There is not an energy source in the universe that is sustainable as far as we know.
This whole conversation took a classic Slashdot turn.
Where we worry about exactitude in terms, then seem to declare that the technolgy isn't possible.
So let those fuckers in Iceland freeze to death, because geothermal everyone knows, will not last forever. Please don't get upset Icelanders, I'm being sarcastic AF.
And seriously folks - anyone have the date when the Mid- Atlantic ridge is going to stop? Iceland sits right on top of the MAR, so I want to hear when they are going to run out of geothermal. Although there is a strong possibility that the Pacific will once again enlarge, and the Atlantic will shrink, on the time scales that is predicted, I doubt there will be any humans around to witness it.
As you note, the technology follows the necessity, and the niche market for geothermal in Iceland allows them to live an almost surreal yet interesting and kinda cool life.
But on a human time scale, from when homo has been around, to our likely extinction, it will fit a non-pedantic definition of renewable.
Only if you ignore facts, which we glean from history.
My point is that there is not any renewable energy source in the universe, unless the second law of thermodynamics is null and void. Our home star will eventually not provide any significant energy, the whole earth's core will eventually cool. If OP is going to get pedantic, I reserve the right to peg that p-meter. In the meantime, perhaps we can just call everything alternative energy sources, rather than a term that is generally accepted, but in the end, is pedantically incorrect for any energy source, because entropy pretty much rules.
I agree, the hypothesis does seem suspect, and I have no problem with someone saying that. I just object to rabid, frothing at the mouth ranting about how it is obviously part of some anti-male plot. The post I replied to called it a study by women about man issues. If the poster had read the actual article, he would have seen that the study was run by a man called Kit Opie.
Depending on the subject matter, and the Trollarenas in here, I heartily suggest taking that little bar right before the comments start, and moving it to hide anything below +2. I don't always do it, but when the assholes are out in full force, I will.
Because Pepe' Trollarena had a successful posting when it pissed you off. Don't feed Pepe'.
Regardless, there is something about the logic of the story that seems odd. I think most of us married/coupled men in here have some idea of what our sex life would be if all we engaged in were quickies, at least half of us have sex with wimminfolk other than our monogamous partners, and a normal human male can engage in sex a lot longer than a whole lot of animals who do have bones in their boners.
Tapping geothermal energy is a great idea, but it's not precisely renewable.
You are correct. There are no precisely renewable energy sources. The wind? Nope, Solar? Nope, pretty clear that stars have a finite lifetime, and are not precisely renewable. But on a human time scale, from when homo has been around, to our likely extinction, it will fit a non-pedantic definition of renewable.
Have they done anything to address the issue of the earthquakes this can produce? Earthquakes (especially large numbers of microearthquakes) are why geothermal energy is off the table because it damages all of your buildings and infrastructure. To make things worse, the effects of lots of earthquakes on wildlife isn't well understood.
It's Iceland, They have volcanoes and lava and new islands forming, and earthquakes all the time anyway. You could shoot every evil hoomin, appoint some pond algae prime minister, and they'd still have all of the above.
Perhaps a lawsuit against the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is in order.
Precisely. Engineering has been handling stuff that puny meat-sacks find terrifying since forever. Have you any idea how unutterably mindbogglingly insane the inside of the jet engine that takes you on holiday is? School perhaps should be teaching the science of exotic man-made technology rather than avoiding goto loops
I've found that the level of ignorance of engineering technology is completely astounding. Even the basic premise of this story is silly. Who knew that we have worked with supercritical steam for years, and it's not a BFD?
The benefits are many, and use of supercritical steam has it all over saturated steam. While everyone is aghast over the temperatures, I'm pretty certain that all of the equipment will actually last longer in addidion to generating more power. Only in modern America is technology so evil that a story of an obvious engineering step is somehow going to doom the earth.
But I guess that's what happens when we get our science education from Kim Kardashian and Politicians.
And yet we have been doing it with other kinds of transmission cables for 150 years. What problems do you envision that would be different with an electrical transmission cable than with a copper telecommunications cable?
Yes we have. Here is the main issue. How much is it going to cost you to fix it.
In fact, it looks to me like whatever problems you are imagining have already been solved
So underwater cables are 100 percent failure free? That's a solved problem. We don't even have aboveground transmission lines solved yet.
