Fourth US Wind Farm Project Blocked By Trump Allowed to Resume Construction (thehill.com) 115
Vineyard Wind (powering Massachusetts) is one of five offshore wind projects "that the Trump administration tried to hold up in December," reports The Hill.
This week it became the fourth of those wind projects allowed by a judge to resume construction, the article notes, while even the fifth project "is still awaiting court proceedings." Federal Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee, issued a preliminary injunction blocking the administration's stop work order against Vineyard Wind... According to its website, when complete, Vineyard Wind would be able generate enough power for 400,000 homes and businesses. The project already has 44 operational wind turbines and was working on an additional 18. The Trump pause applied to the construction work that was not yet complete.
This week it became the fourth of those wind projects allowed by a judge to resume construction, the article notes, while even the fifth project "is still awaiting court proceedings." Federal Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee, issued a preliminary injunction blocking the administration's stop work order against Vineyard Wind... According to its website, when complete, Vineyard Wind would be able generate enough power for 400,000 homes and businesses. The project already has 44 operational wind turbines and was working on an additional 18. The Trump pause applied to the construction work that was not yet complete.
Air pollution (Score:4, Funny)
If Trump is so desperate for breathing polluted air he should go suck off an exhaust pipe like he did Bubba.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm saving a bottle of champagne for when they finally find him dead and bloated on his golden toilet. They better bury him on the moon because there will be a never ending line of people waiting to piss on his grave.
Re: (Score:2)
Like Mr. Burns.
Re: Air pollution (Score:2)
Bleah, why not a nice Aberlour 16?
Re: Air pollution (Score:2)
Um that's a Scotch
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Only the TDS Democrats think like this. They're so pissed because Trumpelon figured out the taxpayer money => NGO => DNC money funnel and have shut much of it off. This means Democrats will have a much harder time winning elections now that all they will have to go on is their own shitty policy and voting records.
Re: (Score:1)
Next time, define your acronyms, and stick to the topic.
A weighty comment on Slashdot? But there is no gravity here. The moderation sucks and creates an illusion of gravity.
No problem here, this was not a weighty comment, but a random walk of a political rant.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Trump doesn't care about renewable energy as such.
Trump owns a golf course in Scotland. Scotland made an offshore wind farm that was visible from that golf course. Trump considered it an eyesore and Scotland didn't care about his protests.
This was a Slight. This was an Insult. Trump decided to hate windmills with a vengeance the same way he hates anyone who has ever slighted him.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Trump's donors care about renewable energy - it's that pesky cheap competition they want to thwart.
Re: (Score:1)
Trump doesn't care about renewable energy as such.
Trump owns a golf course in Scotland. Scotland made an offshore wind farm that was visible from that golf course. Trump considered it an eyesore and Scotland didn't care about his protests.
This was a Slight. This was an Insult. Trump decided to hate windmills with a vengeance the same way he hates anyone who has ever slighted him.
Trump "decided" to love Big Oil in the same way every other Democrat President has.
If he hated wind farms that bad, he would sell the course.
No? If Trump moved in next door to your house, how quickly would you sell again? I thought so.
Re:Follow the money? But crypto-loot? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you don't quite get how a narcissist thinks. Selling the course would be admitting defeat which is absolutely unthinkable to someone like him. He HAS to win no matter what.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Obviously, he is too dumb to actually win at anything except at conning his even dumber supporters.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you don't quite get how a narcissist thinks. Selling the course would be admitting defeat which is absolutely unthinkable to someone like him. He HAS to win no matter what.
He HAS to win no matter what.
He has to be SEEN to win no matter what.
Re:Follow the money? But crypto-loot? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
notice how quickly they are shifting back to "both sides" instead of defending the man. ya'll feeling a bit nervous and shameful? good but its not enough, you need to be thoroughly embarassed
Re:Follow the money? But crypto-loot? (Score:4, Interesting)
If he hated wind farms that bad, he would sell the course.
He's spent hundreds of millions of dollars rehabbing a course which only turned a profit seven years after purchasing it, and the profit doesn't come close to covering all the previous costs. But the real question is, where did he get the money [newyorker.com] to purchase the course in cash in the first place? Then again, how else would he be able to launder money [bylinesupplement.com]?
Re:Follow the money? But crypto-loot? (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump "decided" to love Big Oil in the same way every other Democrat President has.
