Massachusetts Gains Foothold in Offshore Wind Power, Long Ignored in US (nytimes.com)

New Bedford hopes to soon be the operations center for the first major offshore wind farm in the United States, bringing billions of dollars of investment and thousands of jobs to the town and other ports on the East Coast. The New York Times: On Wednesday, that effort took a major step forward as the State of Massachusetts, after holding an auction, selected a group made up of a Danish investment firm and a Spanish utility to erect giant turbines on the ocean bottom, beginning about 15 miles off Martha's Vineyard. This initial project will generate 800 megawatts of electricity, roughly enough to power a half a million homes. At the same time, Rhode Island announced it would award a 400-megawatt offshore wind project to another bidder in the auction.

The groups must now work out the details of their contracts with the states' utilities. "We see this not just as a project but as the beginning of an industry," Lars Thaaning Pedersen, the chief executive of Vineyard Wind, which was awarded the Massachusetts contract, said in an interview. Offshore wind farms have increasingly become mainstream sources of power in Northern Europe, and are fast becoming among the cheapest sources of electricity in countries like Britain and Germany. Those power sources in those two countries already account for more than 12 gigawatts of electricity generation capacity.

Comments

I apologize to everyone... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: I know this is off-topic, but I know of no better way to apologize to everyone for my behavior. I'm very sorry for my behavior on Slashdot and elsewhere.

* One of my children asked me why I insult people, repost the same personal attacks repeatedly, and even make threats. This was a life-changing moment for me, knowing that my children can Google me and see how I act online. It's awful that they have to be embarrassed of their father's behavior online, and even worse that they might think my behavior is acceptable and imitate me. That affected me more than anything else, and convinced me I couldn't continue in my behavior.

I want to apologize to Ash-Fox, Brockmire, Coren22, amicusNYCL, PopeRatzo, arth1, Zontar The Mindless, and all the other people I've offended. I can't undo my behavior, but I won't be repeating my past conduct. I've been attacking people like this for two decades and it's time for me to stop. I will post this comment a few times in different articles so as many people as possible can see that I'm apologizing to them. I will not, however, be reposting my comment and spamming articles when this off-topic comment is properly moderated to -1. I am truly sorry for my behavior, and I will also be apologizing to my family for how I've acted and embarrassed them. I have deserved every bit of the criticism that I have received and then some.

I will continue to develop my hosts file software in hopes that it is useful as part of a comprehensive security solution. I want to be known for the quality of my software, not my vile behavior.

APK

P.S.=> I sincerely and wholeheartedly apologize to everyone who I have offended and attacked... apk

Re:I apologize to everyone... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

No bold text. Too legible. Proper paragraphs. Not real APK confirmed.

Re:I apologize to everyone... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Possibly, but you never know
 
Kids change you

Re:I apologize to everyone... apk

[arth1]

Kids change you

Does APK have children? I'd bet against it - while there are all kinds of tastes out there, there must be a limit to how much craziness that women can put up with. Mustn't there?

Re:I apologize to everyone... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Does APK have children? I'd bet against it - while there are all kinds of tastes out there, there must be a limit to how much craziness that women can put up with.

For every repulsive loser like APK, there is an equally repulsive loser of the opposite sex. In desperation they will settle for each other and produce repulsive loser offspring. It's the circle of repulsive loser life.

Re:I apologize to everyone... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Barbara Hudson should be on your list. Also Tom (822).

Re:I apologize to everyone... apk

[Darinbob]

I wouldn't be too sure. I see some guys who are absolutely nuts and impossible to get along with, and they seem happily married. I suspect part of the cause is that they don't talk about "work". She doesn't understand what a hosts file is or how it's better or worse than adblock, and she's not on slashdot, so she doesn't know about the crazy. I've also seen couples where both are bonkers. Or women who just put up with it because they were raised to always be submissive to their husband and never question anything and who didn't get any viable job skills to allow them to be independent.

It will cost a lot more than they expect

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual electric will cost way more from it.
It will break down faster than they expect.
A couple people will get rich I bet though.

Re: It will cost a lot more than they expect

[Anonymous Coward]

(A) You're right, we should go back to burning coal. Why invest in new technologies? Our grandfathers never had to do that! Oh, wait...
(B) I guess Germany is paying a lot more for electricity than they realize.

Re:It will cost a lot more than they expect

[Anonymous Coward]

its also really unfair to all those landlocked states that can't get offshore wind

Re: It will cost a lot more than they expect

[technosaurus]

I doubt they redid the motor windings, other electrical component and metal parts with copper-nickel or other alloys and composites that resist seawater exposure. More likely, they use off the shelf components that will begin to fail en masse before it starts to pay off.

Re: It will cost a lot more than they expect

[HornWumpus]

Your not German, or you'd know how much they pay for electricity.

Re:It will cost a lot more than they expect

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually wind power is cheaper than everything except combined cycle natural gas power. O&M $/MWh is also cheaper than coal.

Exactly who do you think invests in power plants - janitors? Yes it requires billions of dollars and some large appetite for risk to invest in power. If you think someone other than capitalists should do it (government? - and who pays for that) please let us know your thoughts.

Power in the US even with renewables in the mix is much cheaper than it was predicted to be a few decades ago. Frankly shutting down coal plants would improve the cost for the ratepayers.

Re:It will cost a lot more than they expect

[bondsbw]

I know... I complain all the time about not having a beach at my house, and nobody listens. It's so unfair.

Re: It will cost a lot more than they expect

[Anonymous Coward]

(B) I guess Germany is paying a lot more for electricity than they realize.

I think they realize that they are paying a lot more for electricity that we do in the US.

Re: It will cost a lot more than they expect

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a company that have been installing offshore turbine since 1995, and the first turbines are still running.
The conditions inside a wind turbine nacelle is comparable to the conditions inside a machine room in a large ship.
When the turbine is operating, or have been within the last 48 hours, the temperature inside is higher than outside, and the dew-point.
The intake filters remove salt mists.
Dehumidifiers remove moist from the air when powered up after grid loss.
Surfaces are designed to withstand 6 months in salty conditions, without power.
The generator have a cooling circuit where nacelle air is separated from the windings.

Re:It will cost a lot more than they expect

[LynnwoodRooster]

Data seems to suggest that the higher your amount of renewable power, the higher the cost of electricity. Somewhat counter-intuitive, but the trend seems to be pretty clear.

Re: It will cost a lot more than they expect

[ShanghaiBill]

Also, salt spray drops off very quickly with altitude. Typical offshore turbines are more than 100 meters above sea level, and the biggest are over 200 meters ASL. Up that high, the amount of salt in the air is negligible.

Re: It will cost a lot more than they expect

[ShanghaiBill]

(B) I guess Germany is paying a lot more for electricity than they realize.

Electricity in Germany is hecka expensive. They are a shining example of what NOT to do: Don't let politicians make technical decisions, and don't do massive roll-outs of immature technology.