You are trying to turn this in to an argument that stupid Ol Olsoc hates underwater power cables. Stupid Ol Olsoc don't hate underwater power cables. Then again, stupid ol Olsoc has a pretty fair inkling that sending a diving team down to repair an underwater cable will likely not cost the same as fixing an above ground transmission line. Whattya think? And apparently th cost of laying th ecables is the same or cheaper than an aboveground line as well?
It's obvious that in this case, submarine cables are the only way to go. It's an island, so there's a fair size crossing to make.
Of course, I'll entertain any argument that installing, locating and repair of an underwater line break is cheaper than fixing an above ground break if you like.
Want to stop someone's car for nefarious reasons? Set up one of these units to spoof a stopped car "right in front of you" to your target car. Ouch.
That reminded me. Those who won't accept any problem with autonomous cars like to tout how we will live in a world of 100 mph bumper to bumper traffic, secure in the knoledge that it is perfectly safe.
As long as none of those cars have a maintenance issue, and always accelerate and brake at the same rate.
Which by the way, will require active radar front and rear, as a GPS is too slow for the split second control needed. . Hopefully our autonomous cars will have faraday cage features, as we're gonna be in an RFI nightmare. And people, don't forget about RF intermod.
I don't think that total autonomy is impossible, but the zealots are way too oversimplifying the issue. This could end up being the flying car concept all over again.
If I were to prognosticate what will actually happen, I think and hope we're going to end up with several driving assist features - of which some are happening now. Lane assist, and anti tailgating radar. Braking assist, and hopefully some anti animal crunching tech. The implementation of large scale everyone is communicating to everyone else automobile nirvana is a whole lot less likely.
The wind on the ocean also almost never stops. In fact in the area these turbines are installed the wind literally never stops and it's high enough speed that it's rated as one of the best locations on the planet.
It tends to change direction in morning and evening, but that's no big deal. For this island, offshore wind power is a no brainer solution.
These Turbines will likely be generating power 90+% of the time greatly reducing the power than needs to be pulled from diesel generators on the island. Diesel generated power is awful cost wise, it's easily the most expensive power generation in the country.
And that is why it is a no brainer. Diesel is indeed one of the worst methods of generating power.
I'm all about wind power. The places where it is built tend to have pretty steady winds. What annoys me about this whole subthread is that people keep trying to frame this as the ever smarter Europeans build their superior offshore facilities, fwhile us 'Murricans, when we can pull our face out of the boston cream pie flavored lard dessert, waddle our fat asses to our pathetic land based converted desk fan generators which produce 5 milliamps of power at 2 volts, and strut around like we just bombed Hiroshima again.
Whereas our wind farms actually work very well, thanks for the concern everyone.
All of these cities could easily be supplied by off shore wind power. We're idiots for not taking advantage of this power source.
Why? Is ocean based wind power somehow superior? Or just the concept of whatever America does is categorically wrong and stupid?
I can personally go up to visit a Wind turbine site along the Allegheny front. People doing maintenance on these turbines drive a truck to the site, unlock the gate and do their work. What you are saying is that it is idiotic to use a ready location, easy to get to instead of a place that is feasible, yet much more difficult and expensive to access. It isn't that ocean based sites are bad, it's that they are a compromise that you need make only if it makes good sense to build them offshore.
While I imagine cables for transmitting power are obviously going to be considerably different than telecommunications cables, the fact is that we've been laying cables on the ocean floor for 150 years, so I hardly think it's that much of a technical challenge. Obviously there will be some loss due to distance, but overland transmission cables can easily transmit at similar distances with fairly manageable loss
Manageable of course. But if there is a problem, there is a big difference between working on land and working hundreds to thousands of feet deep.
I can probably see a hundred or so from my house in the UK. Is Amercia really so far behind with renewables?
Nope. America is ahead of Britain in both total capacity and per capita wind power generation. Texas alone has more installed wind capacity than all of the UK. However, China has us both beat in total capacity, and Denmark has us both beat in per capita generation.
Frankly we are being foolish to not take full advantage of offshore wind.
As opposed to being foolish for using land based wind?
The problem of course, is that while the US has a good bit of coastline, we have a lot of real estate that is a long way from the ocean. So we've put in wind power in areas that will be served by it. As well, in comparison to small European countries where there is not much available real estate and much or all of the country can be served by offshore wind, we have space. And working on the things is a lot easier when they are on land. Offshore is good in places that don't have many other options.
The east coast does not have reliable wind patterns for efficient wind generation.
That's evidently not true at least as a general proposition since they are installing wind farms on the east coast including the one discussed here near Rhode Island. I'm sure it's focally true for some areas but clearly not for the entire eastern seaboard.