So, every other Democrat President has arbitrarily canceled already approved large offshore wind farm projects?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed. Such a tiny person with such a fragile ego. Somebody like that cannot do well in life, no matter how much power or possessions he accumulates. He will always be a loser. Also too dumb to understand that all he will accomplish with violence is that people just stop saying it to his face. You cannot force respect. You can only earn it. He will never be able to do that from anybody with some real insight into things.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump famously has no taste. Personally I think they look great.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's even aesthetic, it's just that he wants to flaunt his wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to protest about the censor moderation, but looking at a couple of the replies, perhaps the moderation is correct after all?
Re: (Score:2)
I think that was an attempted joke, but I never did have much of a sense of humor. I sort of agree with the premise of Epstein, Epstein, and more Epstein. If only it mattered. I'm not seeing the real world effects.
However on this story I think the important question is why is the YOB so opposed to renewable energy. The answer is pretty obviously money and some bits of the money are even visible. For example, the Saudis are so fond of selling petroleum that they gladly "entrusted" a few billion to the son in law to curry favor. But I think most of the dirty money is flowing via crypto, and one of the main selling points of crypto is the lack of traceability.
Looking backwards over my shoulder, but now I wonder if the YOB's personal crypto has any extra features to make sure the transactions are secret but can still be confirmed and traced by the recipient. We would think the YOB wants to be able to confirm the bribe comes from the right people without making any quid pro quo tracks that are visible to any investigators...
But these days there are always too many fresh distractions. What city will be invaded next? And what is Bezos going to get for his measly $75 million? (And no, I didn't watch "Unreal Housewife of the White House". (Hmm... Maybe there is an actual market for "Real Housewives of the White House" in these twisted days? But reality TV is so fundamentally creatively fake and manipulatively edited that the series should be called "Surreal Housewives of..."))
But on reflection and principle I guess I have to quote it against the censors?
Why stop it now? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they already have 44 operational and were just finishing the last 18 trying to stop this without a really good cause seems like you are doing so purely for spite.
Re:Why stop it now? (Score:5, Informative)
Did they solve the clutter issue?
It's not really much of an issue. Sure, it interferes with direct radar signals, but the footprint isn't that big, You just have to know where they are and work around them. Not to mention that there's ship-based radar, satellites, sonar buoys, ship transponders, etc. All sorts of methods to make up for any lost capability.
I mean if you're going to suck all that energy out of Atlantic waters the radar will get confused and you risk an iceberg being crashed into c.f. that movie with Rose and Leo da Capricorn.
Errm... What? I mean, the first part about the energy being sucked out of the waters... What?! As for the second part, about crashing into an iceberg, you do realize that basically all of these vessels have their own radar systems, usually required by law. Not to mention plenty of them also have sonar and night vision scopes. Not to mention that icebergs are actively tracked and bulletins about their locations, etc. are distributed.
Re:Why stop it now? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're only learning now that the primary governing principle for this administration is spite?
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair the OP did not claim to discover the fact right now, just that it is a case where the conclusion applies. It is useful for people who are taking notes. The decades to come will see many books to be written about this sad part of the history of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
He only said "seems". He still doesn't realize.
Re: (Score:2)
He only said "seems". He still doesn't realize.
That's because I am not a partisan asshole. My gut reaction is spite but I also know that the turbine blades do mess with radar returns. You don't have to believe me, or the administration. A simple google search for "turbine blade radar" will give you a whole bunch of interesting things to read. Mitigating their interference has apparently become something of a specialty field.
Have you not considered just what all is on the coast behind those turbines? On the military side lets start with Norfolk, Vir
Re:Why stop it now? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a load of nonsense. Not about turbines interfering with RADAR because, duh! The nonsense is the alarmism. You yourself point out that there are specialists mitigating the issues.
Consider Greenland. Big in the news right now. One of the reasons for the cold ware military importance of bases in Greenland was early warning RADAR. Greenland is covered in mountains that are a lot higher than any offshore wind turbines. Sure, they built at high altitudes to mitigate the issue, but it only does so much. Yet they manage. The same can be done with obstacles from offshore wind. Navy and coast guard ships have RADAR and SONAR and there are SONAR installations out beyond those turbines. There are also satellites. Also, for the areas in the shadow of the turbines, there is the solution of just mounting radar systems on the towers for the turbines to provide coverage for the area in shadow. This is not rocket surgery.
Plus, do you realize how ridiculous it is to suggest that you can't have infrastructure because it gets in the way of military installations that are there to protect the infrastructure?