Shutting down their nukes was insane. Building new nukes may not make sense, but the main reason is the enormous capital expense in the construction and startup, and the costs of the shutdown and cleanup. But for Germany, those were all sunk costs. They had stable, operating nukes, generating clean reliable power. They threw all of that away to go back to burning filthy brown coal.

Re: It will cost a lot more than they expect

[Anonymous Coward]

It is expensive is west germany. East is still on grid subsidy to foster growth.

Re: It will cost a lot more than they expect

[Darinbob]

Whale oil was good enough for great granddad, so it's good enough for me!

Re: It will cost a lot more than they expect

[Darinbob]

Every power source requires expensive maintenance. They're all extremely expensive, and clearly not viable if you think about it too much. Ie, hydro is extremely expensive to build for the first time, and they constant maintenance. Coal fired plants are not as expensive the first time but they are very hard to maintain, dangerous for the workers (unless you spend even more money on silly safety issues), they've got turbines to keep running, toxins to figure out where to dump, and these days you need to do carbon capture which is expensive.

Re:It will cost a lot more than they expect

[Darinbob]

Initially, almost all major power plants were amazingly expensive, and many did use government help to get things going. Or at least they got big tax write-offs, nothing makes some utilities happier than to bitch about taxes in public and then accepting tax breaks under the table.

Re:It will cost a lot more than they expect

[Darinbob]

Don't forget the non-monetary costs, because some cheaper power options are not good for the public as they pollute too much. Only feasible if you assume the fossil fuels will last forever and that you never have to pay for cleanup or mitigation. They won't last forever so alternatives MUST be found and used.

Re: It will cost a lot more than they expect

[technosaurus]

The machine room on a large ship requires a lot of maintenance and has a crew to do it. I spent almost as much time chipping and painting as I did operating the reactor. Good on you though, you'll have plenty of work for years to come. After a couple generations, they will get the engineering right, but your description differs very little from land base windmills. After the 1st generation they probably discovered that the cooling coils should be Monel, like the use in heat exchangers on ships, but were probably copper or aluminum because they are better heat conductors and cheaper. I bet plenty of copper bus bars corroded in the first gen too. Keep up the progress though. The only thing worse than failing is not ever trying.

Re:It will cost a lot more than they expect

[MadMaddy]

Initially, almost all major power plants were amazingly expensive, and many did use government help to get things going. Or at least they got big tax write-offs, nothing makes some utilities happier than to bitch about taxes in public and then accepting tax breaks under the table.

Also, what they always fail to mention, is that a wind turbine plant needs the full (100% uptime) backup of a traditional (fossil driven) powerplant. Because with a calm, wind turbines do not generate electricity, and the gap needs to be closed by a support plant. In order to be operative at demand, the plant needs to be up 100%, because starting up and closing down a plant takes too much time. http://www.theenergycollective...

Re:It will cost a lot more than they expect

[Barsteward]

That report seems to only point to retail prices so if the power companies are not passing on the cuts in generation costs, thats where the fault lies. But then again, i'd guess the first generations of fossil powered power supply was only available to the rich.

Re:It will cost a lot more than they expect

[Barsteward]

Not when there are alternatives like solar, hydro, battery, nuclear etc. If you are just replying on one power generation source, you are doing it very wrong. I'd expect the power generators will be advised of "calms" due to happen by the weather stations then allowing them to crank up a traditional power station. Gas is only minutes to start up and get to full power, coal and nuclear will take hours to get to be useful so they are normally on 24 hours a day.

Re: It will cost a lot more than they expect

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh? Carbon capture has never been demonstrated. If it were a requirement, coal plants would have to shut down

Re:It will cost a lot more than they expect

[LynnwoodRooster]

Actually, I believe the reason is that you basically must double-up on your power generation. Renewables (solar and wind) are not 100% reliable, so you still must have a very large percentage of total usage backed by on-demand fossil fuels. So the addition of renewables does not significantly lower the capital costs. And since most power plants are not efficient unless running at 60-70% of capacity or more, there is always a minimum amount of base-load that must run, and renewables can "peak" above that. Too much renewables? You end up paying people to take the power - and that's more cost.

Re:It will cost a lot more than they expect

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope you just store it and use the power later. Solar and wind are quite reliable if used in a geographically diverse enough manner.
But you won't believe it this time, because you haven't believed it the dozens of times other people have shown you.

Re: It will cost a lot more than they expect

[Uecker]

Electricity is expensive but only part of the price is due to the feed-in tariff for renewables. That this is paid for from the electricity price was intentional to reduce demand and avoid a rebound effect. It was also highly successful strategy as Germany is credited for bringing down the price for renewables. Nuclear also got a lot of subsidies from general taxes - this is not better. The energy transition in Germany is supported by large parts of the population, was discussed for decades, and well planned (with lots of research and large-scale simulations, e.g. by Fraunhofer which is a renowned engineering society). Also most nukes were not shut down directly, but based on life time - so old plants first. Coal use is lower than ever before. That Germany increased coal use is just a myth.

Re:It will cost a lot more than they expect

[Darinbob]

Utilities have always used "peaker" plants. These only run during peak usage, or for unexpected demand, they are being turned on and off on a regular basis. There's experience in turning on and off these plants with short delays, and experience in estimating additional capacity is needed. These are generally the dirtiest plants also as well as being expensive. If they can use fewer peaker plants due to occasional wind power then that's a good thing.

Solar for sure reduces the need for turning on more peaker plants since solar works best during peak usage hours (ie, high demand for air conditioning). People who complain that solar is useless if you can't use it at night seem to miss the point that there's a diverse selection of power generation that can all be shuffled around, and that electricity demand in a location is not constant.

Ignored? HAH!!

[Nutria]

Champagne Socialists (*cough*Ted Kennedy*cough*) have been fighting this for YEARS, afraid that it will spoil the precious views out of their sea-side mansions...

Re: Ignored? HAH!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean "rich white people" like Donald Trump who also opposed wind farms near his properties?

Even though he is entirely willing to dump trash on our lawns.

Won't happen

[110010001000]

They won't be able to build windfarms that close to Marthas Vineyard. If you have ever been there, you know why.

Re:Won't happen

[bjdevil66]

$$$$$$$$$$$$ + NIMBY = 0% chance of it happening.

I haven't studied the wind patterns off the Atlantic seaboard, but it seems like they could go a little north and try the Maine coastline, perhaps? Is it about visibility for their project?

Re:Won't happen

[mark-t]

It's offshore.

How is it in or near anyone's backyard?

I mean, I guess the wind farm will be visible from shore, but it's my understanding it'd still be pretty far out. People live closer to all kinds of city infrastructure that is *FAR* more visibility occluding than that.

Re:Won't happen

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I haven't studied the wind patterns off the Atlantic seaboard, but it seems like they could go a little north and try the Maine coastline, perhaps?

And spoil the view from the Bush family compound on the coast of Maine . . . ?

$$$$$$$$$$$$ + NIMBY = 0% chance of it happening.

Re:Won't happen

[110010001000]

You haven't been to Marthas Vineyard. Playground of the ultra rich.

