Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New York Approves Largest US Offshore Wind Farm Off Long Island (computerworld.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the renewable-energy dept.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has approved what will be the longest U.S. offshore wind farm when it's built off the east end of Long Island. When it's all said and done, it will generate enough electricity to power more than 50,000 homes on Long Island's South Fork. Computerworld reports: The South Fork Wind Farm will consist of 15 wind turbines with 90 megawatts (MW) of capacity. While the project still needs to complete its permitting process, construction could start as early as 2019 and it may be operational as early as 2022. The approval of the South Fork Wind Farm, to be located 30 miles southeast of Montauk, is the first step toward developing 1,000 megawatts (1 gigawatt) of offshore wind power, Cuomo said in a statement. The wind farm approval comes two weeks after Cuomo's State of the State Address, during which he called for the development of 2.4 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030. The 2.4 gigawatt target, which is enough power generation for 1.25 million homes, is the largest commitment to offshore wind energy in U.S. history, Cuomo said. Cuomo wants New York state to get 50% of its energy from renewable sources by 2030. The nation's first offshore wind farm, the Block Island Wind Farm, went live last month. Both the Block Island and South Fork wind farms are owned by Deepwater Wind, a company based in Providence, R.I.

70 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. the project still needs to complete by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    its permitting process, because the all bribes haven't been paid.

    1. Re: the project still needs to complete by msauve · · Score: 1

      But, it's going to be the largest (some say longest) wind farm off of all of Long Island. And that's a long island. Maybe I'll build the tallest and widest wind farm in my backyard! There's not much competition, so it won't take much.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re: the project still needs to complete by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      None of these articles tell us the cost or the power purchase agreement price . There are many quotes saying how wonderful it is going to be, but not a single reference to financials.

    3. Re: the project still needs to complete by gtall · · Score: 2

      Evidence or stop talking out of your ass.

    4. Re: the project still needs to complete by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      its permitting process, because the all bribes haven't been paid.

      No, the bribes are for the New Jersey wind project

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    5. Re: the project still needs to complete by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      It's going to be the longest offshore wind farm in the US, not just Long Island.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    6. Re: the project still needs to complete by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Did a search, here is more info (sounds like a big rate hike for only 90MW)

      The Times also noted that the project is expected to cost $740 million, down from an earlier projection of $1 billion, which Deepwater Wind will finance with loans and equity investments. The Long Island Power Authority said it would purchase all of South Fork Wind’s output for 20 years—the renewable electricity is expected to cost rate payers an extra $1.19 a month on average.

    7. Re: the project still needs to complete by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      It will also be the quickest sued into oblivion. Lots of expensive houses up near Montauk point, lots of expensive views ruined for well paid Wall Street execs.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    8. Re: the project still needs to complete by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's probably accurate.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  2. Who's Going to Break This To All The Rich People? by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

    >>the project still needs to complete its permitting process...

    Yes, well, good luck with that...

  3. Let's hope it does better than Shoreham Nuclear by jigawatt · · Score: 2

    Back in the 70's and 80's, Long Island Lighting Company built a complete 820 MW nuclear plant that never operated beyond some initial low-power testing.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:Let's hope it does better than Shoreham Nuclear by cavreader · · Score: 4, Informative

      "It's doubtful they understood the risks of nuclear back in the 70s"
      I am pretty sure they started learning about the dangers of nuclear processes starting back in the 1940's.
      "It took a Fukushima accident... "
      Have you ever heard about the 3 Mile Island incident back in 1979? The Chernobyl accident was in 1986. The Fukushima accident didn't happen until 2011.

    2. Re:Let's hope it does better than Shoreham Nuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Calm down sonny boy; grab your blanky and crayons, and head for your safe space. Tune in to that rockin' New Age music vibe.

    3. Re:Let's hope it does better than Shoreham Nuclear by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Informative

      "It took a Fukushima accident... "
      Have you ever heard about the 3 Mile Island incident back in 1979? The Chernobyl accident was in 1986. The Fukushima accident didn't happen until 2011.