Re: Why stop it now? (Score:2)
Norfolk Naval Base was created to protect the off-shore turbine farm? Wow, talk about long-range planning!
I like how dismiss the possibility of wind turbines interfering with radar by pointing out that experts are currently busy working on the problem you just dismissed... what?
Re: (Score:2)
Norfolk Naval Base was created to protect the off-shore turbine farm? Wow, talk about long-range planning!
Part of their primary mission is coastal defense, which includes protection of coastal infrastructure. My point was that it is strange to make the argument that coastal infrastructure should not be built because it will supposedly interfere with the mission of building coastal infrastructure.
A similar situation to what I am talking about occurred in many walled medieval towns and cities. They would build a wall for defense, but then it would restrict growth of the cities with rules in place to prevent build
Re: (Score:2)
It's a load of nonsense. Not about turbines interfering with RADAR because, duh! The nonsense is the alarmism. You yourself point out that there are specialists mitigating the issues.
Having now had time to investigate further all those specialists can do is make the problem "not as bad" which apparently works for civilian radar. But military grade is a whole 'nother beast.
Consider Greenland. Big in the news right now. One of the reasons for the cold ware military importance of bases in Greenland was early warning RADAR. Greenland is covered in mountains that are a lot higher than any offshore wind turbines.
Mountains don't move ...
Navy and coast guard ships have RADAR and SONAR and there are SONAR installations out beyond those turbines.
Funny you should mention SONAR as it's no longer a "quiet" zone around those turbines making subs harder to detect. Add that to clutter so that radar will miss the periscope and that makes the entire area a prime place for a sub to try and hide out at.
There are also satellites.
And a sat will do what, exactly? You thin
Re: (Score:2)
Having now had time to investigate further all those specialists can do is make the problem "not as bad" which apparently works for civilian radar. But military grade is a whole 'nother beast.
What civilian radar? Do you mean Civilian boats? This doesn't create a problem in the range those need to work at. On the ground, other than weather radar, all there really is to consider is airport radar. The wind farm in question is 15 miles off Martha's Vineyard and 35 miles off the mainland. The highest point the rotors reach is 860 feet, which means that, viewed from sea level, they vanish below the horizon at 36 miles since distance in miles for something to vanish over the horizon is 1.22 times the s
Re: (Score:2)
What civilian radar?
You are confused. The court cases didn't mention civilian, just military (Department of War and National Security). My reference to civilian was only this one time, and indirectly. So I'm ignoring the first wall of text as it doesn't apply.
For stationary military RADAR systems, it's basically just a matter of treating those distant objects as terrain features. Possibly, with more advanced techniques, the rotors can be accounted for and the towers themselves produce a very tiny RADAR shadow. One that should be essentially completely eliminated with systems like JADC2 and other, less all encompassing systems to combine information from physically separate RADAR systems.
Are you an expert in military radar? No, no you are not. For one thing you wouldn't be going into detail about it publicly, and for another the below
There is also over the horizon RADAR that actually bounces off the ionosphere. Only that is specifically over the horizon (literally since it bounces off the sky) so there's no way that this wind farm would get in the way unless the RADAR system were, for some reason, far onland.
All of our OTH systems were, in fact, far inland, because the minimal distance for their coverage was about 500 miles.
Re: (Score:2)
You are confused. The court cases didn't mention civilian, just military (Department of War and National Security).
I'm not confused, or at least I wasn't. I wasn't referring directly to any court cases. I was referring specifically to what you wrote where you brought up both civilian and military RADAR.
My reference to civilian was only this one time, and indirectly. So I'm ignoring the first wall of text as it doesn't apply.
It actually still applies since many of the details apply to any line of sight RADAR and the other details establish that, for basically any relevant land-based RADAR installation, the top of the wind turbines are over the horizon or very close to it. The "wall of text" that you apparently failed to read actually addresse
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not confused, or at least I wasn't. I wasn't referring directly to any court cases.
The article is about the court cases. The discussion, until you showed up, was why the court cases. And that is a military objection, not civilian. So I say it again, you are confused
It actually still applies since many of the details apply to any line of sight RADAR and the other details establish that, for basically any relevant land-based RADAR installation, the top of the wind turbines are over the horizon or very close to it.