Re:Won't happen

[kelemvor4]

They won't be able to build windfarms that close to Marthas Vineyard. If you have ever been there, you know why.

I'm honestly surprised it's legal. In my home city, wind power is illegal. What little information I found on the subject when I looked into it pointed to lobbying by special interest groups interested in protecting birds.

Re:Won't happen

[110010001000]

The US is the second largest wind power producer in the world.

Re:Won't happen

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't studied the wind patterns off the Atlantic seaboard

LOL, there's wind, simple as that. Lots and lots of wind.

Anybody who has ever lived in pretty much any coastal region will know that wind is in abundant supply.

Where I grew up, you had a wind coming in from the ocean during the day, and going out to the ocean in the evening because of convection currents.

The problems you have to solve is when you have too much wind, but the Europeans have solved most of the technical issues.

And, unlike "clean coal", wind power actually exists.

Re:Won't happen

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't been to Marthas Vineyard. Playground of the ultra rich.

Somehow in your brain, only on martha's vineyard, it's possible to see 15 miles from the shore, when everywhere else in the world you can see 3 miles from the shore.

Re:Won't happen

[Anonymous Coward]

if you're laying down it might be 3 miles. From a house, 15 miles is reasonable.

Re:Won't happen

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't been to Marthas Vineyard. Playground of the ultra rich.

Somehow in your brain, only on martha's vineyard, it's possible to see 15 miles from the shore, when everywhere else in the world you can see 3 miles from the shore.

You grow a brain and quit being fucking stupid.

Out at see, the taller something is, the farther away you can see out. A 100-foot tower can likely be seen for 20-30 miles because the person viewing it is also likely well above sea level.

Re:Won't happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Windmills take far more energy to produce than they ever get back in their lifetime.

Re:Won't happen

[Anonymous Coward]

From a house that's 150' above sea level that is.

  http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

Re:Won't happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that sure does explain why unsubsidized wind is now the least expensive power on the planet. Because it loses money. Riiiiight.

Seriously AC, there are these newfangled things called search engines on the intertubes. Choose one. Learn it. Know it. LIVE IT.

Re:Won't happen

[Green Mountain Bot]

Nah, that's Nantucket. Martha's Vineyard is the playground for the pretty rich.

Re:Won't happen

[Barsteward]

did that lobby also mention getting rid of the biggest bird killers - cats?

Danish investement firm, Spanish utility

[Anonymous Coward]

More American jobs lost. We should be building these with American know-how and labor. Why in the world would the people of Massachusetts allow there state to send all these jobs across the pond?

Re: Danish investement firm, Spanish utility

[Anonymous Coward]

We've pretty much stunted the development of offshore wind in the US for the past decade or more. Would be surprised if we had the capability, let alone the price competitiveness.

And with the past track record of regulatory stalling, doubt anyone in their right mind would invest in developing the capability in the US.

Re: Danish investement firm, Spanish utility

[HornWumpus]

Offshore is much more expensive. Why deploy offshore when you still have untapped onshore?

In Europe, they live sitting in each others laps, so no room, offshore it is.

Re: Danish investement firm, Spanish utility

[Anonymous Coward]

A good question, and a simple one to answer. Offshore wind has vastly higher capacity factors than onshore wind. IOW, offshore wind is strong and steady allowing the turbine to supply far more power during peak demand (and thus price) periods. Moreover, in many locations offshore wind neatly matches daily demand curves supplying power when the local grid needs it most and thus when it's most valuable to the producer.

 

Re: Danish investement firm, Spanish utility

[HornWumpus]

Vastly?

No. They both suck, as far a capacity factors go.

There are some onshore locations with better wind then some offshore locations. You general point isn't true.

Re: Danish investement firm, Spanish utility

[Anonymous Coward]

Offshore allows for bigger turbine sizes (transportation limitations) and taller turbines (FAA regulations in the US). Bigger taller turbines have greater efficiencies.

I can very easily visualize the transportation limitation since a few years ago when I drove past a wide load double length tractor trailer carrying a single turbine blade.

European companies

[Anonymous Coward]

...the State of Massachusetts, after holding an auction, selected a group made up of a Danish investment firm and a Spanish utility ....

And our current administration's policy is to promote 19th century while the rest of the World forges ahead in the 21st century.

Solar cells from China and wind turbines from Europe and other renewable energy.
Cost Rica has wind power - you know, a Third World sh...

Some of us need to get over this nostalgia for an America that never existed and get up to speed because we ARE behind in many areas.

Life changes - it's a fact - and trying to keep the status quo always fails.

Wind turbines are not a threat to birds

[sjbe]

What little information I found on the subject when I looked into it pointed to lobbying by special interest groups interested in protecting birds.

Which is one of the more bullshit arguments one can make against wind power since wind turbines kill rather few birds. Cell phone towers actually kill far more birds than wind turbines do but I don't see people complaining about those. And cats kill orders of magnitude more birds than wind turbines.

From the link
"Wind turbines kill between 214,000 and 368,000 birds annually — a small fraction compared with the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats, according to the peer-reviewed study by two federal scientists and the environmental consulting firm West Inc."

Re:Wind turbines are not a threat to birds

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't see any mention of per capita in that article. There are a lot more cell/radio towers than wind turbines.

Re:Wind turbines are not a threat to birds

[Anonymous Coward]

Wind turbines aren't created equal in terms of bird safety. Fast-spinning ones with many blades, usually short ones, are quite dangerous. However, the amount of energy gained from the length of the blade increases at a cubic exponential rate, so the huge three-bladed turbines that rotate relatively slowly are actually the most effective solution for generating energy *and* are fairly safe for birds. The trope of the dangerous bird blender is really oil industry astroturf.

Re:Wind turbines are not a threat to birds

[CrimsonAvenger]

"Wind turbines kill between 214,000 and 368,000 birds annually â" a small fraction compared with the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats, according to the peer-reviewed study by two federal scientists and the environmental consulting firm West Inc."

So, enough wind turbines for a minute fraction of the electricity needed kills ~5% of the number of birds as are killed by the cast number of cell towers scattered hither and yon across the nation?

Again, you're not making a good case here....

Re:Wind turbines are not a threat to birds

[es330td]

And cats kill orders of magnitude more birds than wind turbines.

I think cats kill a very different kind of bird than wind turbines. I am pretty certain that the number of hawks and eagles killed by house cats is very close to zero in comparison. Taking out predators seems to me to be more likely to matter in the ecosystem balance picture.

Re:Wind turbines are not a threat to birds

[Anonymous Coward]

> so the huge three-bladed turbines that rotate relatively slowly are actually the most effective solution for generating energ

  not to mention that they are so big that most birds won't come even close to the lowest point of the swept area.

Re:Wind turbines are not a threat to birds

[Anonymous Coward]

Additional source.

So, if we are looking at the 52,343 turbines in the US at the end of 2016, and assume the 214,000 birds per year is accurate, that means each turbine has a kill rate of roughly one bird every 3 months. If we go with 368,000 birds per year, that's about 7 per year, or one dead bird every 7 and a half weeks.

Cat numbers and more.

85 million pet cats in 2016. At least 1,400 million bird deaths by cats in 2016. 16 birds per cat year, or one and a quarter birds per month. 43 per cat per year at the high end of the estimate, or just under 6 per week (and on Caturday, the cat rested).

I could find no useful statistics on radio towers in 2016, but that there were at least 106,257 cell towers that year.

sjbe, answer the question people ask or you will look like you're hiding something. The big problem here is that while you are right, you're also being an asshole in how you respond to people asking for information by not giving them anything close to consistent numbers for comparison.

Re:Wind turbines are not a threat to birds

[CanHasDIY]

From the same article:

The wind energy industry has occasionally been at odds with conservation groups because of bird deaths. They clashed in December [2017] when the Obama administration, eager to promote non-polluting renewable energy as a way to address climate change, announced a new federal rule that allows wind farms to lawfully kill bald and golden eagles under 30-year permits.

I doubt domestic cats are killing bald eagles, and they sure as hell aren't getting federal permits to do so for the next 3 decades.

Re:Wind turbines are not a threat to birds

[LynnwoodRooster]

I have a fairly large cat, a Maine Coon, who weighs in around a solid 17 pounds (he's not fat, either - he's about 40 inches long, and stands about 14 inches tall - upper side of average for the breed). He's brought home squirrels, rats, and even a dead possum one night. I wouldn't bet on him against a hawk or eagle, though...

Re:Wind turbines are not a threat to birds

[Highdude702]

You make a very good argument here. Thank you for actually contributing to the conversation, this is a breakthrough for slashdot!

Re:Wind turbines are not a threat to birds

[Daralantan]

3.7 billion deaths from cats

There used to be this psychopath lady in the neighborhood I grew up in. She loved birds, therefor she hated cats.

Can anyone guess what she decided to do to solve the problem?

.....

She set traps in her yard and house to catch cats with canned catfood. Then she took the cats to the vet/animal control/whatever. And she would have them put to sleep. By the time she was caught and figured out, she'd had something around a hundred cats killed. This included cats that were pets of her neighbors. She'd just sign and say she owned the cat and then have it put down.

Re:Wind turbines are not a threat to birds

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we can possibly agree on something: holy shit, we're killing a lot of birds.

Re:Ignored? HAH!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ted Kennedy is dead!

Anyway, people aren't a mass of the same with one groupthink. Not even Slashdot! Surely some rich people are in favor, some aren't. Anyway, not wanting ugly infrastructure in a beautiful location seems like a legit concern, even if sometimes you go ahead and build it.

Re:Ignored? HAH!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can only see roughly 7 nautical miles of ocean at sea level due to the curvature of the Earth. Hence why it is 15 miles out. Makes any resistance all the more infantile.

How many gigawatts

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you should react like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5cYgRnfFDA

Re:Ignored? HAH!!

[HornWumpus]

The next generation of Kennedys is _even_stupider_. Comes with old money.

Re:Ignored? HAH!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. Ted Kennedy kept us from having them years ago, but to be fair the previous proposal was much closer to the coast. Building them 15 miles offshore is different.

New Bedford???

[axehind]

I doubt it will happen once they see what a crap hole the place is.

End of an era

[Yhcrana]

Many fond memories of roblimo from the way early days of slashdot while I was in college. Wonderful open minded being, please watch over us

Yhcrana

Re:Ignored? HAH!!

[Shotgun]

Can see it from LAND. They don't want to view ruined when they helicopter over to their yachts.

I hope they plan on backup power sources

[Anonymous Coward]

these things seem like an easy target for terrorists or in time of war.

captcha: hardly - seems a little optimistic...

Impersonating me YET again? Please (lol)... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact you constantly impersonate me tells me I got to you so badly (due to your mistakes) it's eating you up & FUNNIEST PART? You do it to yourself - It's hilarious!

* You're an obsessed loon...

(See subject - 2nd time today you've done this https://hardware.slashdot.org/... & 100's of times I've bookmarked from the past too...)

(You know - I understand your SOYMilk & Bisphenol A "notman" SOYBoy formulas have addled your brains but that takes the cake for "illogic logic" from "your kind", lol!)

APK

P.S.=> Your DIM brains are blatantly inferior evidenced by your FAKE NAMES online for FAKE lives of being "ne'er-do-well" scum having the AUDACITY to even TRY "F" w/ me & ones like you you INFERIOR swine as I cast PEARLS before SWINE like you - I can see you now, "QuAkiNg" in your effete EFFEMINATE 'RaGe' going for a SYRING FULL of SOYMilk (drinking it doesn't do it for your kind anymore - no, not even SMOKING shredded plastic bisphenol A milk cartons (hahaha) - no, you're FULL-BLOWN SoyAddicts now on the needle, RoTfLmAo (like Bruce Willis in LOOPER (you're all "Loopy" it fits & you prove it in the link above) Year 6 to 23, hahahaha!)... apk

Re:Impersonating me YET again? Please (lol)... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

I’m APK and so is my wife.
APK.

We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[GWBasic]

We really need this. Pilgrim power, a nearby nuclear plant that generates a large percentage of MA's power, is set to close in a few years.

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[Linsaran]

Not that we shouldn't also be investing in wind, but really we should be renovating and expanding our use of nuclear power instead of shuttering it. I get that a lot of reactors are old and we shouldn't keep using old reactors; but properly managed nuclear power is by a wide margin the most scale-able alternative to fossil fuels we have. If we invested more heavily into it it could probably be a cheaper option too.

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[Anonymous Coward]

The deaths per terawatt statistics for nuclear power show otherwise.

Nuclear power is dead.

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[polar red]

>it could probably be a cheaper option too.

I don't think so. If anything, newer nuclear power plants get MORE expensive per kwh produced.

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[Anonymous Coward]

"If we invested more heavily into it it could probably be a cheaper option too."

We've been investing in nuclear power for 70 years and it's been getting more expensive worldwide, not less. Conversely, SolarPV prices have dropped 99.4% since 1975 per Bloomberg.

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[Anonymous Coward]

The deaths per terawatt statistics for nuclear power show otherwise.

Citation please?

If I remember correctly, solar power was more dangerous than nuclear (because of solar panel installers falling off roofs).

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[LynnwoodRooster]

Unless you were being facetious, you're wrong. Nuclear is actually the safest of major energy sources.

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[GWBasic]

When you look at pictures of Pilgrim power on Google Maps, you can see where they store the spent fuel rods. They're almost on top of the shoreline: https://goo.gl/maps/yB8EG8AYNk...

I'm not really opposed to nuclear, but the politics on all sides makes it a poor option. The anti-nuclear crowd blocks legitimate research, and the pro-nuclear crowd doesn't want to do what's needed to keep radiation contained. Even worse, we can't get the politics together to move our nuclear waste to safer storage, so it just piles up at our nuclear plants forever.

Remember: Those round things in this picture contain nuclear waste just feet away from the shoreline: https://goo.gl/maps/yB8EG8AYNk...