I have no idea where they got that proclamation. The wind is pretty predictable in most of these areas.
Which brings up another issue. The east coast of the US is prone to some serious weather excursions in the form of hurricanes. A lot of them. Even in Rhode Island. So an offshore wind facility has to be designed with that in mind. That has to be a shitload of windload. Our local mountaintops almost never have winds higher than 50 mph
The geography of the US is not nearly as "welcoming" to off shore wind farms. The west coast is pretty much useless with an extremely short continental shelf. The east coast does not have reliable wind patterns for efficient wind generation.
We have a high amount of on shore wind farms, though. Far beyond what most of Europe has installed.
We have the available land, which Europe doesn't have.
The biggest thing that offshore wind power has is the wind source. But for getting that power anywhere, it is way inferior. Sinking cables to the bottom of an ocean to carry the power is a logistical issue. Repairing them is a bigger one. Somewhere in here some nunclehead was asking why the US was so far behind in offshore wind. The answer is that in most cases, we can get our wind power from much better locations.
The US is very, very far behind on off-shore wind and the first installations are always expensive. Given 5-10 years they should be able to get to where Europe is and get the price down too, although of course Europe will have moved on in that time as well.
There are a couple reasons that this is news, and a ready explanation for the paucity of US offshore generation.
First up, that this small installation offshore even exists is half a miracle. This was heavily opposed by the Koch brothers, who though various shadow organizations, fought it tooth and claw. So anything at all built in that location is notable. Chalk it up to a win for alternative energy.
Now the other thing. A big reason that the US doesn't have much of anything in the way of Offshore power generation is that we have real estate to put the things on that suits the purpose pretty well. The Allegheny front near here is primo wind power generation neighborhood. There are many reasons, between proximity to other generation facilities, and a reliable wind source. So we have a lot of wind turbines here, and more popping up all the time.
Given the geology of the US, offshore wind power will probably always be a niche power source. If you have an island a few dozen miles out in the ocean, a offshore farm makes excellent sense. If you have a nice windy mountain range a few miles away, why would you want to get wind power from the ocean a hundred plus miles away?
Sweet Jeebuz, Eeyore, you must be a blast at parties.
With your attitude, I suspect your retirement will be just the sort of hell you think it will be.
And the money issues will be the least of your problems.
When I first entered the workforce, back in the 70's I was told - "No use saving for retirement, inflation is going to eat up anything you save, and Social Security is going to be bankrupt in a few years." You'll never be able to retire!"
But I was stupid. I didn't listen to the smart people. I saved money, and over time, it accrued. I invested well - which means not buying what the smart people bought. I had more than one TDA/TSA account.
I kept my cars a few years longer, and didn't buy a new wardrobe for every season. But I drove nice cars, and I dressed well. I didn't refi my house and buy an Escalade with the "free money" like the smart people did, or take yearly trips to Disney World with that money. But I've been to Disney World. I didn't eat out 7 days a week, but I ate well.
My favorite smart person story was about the guy who would come down and brag about his retirement plan. He was invested 100 percent in tech stocks in a system that allowed you to choose the investment options. He was a multi millionaire - for about 6 months. He was smart. Then the dotcom bust happened. And he rode his entire investment down to nothing.
Now my slower tactic was a gamble. I could have contracted some horrible disease and died without realizing any of my though out plans. Then again, I could have done the same if I didn't.
But the interesting thing is, in the end, the naysayers who thought I was an idiot for saving money were right. They personally cannot retire. They have a McMansion that they refied several times, and still owe a lot on it. They didn't even start seriously thinking about retirement until their mid-50's, then when the truth of their foolishness hit them they invested in risky vehicles, which is the complete opposite of how it should be done. But now they are in their 60's, still owing a shitload of money on their houses, and through foolish investments, are looking at the impossibility of surviving on a social security payment that is half of what their mortgage payment is. And many plan on essentially working forever. A plan just as foolish as any other they made.
One of the issues that this has all driven home to me is that even with smart people - and I worked with very smart people - many of them aren't very good at handling money and investments. Yet until we adopt a system that kills people at a certain age if they can't support themselves, it's probably best to have an outfit looking out for them.
But dude all of that isn't your issue. You seem to be doing the right stuff, and should be able to retire okay.
But none of this seems to make you the least bit happy, and you've developed a serious Eeyore outlook, and that is pretty concerning.