We watch the coastlines with aircraft now, much of it unmanned. Even the Coast Guard has their own drones. And their look down radar is doppler which is particularly affected. What were you saying about line of sight? So once again I'm ignoring the following wall of text because it's irrelevant.
The "far onland" I was positing would be further than that. Basically I was referring to the inexplicable scenario where, for some reason, the over the horizon systems were placed so that their range stopped around where this wind farm is. I thought that was clearer it was meant to be an absurd scenario. Why did you think I wrote it?
Because you don't know what
Re: (Score:2)
The article is about the court cases. The discussion, until you showed up, was why the court cases. And that is a military objection, not civilian. So I say it again, you are confused
Maybe read more slowly to comprehend what I wrote so I don't have to keep repeating myself:
I'm not confused, or at least I wasn't. I wasn't referring directly to any court cases. I was referring specifically to what you wrote where you brought up both civilian and military RADAR.
OK. So, first, the article _is_ about the court cases (and the details around them). As I said, I was not referring directly to them. As I said in the sentence you _didn't_ quote, I was referring to what you wrote right before I entered the conversation:
My gut reaction is spite but I also know that the turbine blades do mess with radar returns. You don't have to believe me, or the administration. A simple google search for "turbine blade radar" will give you a whole bunch of interesting things to read. Mitigating their interference has apparently become something of a specialty field.
Followed by two more paragraphs about the supposed military dangers of these wind farms. You yourself are the one who made the topic the technical reality of whether o
Re: (Score:2)
You yourself are the one who made the topic the technical reality of whether or not these wind turbines are a real problem for military imaging of the coast and general alarmism.
Yet another miss. Try actually reading The Hill's report that the submission is based on and you will find the word...wait for it...radar...
I will reiterate. I was not the one who brought up civilian RADAR, _you were_.
Here is what I said:
all those specialists can do is make the problem "not as bad" which apparently works for civilian radar. But military grade is a whole 'nother beast
Up to that point that is only time I used the word "civilian". It is blatantly not used as a reference. I, and the article, are talking about military. YOU are the one who went off on civilian. And it backfired on you because now we know that a study by the Coast Guard says the windmills cause a moderate impact on safety and that is civilian.
Aircraft can fly East of the wind farm to cover that area
Ag
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another miss. Try actually reading The Hill's report that the submission is based on and you will find the word...wait for it...radar...
What are you even trying to say? What does the presence of the word RADAR in the article have to do with what I said? Are you confused enough to think that I was claiming that you were the first to mention RADAR? Or what are you trying to say? My original post to you was in regards to what you said. The article is the general start of the conversation, but the way these things work, you can still reply to other things that people say.
Up to that point that is only time I used the word "civilian". It is blatantly not used as a reference. I, and the article, are talking about military. YOU are the one who went off on civilian. And it backfired on you because now we know that a study by the Coast Guard says the windmills cause a moderate impact on safety and that is civilian.
Nothing backfired on me. You're literally writing it right there that you
Re: (Score:2)
Filtering out stationary objects at known locations isn't so hard. Plus you can install cameras on them and have 24/7 visibility of ocean areas, although satellites offer some of that already.
Re: (Score:2)
Filtering out stationary objects at known locations isn't so hard.
Exactly. Ground based RADAR has to deal with the inconvenience of the area it is surveilling not being flat all the time.
Re: Why stop it now? (Score:2)
Inane in the membrane!
Re: Why stop it now? (Score:1)
The "block" was trivial, it paused 18 turbines while 44 were already in operation.
Seems to "reduction" or "limited" were better words to describe Trump Admin's actions.
Re: (Score:2)
The "block" was trivial, it paused 18 turbines while 44 were already in operation.
Seems to "reduction" or "limited" were better words to describe Trump Admin's actions.
I am not a fan of revoking permits already granted without a damn good reason. Whether it's Biden and the Keystone pipeline, or Trump with the windmills. These kind of things make a mockery of the "full faith" part of an agreement. With that said, if the military is truly upset by this, okay. Problem is we will never know for sure because they can't make public the details. If they don't appeal this then I'm sticking with spite. If they do then they may be taking some of those things down and the taxpayer
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a fan of revoking permits already granted without a damn good reason. Whether it's Biden and the Keystone pipeline
Interestingly, one of the reasons Obama cancelled it to start with is because of a perception that it was a bad deal for the US and a much better one for Canada. Then Trump uncancelled it. Then Biden cancelled it again. Then in this administration, Trump has a major grudge going against Canada (I mean, he did in his first Presidency too, but not as bad as now). This Presidency, though he has done a little towards reviving it, he hasn't fully yet and we''ll have to see how well it deals with his issues with
Re: Why stop it now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes yes, we know you try to spin everything the orange shitgibbon does in a less negative light. Are you getting paid for it or are you just a useful idiot?
