serious problem.
And when these children spend some time in West Japan, they get better. But our real hope is to have not just children but also adults move away from Tokyo. The adult conditions are definitely different compared to how it was before the nuclear accident.
With elderly people, it takes more time for asthma to heal. The medication doesn’t seem to work. We also see more patients with diseases that had been rare before; for example, polymyalgia rheumatica. Before the nuclear accident, we had one or less patient per year. Now, we treat more than 10 patients at the same time.
http://www.save-children-from-radiation.org/2013/11/11/title-dr-shigeru-mita-addresses-the-need-of-blood-examination-among-children-in-the-kanto-area/
I hope no one trips over the extension cord to shore.
Ok, so I see two things to comment on. First, labor remains highly scalable despite your fantasy assertions to the contrary. There are plenty of thriving large scale industries which happen to be unionized such as auto manufacturing or construction.
Second, what's "anti-capitalist" about demanding more for something you have like labor or capital? It's a natural tendency of anyone with something to trade to try to get more for what they have to offer.
First, labor remains highly scalable despite your fantasy assertions to the contrary. There are plenty of thriving large scale industries which happen to be unionized such as auto manufacturing or construction.
I already addressed that in my last post (methinks you're the one living in a fantasy, pretending what I wrote that addressed that didn't exist). Those large scale industries with unions are heavily regulated by government.
Second, what's "anti-capitalist" about demanding more for something you have like labor or capital?
Again you demonstrate to be living in a fantasy, arguing with something I didn't say. I didn't say demanding more for something you have is anti-capitalist (though it isn't, raising prices on the same thing isn't capitalism, it's rent seeking)
I was saying their desire to raise a family and think about retirement to be anti-capitalist. Demanding more is merely a consequence of that. Such thoughts are simply about consumption, not production or making a profit or owning more capital. For most people, they don't start families because they are pursuing some capitalist goal. It's rarely a primary reason. Those who do have economics as the primary reason (i.e marrying for money) are frowned upon. Really, if somebody did marry for money, they wouldn't need to ask the boss for a raise. Heck, they could just marry the boss or become the mistress... of course again such actions are frowned up by the moral nannies, who are anything but capitalists.
It's a natural tendency of anyone with something to trade to try to get more for what they have to offer.
What's natural != what's capitalist. But yes, I do agree that people by nature are not capitalist, and it takes a certain special kind of person to act capitalist, and keep his society from succumbing to socialism
Again, I see no actual rebuttal of my original arguments. Labor clearly scales as has been demonstrated by industries much larger than wind turbine manufacture and installation. And it isn't at all "anti-capitalist" to try to get more in a trade.
I hope no one trips over the extension cord to shore.
Examining the coast of Japan, water depth, I expect the only being capable of this is Godzilla or a Kaiju.
I'm curious how this thing would withstand a typhoon.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar