Biggest Offshore Wind Project In US To Resume Construction (cnbc.com) 55
A federal judge has temporarily lifted the Trump administration's suspension of the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, allowing construction on the largest offshore wind project in the U.S. to resume. CNBC reports: Judge Jamar Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted Dominion's request for a preliminary injunction Friday. Dominion called the Trump suspension "arbitrary and illegal" in its lawsuit. "Our team will now focus on safely restarting work to ensure CVOW begins delivery of critical energy in just weeks," a Dominion spokesperson told CNBC in a statement Friday. "While our legal challenge proceeds, we will continue seeking a durable resolution of this matter through cooperation with the federal government," the spokesperson said.
Dominion said in December that "stopping CVOW for any length of time will threaten grid reliability for some of the nation's most important war fighting, AI and civilian assets." Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind is a 176-turbine project that would provide enough power for more than 600,000 homes, according to Dominion. It is scheduled to start dispatching power by the end of the first quarter of 2026. In December, the Trump administration paused the leases on all five offshore wind sites currently under construction in the U.S., blaming the decisions on a classified report from the Department of Defense.
Dominion said in December that "stopping CVOW for any length of time will threaten grid reliability for some of the nation's most important war fighting, AI and civilian assets." Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind is a 176-turbine project that would provide enough power for more than 600,000 homes, according to Dominion. It is scheduled to start dispatching power by the end of the first quarter of 2026. In December, the Trump administration paused the leases on all five offshore wind sites currently under construction in the U.S., blaming the decisions on a classified report from the Department of Defense.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck that orange asshole and everyone who voted for him
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
And for good measure I'll add: Fuck the piece of turd orange-utan in chief, and all the brainwashed imbeciles who voted for him. Good enough for ya doll?
Re: (Score:1)
I concur, and add: with the rustiest rasp file available.
Re: (Score:2)
My beef wasn't with you. It was with the anon coward hoarding their Karma.
Re: (Score:2)
How dare you call that war mongering paedophile a turd!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an orangutan, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck that orange asshole and fuck everyone who voted for him.
Re: (Score:2)
Amen bro. Fuck the orange shitgibbon and all the trumptards.
Re: (Score:2)
putting up streetlight has an effect on cars.
So, why can't we look at the evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
blaming the decisions on a classified report from the Department of Defense
What's the difference between "not being able to see the evidence" and "the evidence does not exist"?
Re: (Score:2)
With Trump, it depends.
Re:So, why can't we look at the evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting quote this week that no court or legislation can force the DoJ to release the files.
What are they hiding, why and is it in the national interest to protect whomever they are protecting...
Re: (Score:2)
Is that not obvious?
Re: So, why can't we look at the evidence? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Coming from the guy who claims he could declassify anything by waving his hands over it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Says the people who don't hesitate to slam SCOTUS b'cos 6 of the justices were appointed by presidents they didn't vote for. Regardless of the fact that 3 of those 6 justices are usually wildcards on any issue
As a hasty breakdown, three of the supreme court judges are liberal, and tend toward a liberal interpretation of the law; three of the judges are Trumpists, and will vote with whatever Trump wants every time, and three are conventional conservatives, and will go with the conservative interpretation of the law, which may not always be the Trump interpretation.
Re: (Score:1)
There are no "Trumpists". Whenever the justices have broken against Trump, it's usually been, in addition to John Roberts - Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh. Gorsuch has been split on it - sometimes joining them, while sometimes voting alongside Thomas and Alito. The latter 2 are usually on the same page as Trump, but they were both appointed by the Bushes, so can't be called "Trumpists".
As for the Libs on SCOTUS, Kagan has sometimes surprised us, and there was one occasion when even the justice w
Re:All i needed to know........ (Score:4, Insightful)
Yoiu're right we should criticize accurately and with tangible facts:
Fact A: Gorsuch, even though I think he's at least a considerate judge who writes very well, is sitting in a stolen seat.
Fact B: Alito is, as you agree, a naked partisan. Some of his writings like Roe case are fuckin wiiiild and without precendent.
Fact C: Thomas is likely guilty of bribery if the SC had any sort of ethics enforcement, oh and is a naked partisan.
Fact D: Barret, who gain is in my opinion is also an alright judge, also sitting in a stolen seat if Gorsuch was seated legitimately.
Fact D: Roberts is going to go down as the CHief Justice who presided over the time of least respect and ocnfidence in the court in recent history, the SC reputation with the public is tanking.
So there is plenty of criticism to go around regardless of "who appointed who"
I am optimistic this court will make themselves so unpopular with their chicanery that SC reform will be on the cards in the next cycle or two. Not court packing but reform, increase the count, make them ride circuit more, term limits.
Re: (Score:1)
A: There is no such thing as a "stolen seat". There is nothing to suggest that the Dems wouldn't have done what McConnell did, and Merrick Garland was such a horrible AG that it's fortuitous that he didn't get to SCOTUS
B: Alito never ruled on Roe: he wasn't in SCOTUS then. Learn the difference b/w Roe and Dobbs
C: The friend whose favors Thomas accepted never had any cases that went before SCOTUS, so that bribery question never arose
D: Libs are just pissed that the Ginsburg didn't voluntarily resign wh
Re: (Score:2)
A: Sure there is, Garland should have been sat and voted on, full stop. Your defense here of "dems would also lol" is irrelvant and nothing. Also Garland wasn't AG at that time, time moves in one direction. Also be was supported bipartisanly, that's why Obama picked him and why McConnel didn't vote, he would have been seated!
B: lol, pedantry here is a bit cowardly
C: I didn't say Harland Crow was inside a case, you know we're talking about bigger things here right? Again, this is pedantry.