KICKBACKS (Score:2)
Trump was hoping that companies building the wind farms would invest in some "Trump coin" like many foreign powers have.
Re: (Score:2)
Follow the (taxpayer funded?) money before you start spouting off about really good causes. How exactly were they funded before? With justified fiscal policy, or an autopen?
They are funded through private loans, but backed by tax credits, certainly. I am not sure what you mean about them being funded by an autopen though. They aren't funded by an executive order because Congress does that. Sure, the President signs the bill, but that's automatic unless the President is vetoing it. The Bill in question was mostly the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. The bill was signed by the President by hand, not autopen. If you really want to check, you can see the video of it being signed: her [youtu.be]
Re: Why stop it now? (Score:2)
The word of the decade, is audit. Followed closely by accountability.
You forgot "affordability," but that only really became an issue when Biden needed to get re-elected and he tried to act like the three years of crazy-high inflation rates was somehow someone else's fault, and it got intensified when Trump took office and the democrats attacked him over egg prices (until they dropped), then the tried gasoline prices (until they dropped), now they complain that Trump hasn't been able to wind prices back to pre-Biden levels (ignoring Biden's responsibility for the crazy infla
Re: (Score:2)
...the democrats attacked him over egg prices
So, your memory of that starts with the Democrats attacking Trump over egg prices? You don't maybe remember any attacks related to egg prices before that? Maybe coming from another source and attacking someone else?
I suppose you also don't recall why egg prices went up and then eventually down either?
the national security card isn't so powerful... (Score:2)
...when it's so empty
America - King of Buggy Whip Manufacturing (Score:2)
It seems as though our present administration wants to revert to the 50s. Trying to block wind turbines is just another example of actively fighting against progress.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given a lot of what they've said, done, and/or tried... I think the administration actually wants to put us back into the 1890s.
Except for Stephen Miller - he's firmly grounded in the German Reich.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for Stephen Miller - he's firmly grounded in the German Reich.
Stephen Miller is down with NDP.
Reverse Psychology? (Score:2)
Re:Reverse Psychology? (Score:5, Informative)
Tempting, but I don't think so.
Trump has been dumb all his life. Remember how they had to send him to a military-style college to get that degree because he simply could not hack it at a regular one despite all the help money can buy? The guy is a moron. He has always had money though and tons of it. In the US, that gets you admiration and apparently lets you get away with anything, including raping children, no matter how tiny a person you are and no matter how having money was not actually something you accomplished.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has been dumb all his life. Remember how they had to send him to a military-style college to get that degree because he simply could not hack it at a regular one despite all the help money can buy?
I heard that it was because - or at least the final straw was that - his father found out about his switchblade collection.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever the reason, it did not help. Or maybe it made him wary to hide his crimes better. But he is still uneducated on top of being dumb. He is basically illiterate. Everything has to be broken down to simplistic statements for him. I still remember how shocked experts trying to brief him at the start of his first time in office were.
Without all his inherited money, the best he could ever have hoped for was used-car salesperson. But very likely he would simply be in prison for rape or worse.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as the wind/solar industries go, it's hard to see them lasting much longer assuming market players like Commonwealth and Helion get anywhere near their milestones.
I would agree wind and solar are ultimately screwed once fusion plants come online yet I would not expect to see that happening anytime soon. All these fusion companies with their endless meaningless milestones are more noise than signal.
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion plants use fuel (expensive fuel).
And the first ones (we likely see them soon), wont be load following but only base load.
So, it is unlikely they can compete with solar or wind power, on price.
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion plants use fuel (expensive fuel).
They breed their own fuel.
And the first ones (we likely see them soon), wont be load following but only base load.
I disagree there will be fusion plants anytime soon or these issues matter. The inputs are essentially free and you can always shut down excess plants when they are not needed.
So, it is unlikely they can compete with solar or wind power, on price.
It is unlikely solar or wind will be able to compete in any dimension. Fusion is a non-polluting high density dispatachable energy source that will rapidly become cheaper to operate at scale than anything else. It will also be significantly less carbon intensive than solar.