Pretty much. The only way for cars to work autonomously is for them to know about other cars, so when you've got people advocating driverless cars and user being against this, you know they're retards
I'm always a little frustrated that people don't see just how much infrastructure will go into this. It isn't space shuttle type intricate, but in the same league. We can do this, but for crying out loud, it's just plain weird that people in here act like they are the world's biggest privacy people, while using several inherently and by nature insecure systems every day.
People who are worried about this Autonomous car "tracking" need to pull the license plate off of their cars, and destroy all of the VIN numbers. You can be tracked by that as well. Oh, maybe they should use drag racing slicks as well. People can be tracked by tire prints.
Yes, you are correct. However, when critiquing someone else, it is always a good thing to check our own. Right?
It just points out that we are all human and we all can make mistakes.
Cthulu on a skateboard!
So what you are saying is that my spelling error completely made my post incorrect, but my pointing out that the guy wrote a paragraph of what should hve been several paragraphs was improper and incorrect as well? Which made my post not only incorrect, but made your post pointing out that my post was incorrect, made yours proper and correct?
You can't have if both ways, and when calling other people Nazis, perhaps you are simply seeing a reflection of your own face in a mirror.
Now let old Uncle Ol give ya a little schooling. Because although I think your heart is in the right place, but your ideas of spelling and grammer Nazis are a-makin ya look like a severe dumfuk.
You called me a Nazi after I offered some constructive criticism. Yeah, I wasn't calling the guy stupid or names, just that maybe more people would read what he had to write is he formatted it differently.
Kinda as if I though maybe he had something to say, and I was being helpful, so more people would read it. I certainly wasn't the only person who had issues. Indeed, most of us use new lines especially for numbered lists.
Next up, you come in like Underdog saving Pretty Polly from Simon Bar Sinister, calling me a Nazi, and ridiculing my mispelling of "Bother', substituting the B with a V. And using that typo as some sort of accusation of not only being a nazi, but of engaging in hypocricy as well.
There is a subtle difference there, between constructive criticism and you conforming to the very definition of a person who tries to negate someone's argument by drawing attention to what they typed.
Just some constructive criticism for you, with a bit more forcefulness, since you seem to be hung up a little on dis mattah, and not takin' telling like a big boy should.
So now we have punctuation nazis that have sprouted from all the grammer nazis?
BTW: "vother" != "bother":P
Don't be a dumbass. My comments are that possibly the guy had something interesting to say, so putting his thoughts down as something that is easily readable and digestible is a great way to get your point across.
Spelling errors? I don't really care about those.
But when I look at something, and have to consider if it was worth reading or not, It doesn't get read as often
I thought it might have been good advice, as I do doubt that many of us type out posts that we don't want to bet read. Especially in a list form.
An example is what I posted done in the same manner as what he did:
Don't be a dumbass. My comments are that possibly the guy had something interesting to say, so putting his thoughts down as something that is easily readable and digestible is a great way to get your point across. Spelling errors? I don't really care about those. But when I look at something, and have to consider if it was worth reading or not, It doesn't get read as often.I thought it migh have been good advice, as I do doubt that many of us type out posts that we don't want to be read. Especially in a list form.
If I hit the lottery and had enough money where I'd never need to work again, I'd leave work so fast I'd leave skid marks out the door!!
First thing you want to do is contact a lawyer, Then keep your winnings as quiet as possible,and for gawd's sake, don't tell your relatives! Take the money as an annuity if possible.
Then you go to HR and put in a regular two week notice. Then spend the next two weeks trying wipe the grin off your face. Call your boss by some weird made up nickname.
This is a common story, particularly among those who have been poor their entire life. It's all down to a mind set.
I'll probably get hell for this, but for many of the people who win, we find out why they were poor to begin with. Not everyone is proficient with money. Not everyone makes good life and financial decisions. And worst of all, they are into gambling, which is one of the most efficient ways to go broke. So you have some poor schmedlock who is into gambling that wins more than they ever dreamed of having - yup - that's a person who is a prime candidate for an impressive burn rate.
If I won the lottery, the first thing I would do is consult a financial lawyer, and the second thing is demand no publicity.
Slashdot Mirror
Years? Try almost a century of working with supercritical steam.
Who knew that many years were in a century?
Technology tends to follow necessity. Currently, you're right. Geothermal isn't entirely sustainable.
There is not an energy source in the universe that is sustainable as far as we know.
This whole conversation took a classic Slashdot turn.
Where we worry about exactitude in terms, then seem to declare that the technolgy isn't possible.
So let those fuckers in Iceland freeze to death, because geothermal everyone knows, will not last forever. Please don't get upset Icelanders, I'm being sarcastic AF.
And seriously folks - anyone have the date when the Mid- Atlantic ridge is going to stop? Iceland sits right on top of the MAR, so I want to hear when they are going to run out of geothermal. Although there is a strong possibility that the Pacific will once again enlarge, and the Atlantic will shrink, on the time scales that is predicted, I doubt there will be any humans around to witness it.
As you note, the technology follows the necessity, and the niche market for geothermal in Iceland allows them to live an almost surreal yet interesting and kinda cool life.
But on a human time scale, from when homo has been around, to our likely extinction, it will fit a non-pedantic definition of renewable.
Only if you ignore facts, which we glean from history.
My point is that there is not any renewable energy source in the universe, unless the second law of thermodynamics is null and void. Our home star will eventually not provide any significant energy, the whole earth's core will eventually cool. If OP is going to get pedantic, I reserve the right to peg that p-meter. In the meantime, perhaps we can just call everything alternative energy sources, rather than a term that is generally accepted, but in the end, is pedantically incorrect for any energy source, because entropy pretty much rules.
I agree, the hypothesis does seem suspect, and I have no problem with someone saying that. I just object to rabid, frothing at the mouth ranting about how it is obviously part of some anti-male plot. The post I replied to called it a study by women about man issues. If the poster had read the actual article, he would have seen that the study was run by a man called Kit Opie.
Depending on the subject matter, and the Trollarenas in here, I heartily suggest taking that little bar right before the comments start, and moving it to hide anything below +2. I don't always do it, but when the assholes are out in full force, I will.
Because Pepe' Trollarena had a successful posting when it pissed you off. Don't feed Pepe'.
Regardless, there is something about the logic of the story that seems odd. I think most of us married/coupled men in here have some idea of what our sex life would be if all we engaged in were quickies, at least half of us have sex with wimminfolk other than our monogamous partners, and a normal human male can engage in sex a lot longer than a whole lot of animals who do have bones in their boners.
Tapping geothermal energy is a great idea, but it's not precisely renewable.
You are correct. There are no precisely renewable energy sources. The wind? Nope, Solar? Nope, pretty clear that stars have a finite lifetime, and are not precisely renewable. But on a human time scale, from when homo has been around, to our likely extinction, it will fit a non-pedantic definition of renewable.
Have they done anything to address the issue of the earthquakes this can produce? Earthquakes (especially large numbers of microearthquakes) are why geothermal energy is off the table because it damages all of your buildings and infrastructure. To make things worse, the effects of lots of earthquakes on wildlife isn't well understood.
It's Iceland, They have volcanoes and lava and new islands forming, and earthquakes all the time anyway. You could shoot every evil hoomin, appoint some pond algae prime minister, and they'd still have all of the above.
Perhaps a lawsuit against the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is in order.
Precisely. Engineering has been handling stuff that puny meat-sacks find terrifying since forever. Have you any idea how unutterably mindbogglingly insane the inside of the jet engine that takes you on holiday is? School perhaps should be teaching the science of exotic man-made technology rather than avoiding goto loops
I've found that the level of ignorance of engineering technology is completely astounding. Even the basic premise of this story is silly. Who knew that we have worked with supercritical steam for years, and it's not a BFD?
The benefits are many, and use of supercritical steam has it all over saturated steam. While everyone is aghast over the temperatures, I'm pretty certain that all of the equipment will actually last longer in addidion to generating more power. Only in modern America is technology so evil that a story of an obvious engineering step is somehow going to doom the earth.
But I guess that's what happens when we get our science education from Kim Kardashian and Politicians.
The Cape Cod one has been opposed by the Kennedy Family, lest we imagine that only conservatives come in against this.
And sometimes Social conservatives and lesbian feminists end up on the same side of an argument.
And yet we have been doing it with other kinds of transmission cables for 150 years. What problems do you envision that would be different with an electrical transmission cable than with a copper telecommunications cable?
Yes we have. Here is the main issue. How much is it going to cost you to fix it.
In fact, it looks to me like whatever problems you are imagining have already been solved
So underwater cables are 100 percent failure free? That's a solved problem. We don't even have aboveground transmission lines solved yet.
You are trying to turn this in to an argument that stupid Ol Olsoc hates underwater power cables. Stupid Ol Olsoc don't hate underwater power cables. Then again, stupid ol Olsoc has a pretty fair inkling that sending a diving team down to repair an underwater cable will likely not cost the same as fixing an above ground transmission line. Whattya think? And apparently th cost of laying th ecables is the same or cheaper than an aboveground line as well?