D: Yeah we are b
Re: (Score:2)
B. No, completely different cases. Not pedantry: just ignorance on your part
C. No, there were no bigger things here. If a judge was presiding over a case where a conflict-of-interests issue would have existed, the expectation would have been for him/her to recuse. That wasn't the case here, so there was no "bribery". Justices can't be expected to take favors from nobody just b'cos anybody might some day be before his court. If that event occurs, they're expected to recuse
D. Dems couldn't do the same
Re: (Score:2)
B: its pedantry because you know what I meant but you're making that the point of contention and not what Alito wrote in his ruling which his shoddy legal reasoning is what Im calling our and you know that, you said you know that.
C: "If a judge was presiding over a case where a conflict-of-interests issue would have existed, the expectation would have been for him/her to recuse. " The fact you say that means you have no grasp over the concern or what he has actually done. Should they be required to disclose
Re: (Score:2)
B. Again, insisting that you have your facts i.e. the cases right is not pedantry, it's accuracy
C. Judges can accept any gifts they like. It's only an issue when the gift donor then goes on to be in front of them in court, in which case the conflict issues arise
E. The beef that most Libs have w/ the court is that it ostensibly has a conservative majority. In fact, that should not matter, since judges are supposed to interpret the law, not make it up as they go along: that's a part of the Article 1 bran
Re: (Score:2)
Re: All i needed to know........ (Score:2)
Cowards don't get to accuse others of fragility. You're too fragile to face criticism under even an assumed identity.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Regardless of the decision, I doubt that the companies that are doing those projects will rush in to resume operations, and sink more money into them before a final decision is made on this, either by this court, or by higher courts should the government decide to appeal. Granted, Dominion has a captive market when it comes to providing electricity to the state (for gas, people can pick their suppliers), but I'd be surprised if they chose to risk losing money on a project whose termination may finally be w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cancelling energy projects (Score:2)
I do respect you being consistent on this by criticizing Biden as well
Putting aside the factoid that Biden just blindly signed whatever was in front of him on day 1 (this was before the Autopen debacles), the environmental disasters were already factors that Keystone would have had to deal w/. If a pipeline bursts, everyone loses, not just the locality where the damage happens. The oil companies lose a lot of oil before the pipeline gets shut, the pipeline manufacturers get both a bad reputation, and de
Re: (Score:2)
As to trump not doing stuff out of spite,
2.6GW and 660k homes? How does that work? (Score:3)
I’m curious about how this 660,000 figure was calculated. 2.6GW would be just about 4kW of capacity per home for 660,000 homes. But these calculations are normally done on the basis of sustained annual average draw. For the US, that is more like 1.2 to 1.5kW, a truly insane number (the UK average is 0.4, ie 400W, and in China it’s more like 2 to 300W). But even at 1.5kW, that wind farm could deliver enough capacity for 1.7m homes, not 660k.
I think, for some dumb reasons the calculation is being done off the average peak load. But that is more like 5kW than 4kW, so that figure is wrong.
It would really make more sense to do the calculation on the basis of expected annual generation divided by annual average US household consumption, which heads off all the nonsense about nameplate capacity. That would be 9.5bn kWh divided by 10,800kWh, so about 880,000 homes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they are using electricity for heating, and its winter at the moment. They might also have an EV
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's reasonable to estimate it by peak load. You simply can't count on higher figures knowing you'll eventually and certainly fall short.
Otherwise, if you say you could provide energy to millions of homes, what would you do when it's peak season and more than half of them suddenly lose power?
P.S.:
1) Maybe the statement of 660,000 homes is already considering and deducting commercial and industrial use.
2) One solution would be of course to say "at least 660,000 homes" or "from 660,000 up to 1.7 milli
Re: (Score:2)
Your scenario makes sense for an isolated system, where there were a bunch of homes whose electricity was exclusively supplied by this single wind farm. But obviously, that's not the case: it's part of a system of heterogenous supply, so this is just a theoretical and indicative calculation the operator or media have used to give people a sense of the scale of this project compared to others / the scale of the US as a whole. And that's where I'm puzzled, I can't see how they got to their indicative figure.
P
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think, for some dumb reasons the calculation is being done off the average peak load.
Honestly it makes no sense to quote average sustained figures on a wind farm. Peak makes more sense. But in any case it's a pretty useless way to describe something as complex as power, especially in our ever changing word. Maybe they are quoting name plate vs capacity factor corrected?
Re: (Score:2)
Having seen some of the comments, I'm now truly firmly of the belief that the only valid method of doing this calculation is to calculate power generated per year and divide that by average annual household consumption. That takes account of capacity factor on the one hand, and peaks and troughs in demand on the other.
The peak figure is important for peaker plants, where the question is one of capacity adequacy, but this is not that project, and the question is one of scale of net new generation.
Probably a bad idea (Score:3)
The US is going down the drains, with the voters increasingly ignored and the politicians asleep. Might not be a good idea to build anything there now.
Anti-business businessman (Score:2)
The median businessman has no idea how capitalism works; at the 90th percentile they are actively opposed.
The most anti-business person in the room is going to be a mercantilist businessman. He sees that most businesses are not *his* business and thus being anti-business in general he can make other businesses perform worse. The mercantilist thinks this is winning.
biden judge (Score:2)
I'll be more impressed when there are more than one or two such rulings from Republcan judges. They only take these suits to Biden and Obama judges. Even the Obama ones are less party hacks.
Never trust the US (Score:1)
From today every project done with US will carry an even heavier a risk overhead. In order to handle the ever present risk that an arbitrary president at any time may just shut down that project, for reasons agreed with bribing parties. Like "Drill baby, drill". This will cost every citizen in the US a substantial amount of wellfare in the future. Deducted from the already embarrasing level of general wellfare compared to European countries.
This unfathomable tragic waste of welfare could have been avoided,