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[Anonymous Coward]

If I remember correctly, solar power was more dangerous than nuclear (because of solar panel installers falling off roofs).

Because they weren't wearing proper safety gear. It's probably one of the most moronic arguments against solar power ever seen. Solar is bad because of, ummm, dumb people not putting on a roofers harness, so nuclear, duuuuh.

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[MrKaos]

Unless you were being facetious, you're wrong. Nuclear is actually the safest of major energy sources.

The first flaw in the argument you present is that it assumes that the Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters are under control when they are not. Flippantly the article discards the destruction of the residents community as "induced stress from the evacuation process" whilst ignoring the other vectors of transgenic disease and pregnancies that fail to come to term.

The second flaw in the article is there is no metric to quantify the damage to the human genome caused by nuclear power as the mechanisms that cause damage takes a long time for people to study and understand. The nuclear industry relies on this complexity to propagate idealistic thinking about nuclear power.

The third major flaw is that time is required to collect data and see the outcome of these nuclear disasters. I have not seen a reliable source of data on the propagation of radio isotopes in the environment and the IAEA's role is to promote nuclear power so its data cannot be trusted. You can look into their charter if you want a citation.

The fourth major flaw is the IAEA has interdiction orders over WHO publications so the WHO's findings on all things nuclear has to be viewed through the same lens you would observe any PR effort. This is an interstitial agreement between the two organizations named WHA12-40 was signed in 1959.

Folks with an idealistic view of Nuclear power are prepared to forgive or paint over the transgressions of the nuclear industry while most of the rest of the population takes a more pragmatic view and simply remembers how many times the nuclear industries claims have been proven false.

Solar, Wind and Geothermal are technologies that continue to evolve at a much faster pace and a much faster ROI than is possible with nuclear and when they fail they don't make thousands of square Kms uninhabitable which is why many communities see this as a better option.

All the best and I hope this brings some clarity to this extremely polarized debate.

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[Anonymous Coward]

So apparently wind, solar, and hydro aren't "major energy sources." The comparisons in your link only include fuel-driven energy sources.

They even go so far as to say this is because other energy sources aren't significant, when the data they link to for energy use says hydro produces more power than nuclear.

Finally, a little digging into their sources makes me suspicious that the nuclear death rates are under-reported compared to the other rates -- they include accidents in the other fuel-driven data, but imply only cancer due to radiation exposure in the nuclear rates.

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[LynnwoodRooster]

So apparently wind, solar, and hydro aren't "major energy sources."

They aren't. They generate very small amounts of power, and require those evil fossil fuel base-load power plants to even be considered.

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[drinkypoo]

They aren't. They generate very small amounts of power,

Growing faster than any other kind of power.

and require those evil fossil fuel base-load power plants to even be considered.

False, and also, storage systems can do the job as well and are getting cheaper all the time.

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[CaffeinatedBacon]

This says Hydro provides 16% of world electricity.
For example China produces more hydroelectricity than just about every country produces total electricity (India and the US being the 2 exceptions).

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[LynnwoodRooster]

Growing faster than any other kind of power.

And still miniscule.

False, and also, storage systems can do the job as well and are getting cheaper all the time.

So what major power grid relies solely on renewables, doesn't use nuclear, coal, natgas, or other "bad" fuel sources for base load?

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[dunkelfalke]

Miniscule? In many countries renewables have overtaken nuclear.
Besides, you've got it the wrong way around. The whole "base load" concept only exists because of coal (and late nuclear) power plants. Everything else is load following in the first place. Without coal and nuclear there is simply no need for base load.

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[Barsteward]

they don't ever mention the commission/decommission costs either or that the taxpayer has to foot that bill

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[Barsteward]

One bag of coal is not a major power source either - its needs constant replenishment forever and ever

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[Barsteward]

"And still miniscule." - are you expecting an infrastructure change to happen in a week? get some perspective, it taken decades for fossil power to reach nearly every home and still hasn't managed to get to 100% yet

"So what major power grid relies solely on renewables, doesn't use nuclear, coal, natgas, or other "bad" fuel sources for base load?" - same answer to previous

there are at least 40 cities claiming 100% renewable power which is not bad in such a short time and considering the knock backs renewables get form luddite and ignorant politicians - https://www.fastcompany.com/40...

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[LynnwoodRooster]

Wait - no need for base load? So on still, sunless days - we don't need power?

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[LynnwoodRooster]

Claiming to be 100% renewable and being 100% renewable are vastly different things. Most of these cities are "100% renewable" because they buy or trade indulgences (better known as carbon credits) and continue to use coal or nuclear. And remember, in many places (including California) hydro is NOT considered a renewable.

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[Anonymous Coward]

Claiming renewables provide little power and, renewables providing little power are vastly different things too. Hint one of them is completely made up bullshit.

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you thick? Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it's been done already. These things take time and money.

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[Anonymous Coward]

To replace wind and solar on those days, you need other load following plants, not base load.

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[LynnwoodRooster]

And those plants are?

Re:We're closing a nuclear plant nearby

[Barsteward]

read this then and see if it matches your "idea" https://www.smithsonianmag.com...

Hydro is NOT considered a renewable is some states? ROFL, more fool them

Why Martha's Vineyard

[Shotgun]

I don't know much of anything about that section of the country, but what is the magnetic attraction that Matha's Vineyard has for offshore windfarms? I've heard about the NIMBY effect blocking windfarms there for years, but the east coast of the US is an awfully long stretch of "offshore" for there to be such a kerfuffle about this one place. I'd expect strings of windmills to be used as replacements for buoys emmanating from New York harbor to create traffic lanes at this point (the masts would be useful, and with lights mounted on them, they'd keep traffic better organized).

Can anyone explain what is so special about getting an offshore farm going in Martha's Vineyard?

Re:Why Martha's Vineyard

[HornWumpus]

Thumb in the eye of the limousine liberals living in the vineyard. They SHOULD 'eat their own dogshit'.

The left eats itself...it's a feature.

Re:Why Martha's Vineyard

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the people screaming about AGW are the SAME ONES at Martha's Vineyard doing everything possible to stop wind farms. Specifically Ted Kennedy was one of these people before he died.

People are calling them out and saying if you believe all you are spewing you should be the first ones doing something about it. Its a stunt to show everyone how serious they are about stopping AGW, very serious right up until it inconveniences them in the least.

Re:Why Martha's Vineyard

[Anonymous Coward]

Answer: Martha's Vinyard's attraction for wind power production is the combination of fantastic winds (capacity factors for similar new builds in Europe's offshore are in the 60%+ range, equal to coal generators), shallow waters even far offshore (i.e., easy construction), and its close geographic proximity to both the Boston and NYC demand hubs.

IOW: high wholesale prices, cheap install costs, and high capacity factors (i.e., high output per wind turbine) = profit!

Re:Ignored? HAH!!

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I hate the Champagne Socialists, wind farms are a scam to raise electricity rates. Rhode Island fell for this scam and no I guess MA wants to also bilk their taxpayers some more.

Wind power will never be as cost effective as solar.

Spectacularly missing the point

[sjbe]

I didn't see any mention of per capita in that article.