      Why can you Yanks never admit the Brits beat you to anything? The Brits had a nuclear accident way back in 1957 (Windscale), long before 3 Mile Island was even in the planning stage.

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Let's hope it does better than Shoreham Nuclear by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Fukushima has a watershed. 3 Mile Island ultimately wasn't too bad or expensive, relatively speaking. Chernobyl was in a backwards Communist state and could never happen in the west.

      Fukushima was in a modern country with a developed regulatory system. It exposed problems that were deemed too unlikely to be concerned with. It showed that we were overly optimistic and that severe accidents, capable of ruining lives and costing hundreds of billions of dollars to fix could happen.

      That's why it's had such a big impact on world nuclear. Germany decided to get rid of it, France has gone off it, China has cancelled the bulk of its nuclear plans, no-one wants to invest in it...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Let's hope it does better than Shoreham Nuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is, except for the current Conservative government in the UK. They seem keen on taking risks, spending (wasting) lots of taxpayer money and all so that some Chinese investors and a French company can make an easy buck.

    6. Re:Let's hope it does better than Shoreham Nuclear by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      We were damn lucky with Windscale. They were not going to bother fitting filters to the chimneys, but someone insisted and it prevented a large amount of dangerous material being released into the atmosphere.

      It's one of those odd quirks of history that if it had been a major accident then it might have meant fewer accidents and less proliferation in the future.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Let's hope it does better than Shoreham Nuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Chernobyl was never certified as safe by the greater world community. It had no containment and that was always considered a major flaw. Also, its protective safety features were deliberately disabled. Three Mile Island worked out perfectly fine from a safety perspective. TMI had zero radiological impact on health.

      Fukushima was placed in the wrong location, where it was hit by a tsunami. They made the same mistakes with villages, it was not a nuclear specific problem. That is easily rectified, but even Fukushima had and will have no radiological impact on anybody from a health perspective. Considering all of the clean air energy generated by nuclear worldwide, Fukushima in terms of dollar cost is quite acceptable, particularly considering how much we seem to be willing to pay for clean air energy today.

    8. Re:Let's hope it does better than Shoreham Nuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem with nuclear isn't nuclear, it's that all it takes is one Homer Simpson in the right place to turn a nuclear plant into a disaster. And Homer doesn't even need to work in the plant. Just getting sloppy with the manufacture or inspection of some components can provide the fatal flaw.

      Homer Simpsons work in coal, oil, solar, and windfarm facilities, too, but none of those have the ability to leak toxic chemicals with long lives over the surrounding neighbourhood. The site itself can be contaminated, but the closest things to a nuclear leak you'll see is air pollution or maybe a fuel oil spill, and people are used to dealing with those.

      Nuclear waste transport and disposal is a problem, but remember that what comes out is less energetic than what went in - that's the whole point of nuclear energy.

      There are supposed to be types of nuclear plants whose ability to do wide-area contamination is no worse than fossil-fuel plants, but the general populace who have to sign off on power plant projects (and their politicians) aren't subtle enough to distinguish between one type of nuclear plant and another any better than they can tell one type of coal plant from another. And nuclear's reputation overall has been so tarnished that it will be a long time before people trust it again.

    9. Re:Let's hope it does better than Shoreham Nuclear by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Stop lumping everyone together. Social Conservatives are not Free Market, Small Government types.

      The Dems have fissures as well. Have you noticed? Let's see the construction, blue-collar labor unions on one side and the environmental lobby on the other. Hmmm. How did that fissure work out for the Democrats in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania?

      Re global warming - if people who stop with the hysterics and stop saying "warmest in history" when it's really warmest in 100 years you may get further. High CO2 levels is not an extinction level event (such as the hysteria indicates). CO2 levels were much higher (look it up) in recent times. By recent I mean Cenozoic.