It's obvious that in this case, submarine cables are the only way to go. It's an island, so there's a fair size crossing to make. Of course, I'll entertain any argument that installing, locating and repair of an underwater line break is cheaper than fixing an above ground break if you like.
Want to stop someone's car for nefarious reasons? Set up one of these units to spoof a stopped car "right in front of you" to your target car. Ouch.
That reminded me. Those who won't accept any problem with autonomous cars like to tout how we will live in a world of 100 mph bumper to bumper traffic, secure in the knoledge that it is perfectly safe.
As long as none of those cars have a maintenance issue, and always accelerate and brake at the same rate.
Which by the way, will require active radar front and rear, as a GPS is too slow for the split second control needed. . Hopefully our autonomous cars will have faraday cage features, as we're gonna be in an RFI nightmare. And people, don't forget about RF intermod.
I don't think that total autonomy is impossible, but the zealots are way too oversimplifying the issue. This could end up being the flying car concept all over again.
If I were to prognosticate what will actually happen, I think and hope we're going to end up with several driving assist features - of which some are happening now. Lane assist, and anti tailgating radar. Braking assist, and hopefully some anti animal crunching tech. The implementation of large scale everyone is communicating to everyone else automobile nirvana is a whole lot less likely.
The wind on the ocean also almost never stops. In fact in the area these turbines are installed the wind literally never stops and it's high enough speed that it's rated as one of the best locations on the planet.
It tends to change direction in morning and evening, but that's no big deal. For this island, offshore wind power is a no brainer solution.
These Turbines will likely be generating power 90+% of the time greatly reducing the power than needs to be pulled from diesel generators on the island. Diesel generated power is awful cost wise, it's easily the most expensive power generation in the country.
And that is why it is a no brainer. Diesel is indeed one of the worst methods of generating power.
I'm all about wind power. The places where it is built tend to have pretty steady winds. What annoys me about this whole subthread is that people keep trying to frame this as the ever smarter Europeans build their superior offshore facilities, fwhile us 'Murricans, when we can pull our face out of the boston cream pie flavored lard dessert, waddle our fat asses to our pathetic land based converted desk fan generators which produce 5 milliamps of power at 2 volts, and strut around like we just bombed Hiroshima again.
Whereas our wind farms actually work very well, thanks for the concern everyone.
All of these cities could easily be supplied by off shore wind power. We're idiots for not taking advantage of this power source.
Why? Is ocean based wind power somehow superior? Or just the concept of whatever America does is categorically wrong and stupid?
I can personally go up to visit a Wind turbine site along the Allegheny front. People doing maintenance on these turbines drive a truck to the site, unlock the gate and do their work. What you are saying is that it is idiotic to use a ready location, easy to get to instead of a place that is feasible, yet much more difficult and expensive to access. It isn't that ocean based sites are bad, it's that they are a compromise that you need make only if it makes good sense to build them offshore.
While I imagine cables for transmitting power are obviously going to be considerably different than telecommunications cables, the fact is that we've been laying cables on the ocean floor for 150 years, so I hardly think it's that much of a technical challenge. Obviously there will be some loss due to distance, but overland transmission cables can easily transmit at similar distances with fairly manageable loss
Manageable of course. But if there is a problem, there is a big difference between working on land and working hundreds to thousands of feet deep.
Nor would I build one on Nantucket Sound, which is exactly what the company Energy Management is trying to do with its Cape Wind project.
Doesn't that put you solidly on the side of the Koch brothers and their shadow organizations?
The US is #1 in the world in wind: http://www.awea.org/MediaCente... We just don't have offshore wind production (not really needed)
And that is the plain and simple truth. We'll probably have wind energy for offshore islands on the east coast, but not much else.
I can probably see a hundred or so from my house in the UK. Is Amercia really so far behind with renewables?
Nope. America is ahead of Britain in both total capacity and per capita wind power generation. Texas alone has more installed wind capacity than all of the UK. However, China has us both beat in total capacity, and Denmark has us both beat in per capita generation.
Damn, are we going to hand out trophies?
Frankly we are being foolish to not take full advantage of offshore wind.
As opposed to being foolish for using land based wind?