You seem to have missed the point. Domestic cats kill 4 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more birds than wind turbines. Two orders of magnitude more birds die from flying into STATIC towers than are killed by rotor blades. There is NO evidence that wind turbines present any meaningfully increased risk to birds especially given that there is zero chance of there ever being as many wind turbines as there are cell towers.

Re:Spectacularly missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't see any mention of per capita in that article.

You seem to have missed the point. Domestic cats kill 4 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more birds than wind turbines. Two orders of magnitude more birds die from flying into STATIC towers than are killed by rotor blades. There is NO evidence that wind turbines present any meaningfully increased risk to birds especially given that there is zero chance of there ever being as many wind turbines as there are cell towers.

And alcohol in the US takes six times as many innocent lives as bullets. For every person that dies to a bullet in the US, 10 Europeans and countless fetuses die to alcohol.

Nobody cares.

Nobody cares about life. It's about fear and pleasure.

Re:Spectacularly missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

And alcohol in the US takes six times as many innocent lives as bullets. For every person that dies to a bullet in the US, 10 Europeans and countless fetuses die to alcohol.

[citation needed]

UK and Germany and offshore wind power....

[CrimsonAvenger]

That bit should have been left off the summary, if whomever were really trying to make a case.

The amount of offshore windpower they attribute to the UK and Germany (combined) amounts to 0.0035% of all the electricity produced in those two countries.

In other words, it's a rounding error, not a significant factor....

Re:UK and Germany and offshore wind power....

[Anonymous Coward]

Your maths is well off. The article says 12 GW in UK and Germany. The average power use in those countries combined is around 100 GW. Even accounting for capacity factor of the wind, that's more like 5%.

Re:UK and Germany and offshore wind power....

[CanHasDIY]

OP said "of all electricity produced" by those two countries, not what they actually used. Fun fact, some countries produce more energy than they use so they can sell it to other countries.

His math may be off (haven't checked), but yours is on another planet alltogether.

Re:UK and Germany and offshore wind power....

[Whibla]

I read your calculated figure and thought "that can't be right".

However, my feeling means nothing, so let's take a look at the 'actual' numbers (Well, I'm going to have to make some simplifying assumptions, because the most recent (2018) data didn't seem to be available):

This page lists the mix of energy generation in the UK, by quarter. I'll use the last entry, Q4 for 2017:

Total (unitless) generated: 90.2.
Total (unitless) renewables generated: 18.33.

Using the spreadsheet linked to on this page shows us that, of the solar, onshore and offshore wind, power generated (in 2016, thae last year for which data is available) roughly 44% came from offshore wind. So

Total (unitless) offshore wind power generated: 8.07

Thus percentage of power actually generated (i.e. not installed capacity) from offshore wind is, roughly, 8.9% of the total power generated in the UK.

Hmm. Maybe, well, almost certainly, Germany's mix of generating capacity is different to that of the UK, but to the degree your figure suggests? Nah, bollocks!

I think you're going to need to provide your sources and calculations for that 0.0035% figure, lest we think you've, charitably, made a mistake, or, rather less charitably, are completely full of shit.

Re:UK and Germany and offshore wind power....

[HornWumpus]

Wind, in total, is 37% of 'British' renewable energy (in 2009). The rest is Hydro, biomass and biogas. British solar?..They have sun in England? When?

About 3.

Easy statistical lies to fuck with these numbers, (include/don't include) Scotland. England is flat, English drunks in squirrel wheels have much more generation potential than English hydro. The generation potential of Scottish drunks is virtually unlimited.

Re:UK and Germany and offshore wind power....

[Darinbob]

There's also a need for more power independence in parts of Europe, to reduce reliance on Russia.

Re:UK and Germany and offshore wind power....

[Whibla]

Like the post I replied to, you've stated a number but provided no reference. although, unlike that post, your figure looks to be in the right ballpark at least.

However, I'm not sure of your point.

Using the data table I linked to in my original response it's easy to see that while generation from hydro remained pretty much unchanged (5.2 -> 5.76), biogas roughly tripled from 2009 to 2017 (9.57 -> 27.21) and the power generated from wind and solar over the same period increased greater than sixfold (9.31 -> 60.15).

In addition, for all your misdirection and 'hand-waving' about statistical lies, these figures are for the UK as a whole (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales).

Seriously, what was your point? Something about drunks, perhaps?

Re:UK and Germany and offshore wind power....

[Barsteward]

http://gridwatch.co.uk/ - maybe you should check this site now and again - renewables 19.31%

Re:UK and Germany and offshore wind power....

[HornWumpus]

As many cites as you provided...

My point is you are overstating wind by 2.5x.

Re:UK and Germany and offshore wind power....

[Whibla]

My point is you are overstating wind by 2.5x.

An interesting assertion.

Would you care to back that up with some logic demonstrating where I've gone wrong in my calculations?

Or perhaps provide a link of your own, backing your point of view? Of course I'd prefer a cite that's more authoritative than that of the government regulator responsible for overseeing electrical generation within the UK, but I'm not entirely sure who that would be... Perhaps you could provide an answer to that too?

Re:UK and Germany and offshore wind power....

[Uecker]

Offshore wind generated 2.7% of the power in Germany in 2017, but offshore wind is just starting now. All renewables were at 33.3%. Source: https://www.ag-energiebilanzen...

Re:UK and Germany and offshore wind power....

[Uecker]

offshore wind produce 2.7% of all electricity in Germany in 2017. Source: https://www.ag-energiebilanzen...

Re:UK and Germany and offshore wind power....

[Whibla]

Thank you.

Re:Ignored? HAH!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that the fat, drunken, misogynistic, murdering pig is dead, I expect MA will be able to take advantage of many new things he opposed.

Re:Ignored? HAH!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can only see roughly 7 nautical miles of ocean at sea level due to the curvature of the Earth. Hence why it is 15 miles out. Makes any resistance all the more infantile.

Gawd, more utter stupidity.

The taller something is, the farther away you can see it. Something 100 feet high can be seen from 15 miles away - if your eyes are at sea level.

If your eyes are above sea level, you'll see that 100-foot tower from farther away. If you're also 100 feet above sea level, you'll see that tower from about 30 miles away.

Ted Kennedy was a lot of things

[rsilvergun]

"socialist" wasn't one of them. He was yet another "Corporate" Democrat that came out of the Clinton era. He voted right wing on anything economic and, well, didn't vote on much else.

Re:Ted Kennedy was a lot of things

[HornWumpus]

All your link proves is he preferred drinking to voting...Can't blame him for that.

Of the ones he bothered showing up for (on the first page), all but 2 are handouts. One of those was a pure partisan power grab (DC 'voting'). The other was removing immunity from telcos for aiding the NSA, which was pure 'ass cover'.

Sure they aren't overtly 'marxist', but 'socialist' has a broader definition.