      I'm not saying not to be aware of dumping millions of tons of CO2 into our atmosphere only stop the fu(king hysteria.

      In a nutshell - alternative energies will provide close to 100% of our energy needs in the next 20-40 (and that's accounting for an ever more energy-intensive civilization). We need to bridge the gap between the now and the soon-to-be.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    10. Re:Let's hope it does better than Shoreham Nuclear by DickBreath · · Score: 2

      Conservatives believe in big Big BIG government when it comes to what people do in their bedrooms. Just sayin'

      Then consider this logical inconsistency.

      * Corporations are Persons
      * Personal Responsibility
      * Corporations should never have any responsibility for what they do, thus no regulations ever

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    11. Re:Let's hope it does better than Shoreham Nuclear by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Nuclear power is workable. The lesson learned is that you need to put it in some remote God forsaken place, like New Jersey.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    12. Re:Let's hope it does better than Shoreham Nuclear by Goose+In+Orbit · · Score: 1

      The barley mutated? ;^D

    13. Re:Let's hope it does better than Shoreham Nuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just as a FYI, Canada did it first.

      NRX partial meltdown accident - December 12, 1952

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRX#Accident

    14. Re:Let's hope it does better than Shoreham Nuclear by hey! · · Score: 1

      In one of the greatest instances of marketing serendipity ever, a popular film called The China Syndrome depicting a nuclear meltdown opened two weeks before the TMI incident. So the potential for nuclear meltdown had filtered into the popular consciousness enough to catch the attention of a screenwriter.

      But that said, I think it is doubtful that even today we really "understand the risks." I think the public tends to have a simplistic view of the risks, and that's true for the pro- and anti-nuclear camps.

      Leaving aside decommissioning, the risks associated with operating a nuclear plant come from the intersection of design and management: the trickier the safe operation of a plant is, the better the management of the plant has to be.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  4. Ted Kennedy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Since the old codger croaked, we can finally have windmills in New England.

  5. I'll believe it when I see it by dcavanaugh · · Score: 5, Informative

    So far, NIMBYs have been very effective at killing offshore wind farms. Waterfront property is typically owned by "special" people, and they don't like the noise of wind turbines. http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo...

    1. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That example was 5 miles off shore. This project is 30 miles away, so they have a fighting chance at least.

    2. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by dcavanaugh · · Score: 3, Informative

      DIrect quote from the article:

      But Cape Cod is a region famous for its pastoral ocean views, including the one visible from the Kennedy compound at Hyannisport. Once built, the wind-power plant would be faintly visible on the skyline of this tourist-dependent community, particularly during clear days.

      "We wouldn't build a wind farm in the middle of Yosemite," Robert Kennedy Jr., son of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, has argued. "People want to look out and see the same sight the Pilgrims saw."

      I mentioned it because there have been numerous wind farm proposals near Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard, and ALL of them have been defeated. The excuses change every so often, as the NIMBYs align themselves with whatever allies they can find.

    3. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not just NIMBYs, Trump could kill this entire project with one stroke of the pen:

      http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/290093-trump-wind-power-kills-all-your-birds

    4. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At 30mi offshore, my napkin math suggests you'd need to be nearly 600ft in the air to see them, and that through the haze. A rational NIMBY argument would be a bit difficult to come by.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    5. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's all part of the Kennedy creed: "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask for special treatment and privileges."

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    6. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      A rational NIMBY argument would be a bit difficult to come by.

      Not a problem, as we have ready access to a generous supply of irrational NIMBY arguments as well :)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    7. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "A rational NIMBY argument would be a bit difficult to come by."

      Unfortunately, NIMBYs are just as good at fabricating irrational arguments. Just you watch: the continental shelf 30 miles offshore will turn out to be sacred ground to someone.