The problem of course, is that while the US has a good bit of coastline, we have a lot of real estate that is a long way from the ocean. So we've put in wind power in areas that will be served by it. As well, in comparison to small European countries where there is not much available real estate and much or all of the country can be served by offshore wind, we have space. And working on the things is a lot easier when they are on land. Offshore is good in places that don't have many other options.
The east coast does not have reliable wind patterns for efficient wind generation.
That's evidently not true at least as a general proposition since they are installing wind farms on the east coast including the one discussed here near Rhode Island. I'm sure it's focally true for some areas but clearly not for the entire eastern seaboard.
I have no idea where they got that proclamation. The wind is pretty predictable in most of these areas.
Which brings up another issue. The east coast of the US is prone to some serious weather excursions in the form of hurricanes. A lot of them. Even in Rhode Island. So an offshore wind facility has to be designed with that in mind. That has to be a shitload of windload. Our local mountaintops almost never have winds higher than 50 mph
The geography of the US is not nearly as "welcoming" to off shore wind farms. The west coast is pretty much useless with an extremely short continental shelf. The east coast does not have reliable wind patterns for efficient wind generation. We have a high amount of on shore wind farms, though. Far beyond what most of Europe has installed.
We have the available land, which Europe doesn't have.
The biggest thing that offshore wind power has is the wind source. But for getting that power anywhere, it is way inferior. Sinking cables to the bottom of an ocean to carry the power is a logistical issue. Repairing them is a bigger one. Somewhere in here some nunclehead was asking why the US was so far behind in offshore wind. The answer is that in most cases, we can get our wind power from much better locations.
The US is very, very far behind on off-shore wind and the first installations are always expensive. Given 5-10 years they should be able to get to where Europe is and get the price down too, although of course Europe will have moved on in that time as well.
There are a couple reasons that this is news, and a ready explanation for the paucity of US offshore generation.
First up, that this small installation offshore even exists is half a miracle. This was heavily opposed by the Koch brothers, who though various shadow organizations, fought it tooth and claw. So anything at all built in that location is notable. Chalk it up to a win for alternative energy.
Now the other thing. A big reason that the US doesn't have much of anything in the way of Offshore power generation is that we have real estate to put the things on that suits the purpose pretty well. The Allegheny front near here is primo wind power generation neighborhood. There are many reasons, between proximity to other generation facilities, and a reliable wind source. So we have a lot of wind turbines here, and more popping up all the time.
Given the geology of the US, offshore wind power will probably always be a niche power source. If you have an island a few dozen miles out in the ocean, a offshore farm makes excellent sense. If you have a nice windy mountain range a few miles away, why would you want to get wind power from the ocean a hundred plus miles away?
With your attitude, I suspect your retirement will be just the sort of hell you think it will be.
And the money issues will be the least of your problems.
When I first entered the workforce, back in the 70's I was told - "No use saving for retirement, inflation is going to eat up anything you save, and Social Security is going to be bankrupt in a few years." You'll never be able to retire!"
But I was stupid. I didn't listen to the smart people. I saved money, and over time, it accrued. I invested well - which means not buying what the smart people bought. I had more than one TDA/TSA account.
I kept my cars a few years longer, and didn't buy a new wardrobe for every season. But I drove nice cars, and I dressed well. I didn't refi my house and buy an Escalade with the "free money" like the smart people did, or take yearly trips to Disney World with that money. But I've been to Disney World. I didn't eat out 7 days a week, but I ate well.
My favorite smart person story was about the guy who would come down and brag about his retirement plan. He was invested 100 percent in tech stocks in a system that allowed you to choose the investment options. He was a multi millionaire - for about 6 months. He was smart. Then the dotcom bust happened. And he rode his entire investment down to nothing.
Now my slower tactic was a gamble. I could have contracted some horrible disease and died without realizing any of my though out plans. Then again, I could have done the same if I didn't.
But the interesting thing is, in the end, the naysayers who thought I was an idiot for saving money were right. They personally cannot retire. They have a McMansion that they refied several times, and still owe a lot on it. They didn't even start seriously thinking about retirement until their mid-50's, then when the truth of their foolishness hit them they invested in risky vehicles, which is the complete opposite of how it should be done. But now they are in their 60's, still owing a shitload of money on their houses, and through foolish investments, are looking at the impossibility of surviving on a social security payment that is half of what their mortgage payment is. And many plan on essentially working forever. A plan just as foolish as any other they made.
One of the issues that this has all driven home to me is that even with smart people - and I worked with very smart people - many of them aren't very good at handling money and investments. Yet until we adopt a system that kills people at a certain age if they can't support themselves, it's probably best to have an outfit looking out for them. But dude all of that isn't your issue. You seem to be doing the right stuff, and should be able to retire okay.