Re: Ted Kennedy was a lot of things

[Anonymous Coward]

Ted Karl Marx Kennedy, like his mentor, Barrack Hussein Obama, was a Socialist Communist Papist Muslim KKK Dixiecrat Know-Nothing Atheist Liberal Monarchist Weeblo who liked Jeff Gordon before he sorta got cool and sold America out to the Reverse Vampire of the Rand Corporation and the Warlords of Han.

I swear, it is like you never read a history book.

Re:Ted Kennedy was a lot of things

[Green Mountain Bot]

One of those was a pure partisan power grab (DC 'voting').

Giving US citizens, who are taxed just like the rest of us, representation in congress is a partisan power grab? Get out of here with that crap. It's ridiculous that they haven't had representation since day one.

Re:Ted Kennedy was a lot of things

[HornWumpus]

Complete historical ignorance.

The solution, to the extent one is needed, is to cede pure residential land back from DC to Maryland (IIRC, whichever state DC was carved out of in the first place). But leave the federal government living in it's zone. This solution is also better as it just kills the corrupt abomination known as DC city government, puts DC schools and local services into competent hands.

It's a partisan power grab.

Re:Ted Kennedy was a lot of things

[Anonymous Coward]

1962 was "the Clinton era"? That's an interesting way of breaking up history.

Re:Ted Kennedy was a lot of things

[Anonymous Coward]

Complete historical ignorance.

The solution, to the extent one is needed, is to cede pure residential land back from DC to Maryland (IIRC, whichever state DC was carved out of in the first place). But leave the federal government living in it's zone. This solution is also better as it just kills the corrupt abomination known as DC city government, puts DC schools and local services into competent hands.

It's a partisan power grab.

Maybe. Maybe not.

If the new-to-MD system would be more like Montgomery County, you're probably right. If it's Prince George's County, it'd just be a clone of the current DC.

(local resident here)

Re:Ted Kennedy was a lot of things

[Darinbob]

You seem to have forgotten, "socialist" doesn't mean what it used to mean. These days "socialist" means anyone who isn't a conservative, just like "fascist" means anyone who isn't a liberal.

Re:Ted Kennedy was a lot of things

[sabbede]

Came out of the Clinton era? He elected to the Senate when Bill was still in High School. The Clinton Era represents 20% of his time in power.

Wah, liberals are sending Trump to die in prison!

[Anonymous Coward]

This retarded Wombwuss faggot can't cry hard enough to keep Trump out of Federal Prison, lol. #MUELLER WILL FIX YOU

Re:Ignored? HAH!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Wind power will never be as cost effective as solar."

You forgot to end the sentence with "in space." Here on Earth, wind power has always been cheaper than solar PV and remains so today, although solar PV is catching up. But that said, wind and solar are complementary power sources in most locales as wind tends to peak at night.

Re:Ignored? HAH!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Horsefeathers; If wind power is so bloody cost effective then why do these farms have to be subsidized by the state and why do the poor saps in Rhode Island have to pay a monthly surcharge for the next 20 (yup) years.

Solar is dirt cheap, cheap enough for everyone's roof, but I don't see everyone putting in windmills. Also windmills are unreliable; the break all the time and are insanely expensive to repair. There was a gigantic dead one in Portsmouth RI for years and years, a monument to futility of wind power. It cost millions to repair.... and the offshore one will be even more expensive.

Just watch; the scum that run RI will be adding another surcharge for repairs for some "unexpected" winter storm...offshore wind is a scam

Re:Wah, liberals are sending Trump to die in priso

[CanHasDIY]

LOL, you think criminal politicians actually prosecute each other.

That's quaint.

Re:Ignored? HAH!!

[arth1]

Solar is dirt cheap, cheap enough for everyone's roof,

For values of "everyone" that excludes those who don't have a south facing roof, those who have trees, mountains or buildings around them, or those who live far enough from the equator that sunlight is weaker due to the atmosphere, and scarce in the winter half of the year.

offshore wind is a scam

Eppur si soffiare.
Denmark currently produces around 42% of all the country's electricity through wind, most of it offshore. By 2020, this is expected to pass 50%.

Re:Ignored? HAH!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Energy subsidies exist for all sources of energy with the largest pork for petroleum, natgas, and nuclear. IMO, all energy subsidies should be scrapped as they distort the market. However, what you're seeking is a clean comparison of costs and one exists: Levelized Cost of Energy (LCoE). An excellent short primer with cost comparisons is here: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/08/f25/LCOE.pdf

As far as reliability, modern wind turbines are both reliable and massively advantageous for the grid from this perspective. When a coal/gas/nuke gennie goes offline, which they do regularly, 500-2000 MW of power immediately drops from the grid. When a wind turbine breaks, only a trivial 1-6 MW drops offline.

And wind, far from public perception, is very predictable in the day-ahead market. Both ERCOT (Texas) and Australia have lovely live graphs that show day ahead predictions and actual output of wind power. These aren't web toys for greenies but for the grid operators, suppliers, and distribution companies that bid into those markets.

Dear "help me mommy" SoyBoy, lol... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & my ps (classic, lol): There's REALITY https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... that works vs. SOYboy addled by estogen mimickers in SOYMilk (lol, that you're addicted to) "Phantasy" - lol!

I see your estrogen is LOW - lol, don't worry: Make SURE you put your soymilk in bisphenol A plastic containers (You'll get a "good dose" then - you need it (Cravings to be a woman, you sure act like one you do-nothing "ne'er-do-well", lol)).

Eventually, you'll get SO bad you'll inject it like Bruce Willis in LOOPER (you are 'loopy' lol) from Year 6 -> Year 23 (LMAO).

* RoTfLmAo... you want to get rid of me/kill me? For once you're doing a GOOD job making me laugh myself to death!

Ah, it's good to see I've BLOWN you away w/ truth & fact & YOU ARE OUT OF DOWNMODPOINTS evidently (your kind? Can't EVER win vs. guys like me - accept it - your destiny in this LIFE was to be the LOSER almost WOMAN you are, lol).

APK

P.S.=> Hahahahaha "HELP ME MOMMY" lmao (apk's outsmarted us AGAIN & ran us DRY of our ABUSED "downmodpoints" lol) https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... ... apk

Re: Dear "help me mommy" SoyBoy, lol... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

So says the mighty keyboard warrior from mom's basement. Feel free to make some kind of ignorant threat at someone you don't know. I have zero respect for morons and bullies.

-Geekpoet

Re:Wah, liberals are sending Trump to die in priso

[HornWumpus]

Trump is the odd guy out. The DNC and RNC have enough to send each other to prison, at any time. They are just trying to add Trump to the MAD circle.

Nothing will come of it. Because the libs wet dream is: 'As much dirt on Trump as on Clinton.' Even if they get that, they are just back to where politics started.

We'll see if it falls through.

[Chas]

Once the NIMBYs stick their oars in.

on top of skyscrapers

[Anonymous Coward]

They SHOULD put windmills on top of the tallest buildings in NYC and Boston.
Get to the higher winds, and customers right there.
No need for miles of cables EMP the sea life.

Re:on top of skyscrapers

[sabbede]

Why not on the sides? Smaller blades, shrouded by cowlings, could be mounted vertically or horizontally, not sure which would work better. New buildings could devote a floor or two to banks of turbines with big metal screens instead of solid glass.