    8. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's infrasound - it affects people in the area who are not getting any financial benefit from a windmill and either want it to go away or get a cut themselves. It has the advantage of being impossible to detect (at least in the case of windmills) but people will tell you they "feel it". It causes lung conditions in smokers, heart problems in obese people and a very long list of other unlikely symptoms.

      All we can do is read Don Quixote and laugh at how apt it is so many centuries later. People hate change and cling to a golden age that never happened - by charging at windmills!

    9. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by WalrusSlayer · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ...we haven't gotten to the point of State Run Media or Ministry of Information...

      CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg, and nearly everyone came awfully close for the Obama Administration.

      Media bias (on some spectrum between real and perceived) is an entirely different thing than placing gag orders on in-the-public-interest government agencies and publicy-funded scientific work. But go ahead, keep treating this as a game show, because obviously this is just politics-as-usual and nothing could possibly go wrong in such an exceptional place as the US... (/sarcasm)

    10. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's selfishness. Don't want an offshore wind farm near my property, faintly visible on clear days and not exactly ugly. No, someone else can have a fossil fuel or nuclear plant near them, and I'll happily consume that energy at subsidised prices, thank you very much.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by bazorg · · Score: 1

      Exactly that. To see the view like the pilgrims did is the lamest excuse I've seen in a long time.

    12. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by swb · · Score: 1

      But I'll see it every time I chopper in and out of my seafront villa.

    13. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Fine. Build an oil fired plant beside them. Let's see if they appreciate the fish kill offs and listening to fog horns from 100,000 tonne tankers passing by at 3am. People can be so fucking stupid and selfish sometimes.

    14. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by hipp5 · · Score: 1

      "A rational NIMBY argument would be a bit difficult to come by."

      I worked as a planner in a community that was developing a bylaw to permit (land-based) large-scale wind turbines. I heard every reason under the sun for why we shouldn't have them, but the one that really took the cake was one of the main opponents standing up and screaming, "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WHALES!!!" (keep in mind that this was for land-based turbines).

      It took all my strength in the world to not blurt out, "Lady, you don't give a flying F**K about the whales!"

    15. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by WalrusSlayer · · Score: 1

      I'd have chosen Voice of America as the foil there, given how Trump just turned it over to some breitbartish characters.

      Wouldn't argue with that. The difficulty is that there are so many jaw-droppers to choose from you may as well just throw a dart at the wall. Which should be another clue that this isn't politics-as-usual.

      If Obama was performing hostile takeover of this scope and magnitude in the first seven days of office, not only would conservatives be calling for blood, I truly believe that people who supported him would be having their share of WTF? moments.

    16. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Line of sight distance depends on the height of both the object as well as the observer. 90 MW capacity / 15 turbines = they're using 4 MW capacity turbines. Those have a rotor diameter of 130 meters (about 430 feet). Add in, say, 10 meters for the base, and that gives a line of sight distance to the horizon of 42.2 km (about 26 miles). A person standing on the beach with eyes 5 ft off the ground has a line of sight distance of 2.7 miles. So the top of the rotors would be visible from the beach at 26 + 2.7 = 29 miles away.

      If the person is looking out the second story window of their beach house 20 ft up, that adds 5.5 miles, for a rotor tip visibility range of 31 miles away. If you're standing on a 100 ft high bluff, that gives 12.2 mile LoS. You'd be able to see something 210 feet high at 30 miles away. Basically the top half of the turbine.

    17. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      All we can do is read Don Quixote and laugh at how apt it is so many centuries later. People hate change and cling to a golden age that never happened - by charging at windmills!

      If I ran a wind power company, it would be named Quixote Enterprises. And taking a page from the Mafia, the CEO's official title would be Don.

      --
      Nope, no sig
    18. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by LunaticTippy · · Score: 2

      "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WHALES!!!"

      That's simply good planning. Those land-based turbines will be underwater soon, causing mayhem when whales crash into their spinning blades. You think it makes a mess when a large bird hits a blade? Try a frickin sperm whale!