But none of this seems to make you the least bit happy, and you've developed a serious Eeyore outlook, and that is pretty concerning.
Pretty much. The only way for cars to work autonomously is for them to know about other cars, so when you've got people advocating driverless cars and user being against this, you know they're retards
I'm always a little frustrated that people don't see just how much infrastructure will go into this. It isn't space shuttle type intricate, but in the same league. We can do this, but for crying out loud, it's just plain weird that people in here act like they are the world's biggest privacy people, while using several inherently and by nature insecure systems every day. People who are worried about this Autonomous car "tracking" need to pull the license plate off of their cars, and destroy all of the VIN numbers. You can be tracked by that as well. Oh, maybe they should use drag racing slicks as well. People can be tracked by tire prints.
Yes, you are correct. However, when critiquing someone else, it is always a good thing to check our own. Right?
It just points out that we are all human and we all can make mistakes.
Cthulu on a skateboard!
So what you are saying is that my spelling error completely made my post incorrect, but my pointing out that the guy wrote a paragraph of what should hve been several paragraphs was improper and incorrect as well? Which made my post not only incorrect, but made your post pointing out that my post was incorrect, made yours proper and correct?
You can't have if both ways, and when calling other people Nazis, perhaps you are simply seeing a reflection of your own face in a mirror.
Now let old Uncle Ol give ya a little schooling. Because although I think your heart is in the right place, but your ideas of spelling and grammer Nazis are a-makin ya look like a severe dumfuk.
You called me a Nazi after I offered some constructive criticism. Yeah, I wasn't calling the guy stupid or names, just that maybe more people would read what he had to write is he formatted it differently.
Kinda as if I though maybe he had something to say, and I was being helpful, so more people would read it. I certainly wasn't the only person who had issues. Indeed, most of us use new lines especially for numbered lists.
Next up, you come in like Underdog saving Pretty Polly from Simon Bar Sinister, calling me a Nazi, and ridiculing my mispelling of "Bother', substituting the B with a V. And using that typo as some sort of accusation of not only being a nazi, but of engaging in hypocricy as well.
There is a subtle difference there, between constructive criticism and you conforming to the very definition of a person who tries to negate someone's argument by drawing attention to what they typed.
Just some constructive criticism for you, with a bit more forcefulness, since you seem to be hung up a little on dis mattah, and not takin' telling like a big boy should.
Now go forth, and sin no more.
So now we have punctuation nazis that have sprouted from all the grammer nazis?
BTW: "vother" != "bother" :P
Don't be a dumbass. My comments are that possibly the guy had something interesting to say, so putting his thoughts down as something that is easily readable and digestible is a great way to get your point across.
Spelling errors? I don't really care about those.
But when I look at something, and have to consider if it was worth reading or not, It doesn't get read as often
I thought it might have been good advice, as I do doubt that many of us type out posts that we don't want to bet read. Especially in a list form.
An example is what I posted done in the same manner as what he did:
Don't be a dumbass. My comments are that possibly the guy had something interesting to say, so putting his thoughts down as something that is easily readable and digestible is a great way to get your point across. Spelling errors? I don't really care about those. But when I look at something, and have to consider if it was worth reading or not, It doesn't get read as often.I thought it migh have been good advice, as I do doubt that many of us type out posts that we don't want to be read. Especially in a list form.
I read these things and I'm dumbfounded.
If I hit the lottery and had enough money where I'd never need to work again, I'd leave work so fast I'd leave skid marks out the door!!
First thing you want to do is contact a lawyer, Then keep your winnings as quiet as possible,and for gawd's sake, don't tell your relatives! Take the money as an annuity if possible.
Then you go to HR and put in a regular two week notice. Then spend the next two weeks trying wipe the grin off your face. Call your boss by some weird made up nickname.
This is a common story, particularly among those who have been poor their entire life. It's all down to a mind set.
I'll probably get hell for this, but for many of the people who win, we find out why they were poor to begin with. Not everyone is proficient with money. Not everyone makes good life and financial decisions. And worst of all, they are into gambling, which is one of the most efficient ways to go broke. So you have some poor schmedlock who is into gambling that wins more than they ever dreamed of having - yup - that's a person who is a prime candidate for an impressive burn rate.
If I won the lottery, the first thing I would do is consult a financial lawyer, and the second thing is demand no publicity.
Guess I'd have to play it first.