Big standing turbines like they use in wind farms wouldn't really work in cities for safety reasons and helicopters, but you could a bunch of smaller ones in long tubes and mount those on the sides of the roof.

Re:Wah, liberals are sending Trump to die in priso

[CanHasDIY]

Exactly; "If we prosecute them, they might turn around and prosecute us!"

About time

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess now that that drunk killer Ted Kennedy is not blocking it any more - it is ok! Progress

Cool! Instead of endless horizons and brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

sunrises, your people get hulking towers of windmills looming on their once picturesque horizon. Cool. Enjoy it!!

Never said I liked Ted Kennedy

[rsilvergun]

just that he's not a socialist. I'm a socialist myself, and I'm tired of people taking some random jerk ass Democrat and pinning the name 'socialist' on him just because they don't like them. As Bernie said, words have meaning. Socialist isn't just a slur. And if you ask folks in the rest of the developed world what they think about socialism you'll find they're pretty damn OK with it.

Re:Never said I liked Ted Kennedy

[HornWumpus]

Which flavor of socialist? Many hate each other. What makes you the judge? A Maoist would say: 'you aren't'.

All socialists are _not_ Marxists.

Better idea: Ask folks that lived under socialism what they think about socialism. Yeah, yeah, 'no true scotsman'. Sell it somewhere else. Marxism is broken, the police state is inevitable, built right in.

Re:Never said I liked Ted Kennedy

[arth1]

Better idea: Ask folks that lived under socialism what they think about socialism.

I've lived under socialism, and I really liked it. Free healthcare, free education, no one living on the streets. Quite substantial taxes, but you felt people got something back for the taxes, and especially those who needed it the most.
Of course, as you say, there are many flavours of socialism. This was a social democracy with the socialist worker's party having a clear majority for several decades.

Re:Never said I liked Ted Kennedy

[AmiMoJo]

Ask the guy dying of easily curable diseases in the gutter what he thinks of capitalism.

Or maybe just accept that extremes of anything tend to be bad. Right now the best counties to live in are all socialist.

Re:Never said I liked Ted Kennedy

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's dying of these "easily curable diseases" in the street in the US? Maybe completely insane hobos who think medicine is the devil. Otherwise you can go to volunteer clinics in any city and many larger towns of the US. They'll run simple tests, hook you up with basic treatments, and give you vaccinations. It won't be the best care, but it's either low cost or free and it'll keep your from dying of a mundane infection.

The illnesses that are expensive to treat in the US are ones that aren't curable, or take a very long time to cure, and it's because you'll be undergoing experimental or brand new (and thus expensive, someone's gotta pay the engineering costs) treatments that require special attention by multiple doctors and nurses.

The US has a lot of problems, but dying of gangrene or streptococcus isn't one of them.

Re:Never said I liked Ted Kennedy

[HornWumpus]

I can't help but notice you don't claim to live there NOW...you must not like it as much as you say.

Re:Never said I liked Ted Kennedy

[HornWumpus]

Vote with your feet! Most foot owner-operators disagree with you.

Re:Never said I liked Ted Kennedy

[arth1]

I can't help but notice you don't claim to live there NOW...you must not like it as much as you say.

I got married to a monolingual person (i.e. American).

Re:Never said I liked Ted Kennedy

[ebvwfbw]

just that he's not a socialist. I'm a socialist myself, and I'm tired of people taking some random jerk ass Democrat and pinning the name 'socialist' on him just because they don't like them. As Bernie said, words have meaning. Socialist isn't just a slur. And if you ask folks in the rest of the developed world what they think about socialism you'll find they're pretty damn OK with it.

You're kidding. Ted was a socialist. I've met him a number of times in the 1980s when I was working for the University, he'd tell you he was a socialist. So was Roosevelt, so was Wilson. They're ok with socialism because they don't tell them the truth about it. They don't tell them out it's really just another form of slavery. Want to get ahead? You can't. Other people have needs and fuck you. Equal misery for everyone. Unless you are corrupt, then you can do really well. The so called equality. Well people aren't equal. Haven't you figured that out yet? I've had people that I can't teach simple algebra to no matter what I try. They will never understand it. Even how to take a simple 10% of a number. What about 15%? Not hard if you have a brain. So why penalize smart people?

I know plenty of people that when they were young bought into the socialist rose colored glasses. Then when they grew up, realized how terrible it is. Watch Animal Farm. You should be able to relate it to the last administration. The lawlessness, Obama doing whatever he wanted down to the enforcers. The FBI and Justice people that with any luck will be brought to justice soon. The wheels of justice is catching up to them.

Re:Never said I liked Ted Kennedy

[HornWumpus]

Dodge the issue...that's fine. You had a choice, you choose to live where life is better.

Three Letters

[Anonymous Coward]

Ess Pee Aitch. You're welcome.

Ahem.

[psmoot]

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, please. The copy editor at the Times ought to know this. Sheesh, the quality of journalism these days.

(Trivia contest time: how many other commonwealths are there and what are their names?)

OK, get back to ranting about NIMBYs, Kennedys (live or dead), wind farm subsidies, fossil fuel cronys, and how the Illuminati are poisoning the oceans.

On-shore first

[Bruce Perens]

Off-shore wind farms are a good thing to do once you've depleted the potential for on-shore ones. Most of the United States isn't built-out with on-shore wind power yet. Lots of on-shore wind generation here in California. I drove across Ohio the other day and saw very few of them, miles of open farm fields with nothing to stop the wind, and not a single turbine, though there seemed to be no absence of wind. More going in California every day. And solar is going to be required on new homes in California (except where it obviously won't work).

Re:On-shore first

[AutodidactLabrat]

Not the solution, but a good first step.
Molten silicon cycle storage, microgrids and broadcast truck recharging will boost the value of off-peak solar and interruptable power, ultimately cutting fossil fuel (including fission) by up to 50% (said the pre-Trump EPA).

Re:Ignored? HAH!!

[elrous0]

Rich cunts get progressively more inbred with each generation. And the Kennedys have been rich for a lot of generations.

lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

queue rich people lawsuits to stop the project. Just like Cape Cod.

Re:lawsuits

[ebvwfbw]

They did that in the past. NIMBY.

Re:Ignored? HAH!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"largest pork for petroleum, natgas, and nuclear. IMO, all energy subsidies should be scrapped as they distort the market."
US government subsidies in the energy markets are not necessarily bad. The subsidies help keep US energy prices lower than any other country competing in the global economy. And both the individual consumers and business consumers benefit.
Solar, Wind, Bio, and Hydro alternative energy sources are just beginning to gain enough traction and the use of fossil fuels will continue to decline.

Re:Ignored? HAH!!

[Barsteward]

but don't forget those subsidies are coming out of your pocket. they are definitely useful to get new tech off the ground and running. subsidies for old fossil should have died years ago.

Re:Ignored? HAH!!

[sabbede]

Ted is dead, thus not fighting the plan.