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    19. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Although we might point out that there if every single piece of natural ice on the planet were to melt, the oceans would rise 261 feet. Not enough for the whales to even reach the blades of today's turbines.

    20. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      If that's what they want, I'll gladly demolish their compound, and replant native forest plants.

    21. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by Agripa · · Score: 1

      They they do not want a wind farm to be visible from their property, then they can buy the property that the wind farm would be located on.

  6. Ha Ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    30 miles offshore. Pirate territory. Whole new set of people gonna need regular bribes. Good luck mossbacks.

  7. Re:lets destroy the view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So do actually know what a thing called a "shipping lane" is?

    Hint - Ships cant cruise just anywhere already

  8. Re:What a dingleberry by guruevi · · Score: 1

    He's the governor and has been for the last 6 years. He should've signed and paid for it, then started the construction of it. To this point there's only been prototypes though, lots of them have been constructed for millions of euros only to be decommissioned a few months or years later. From what I can find, there's only a company with some ideas which has now been funded for millions by tax payers without any scientific or technical demonstrations, prototypes or results.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  9. Re:lets destroy the view by CaptainDork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm a photographer and actually notice things around me.

    I don't like all those fucking power poles and lines but did you ever think of that?

    No.

    You only think about yourself.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  10. Re:lets destroy the view by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

    Just like all those windmills in the Øresund have brought all shipping into and out of the Baltic to a screeching halt, right?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  11. Re: Let's hope it does better than Shoreham Nuclea by ISayWeOnlyToBePolite · · Score: 1

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

  12. Re:lets destroy the view by sidetrack · · Score: 1

    Sussex UK is about to get 116 wind turbines about 8 miles off shore, and people are going to be really pissed off when they see them.

    http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Rampion-foundations-complete-1.jpg

    These really need to go further off shore where they're out of sight, like the floating wind farm being constructed off Aberdeen Scotland

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/16/worlds-first-floating-wind-farm-gets-go-ahead-off-scottish-coast/

    More wind, more power, less pissed off people.

  13. windmills on top of skyscrapers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Put windmills on top of skyscrapers, so you don't need all the power lines. You have consumer right below the producer.
    Maybe not the big Wopper mills, but a quieter type.
    Change the skyline and give the finger to oil.

    1. Re:windmills on top of skyscrapers by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Give the finger to oil? Describe how to use a wind turbine to power an 18 wheeler down the road, or a ship across the ocean. You might, with a massive effort, hang enough catenary wire to power locomotives with grid electricity, but by and large, the transportation industry is unable to use wind and solar until someone invents a MUCH better battery. They're trying like hell to do that, and they're not getting much of anywhere, at least not with anything remotely affordable. We may never get that battery.

  14. Re:lets destroy the view by DrXym · · Score: 2
    Idiots are getting really pissed off by them.

    Sensible people realise that a few windmills out in the sea is infinitely preferable to a coal / oil / gas plant with all the infrastructure that goes with it - railway lines, slag heaps, ash ponds, oil / gas holders, deep dredged docks, traffic, tanker / colliers sounding horns etc.

  15. Re:Who's Going to Break This To All The Rich Peopl by DickBreath · · Score: 3

    Didn't New York get the memo? We've got a new president now. The future of energy is Oil and "clean" Coal.

    Make America great again. As in like the 1950's. Let's go back to things that once were the economic engines of growth during the Dear Leader's youth. That would be Cars. Steel. Oil. Coal. It's not that we don't need all those things to some extent. But in the 21st century they are not the economic engines of growth, IMO. The things that are now the economic engines of growth are The Internet. Robots. AI. Nanotech. Biotech. Etc.

    The dear leader wants to build a pipeline because he has a completely out of touch view of the future. Just like in the 1950's, we can pollute the world forever with no consequences! Yea!

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  16. Re:lets destroy the view by DickBreath · · Score: 3, Informative

    You know, I don't like the look of all those power poles and cell towers either. But I wouldn't trade them for not having the services they provide which make our lives infinitely easier compared to past generations. We still live in the greatest time to be alive. Tylenol. Caffeine. Viagra. Electricity. Cars. Magical mobile information devices we carry in our pockets that can answer voice questions.

    In a generation, different people will look out on the ocean and think: how beautiful the graceful windmills are compared to coal power plants belching out pollution.

    Yes, modern life has some curses associated with it, such as FaceTwit. But still I wouldn't live in any other past time.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  17. Niagara by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

    Interesting that the main US Falls plant delivers 2.5GW today The Lewiston "peaker" plant adds another 240MW. Amazing the amount of power from this very old power source from the falls. And that is just the US production.

    1. Re:Niagara by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      You'd think the Canadian side would produce more power, but with the current exchange rate there's not much difference.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  18. Does the RNC know about this? by edibobb · · Score: 1

    This does NOT abide by the party line. Our federal government will NOT allow it.

  19. Re:Who's Going to Break This To All The Rich Peopl by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    Creating value is the only path to economic prosperity. Like it or not, extracting oil from the ground and refining it creates value. Making iron ore into steel and then turning that steel into an automobile creates value. We definitely need to do things better and smarter and with fewer consequences than we did in the 1950s(protecting our water resources is critical), but it's also imperative that we(USAians) transition our economy toward value-add production.

    Our smoke and mirrors "consumer spending" and "services" economy is a giant failure. In the past 30 years, we've had only 1 or 2 quarters where GDP growth exceeded debt accumulation In other words, the U.S. economy is totally dependent on continued expansion of credit. When it's not mortgage loans, it's student debt or borrowing done by the government. The depression of 2008 occurred precisely when the credit temporarily dried up.

    If we don't actually start producing things, the only future we have is a catastrophic economic collapse that will make The Great Depression look mild.

  20. Re:lets destroy the view by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    I agree and, I would point out that I am 71 years old, which gives me some experience regarding views.

    I remember staying outside as long as I could see. I remember how the sky looked before light pollution set in. I remember the concept of "public lands," where a guy could pull off the side of near any road and shoot a gun at some bottles and cans.

    The landscape, compared to now, was photogenic.

    Now, it's almost impossible to capture old theaters, tall hotels, barns, pasture, without trespassing on private property and it's damned near impossible to find a spot where there aren't any modern fucking poles that support telephones, internet connections, cable, electricity and fucking transformers.

    Still, I manage to get great photos because the Artist is a fine painter.

    Regarding "view pollution," I deal with it in one of two (2) ways:

    1.) I get over it

    2.) I get used to it.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  21. Excellent choice by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Makes far more sense than importing liquefied dead dinosaurs for energy.

    Plus, bonus, no long supply chain to defend and make up excuses to invade other countries to get it!

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  22. Re:Who's Going to Break This To All The Rich Peopl by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    I agree that we have to produce things. And I DID say that we need things like Cars, Steel, etc. But producing microprocessors, cures for diseases, high tech products, REALLY IS producing things. How about producing more of the things we need in the future to get economies of scale to kick in. Solar panels. Windmills. How about building more high tech battery factories. Policies need to figure out how to deal with automation. It is a reality. And it won't go away. You can make it go away, but then it just goes off shore. But going back to 1950s thinking isn't the solution. I hope to see, but I do not presently see, the new administration leading us into the future. But I'll try to be optimistic.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  23. Re:Well by Agripa · · Score: 1

    I have had it in for the seagulls since one stole a french fry from me.

  24. Re: Who's Going to Break This To All The Rich Peop by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

    Exactly. The future is in science, medicine, robotics, software, renewables and space. Not car factories and coal. Every other country in the world is moving forwards, and we're moving backwards.

  25. Re: Let's hope it does better than Shoreham Nuclea by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

    And with Trump shutting down every regulatory agency it becomes even more likely.