You might be able to provide elec
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion will have absolutely no part to play in decarbonisation because fusion is not going to be ready at scale in time, ie the next three through thirty years. Best guess is a first industrial plant selling power to the grid is going to be 2050 or so. We can’t wait till then.
Maybe at some point after that, fusion can take over from solar and wind, but fusion has major disadvantages that you’re skipping over: it’s centralised with all the political, regulatory, financing and single-point-o
Re: (Score:2)
Fusion will have absolutely no part to play in decarbonisation because fusion is not going to be ready at scale in time, ie the next three through thirty years.
I'm not sure how to parse this. Are you saying fusion won't be ready until 30 years from now or it won't be ready until anywhere between 3 and 30 years from now?
Best guess is a first industrial plant selling power to the grid is going to be 2050 or so. We can't wait till then.
I generally agree fusion won't happen anytime soon. I'm not as pessimistic as 2050 due to the many disparate avenues for technological advancement. Recent advancements in hybrid superconductors have been breathtaking. Further suspect once writing is on the wall we will see massive volumes of capital going into these things to push them over the
Re: (Score:1)
Seems you know nothing about fusion.
For starters: They breed their own fuel. How do you start a plant that has not bread its fuel yet? And no: you can not breed more fuel than you need ... as the fuel is made with the extra neutrons that spin off from the fusion reaction. So having one breeder fusion reactor to breed tritium for other reactors: not going to happen. See below.
Fusion is a non-polluting high density dispatachable energy
It is neither non polluting, as the reactor is a radioactive pile of waste
Re: (Score:2)
As far as the wind/solar industries go, it's hard to see them lasting much longer assuming market players like Commonwealth and Helion get anywhere near their milestones.
Yeah, electricity production from nuclear fusion will be DOUBLED next year. The next year it will TRIPLE! Hell, why not increase it by a MILLION PERCENT!
Re: (Score:2)
As far as the wind/solar industries go, it's hard to see them lasting much longer assuming market players like Commonwealth and Helion get anywhere near their milestones.
HAH!!! Seriously! Commonwealth is massively overoptimistic about potential near-term success. Helion... I think we need to face the facts that Helion is pretty much in scam territory right now. I mean, they do have a lot of people who seem to legitimately want to make fusion work, but you can only make so many claims about how soon things are going to be working with it turning out that you were just making it up before rational people doubt your honesty. Maybe outright scam is not the right term, but they
Re: (Score:2)
When you consider what still has to be done to get to industrial fusion, it’s clear it’s going to be decades more, as you say. We will need a device that produces sustained net electricity, not just net plasma energy; then a demonstration power plant that actually feeds power to a grid; then proof of materials surviving neutron bombardment at scale; then reliable tritium breeding at power-plant levels; and all of that has to be repeatable in engineering terms.
Making China Great Again (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It’s completely mad, the US has vast tracts of land that are high insolation, you could absolutely have done this. It still could happen, and I guess to some extent it still will because the economics will drive it despite Trump’s admin doing their best to hold back the inevitable, but the pace is so far off the mark.
Re:Fine, build them... (Score:4, Insightful)
Obama really did break your brain.
Re: (Score:2)
He's so black, it hurts their brains.
Re:Fine, build them... (Score:5, Informative)
...off Martha's Vineyard, near where the Obamas and major celebrities live.
The project we're discussing is Vineyard Wind [wikipedia.org]. It is an off-shore wind power project located off the coast of Martha's Vineyard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, the ultra-rich socialists living in Marthas zip code, were suddenly subjected to the kinds of zip code-bound taxes the peasants face when financing Americas Green Dream, and suddenly they're against paying for it?
Color me surprised.
What the hell are you talking about? No one said anything like that. The course of events here is:
Slashdot posts article about illegal Trump cancellation by Executive Order of approved wind project off Martha's Vineyard being reversed so that the project can proceed.
Ignorant AC pops in, apparently trying to say that, if a wind project is going to be built, it should be built instead off Martha's Vineyard.
Geoffrey.landis replies that the project already _is_ off Martha's Vineyard.
You reply with some bizarre:
Re: (Score:2)
...off Martha's Vineyard, near where the Obamas and major celebrities live. I'm sure they'll welcome those views, just like they welcomed the illegal aliens flown in from Texas and Florida
You know, it's subjective. I don't find anything objectionable in the appearance of wind turbines. There are a lot of them within 100km of where I live. While I can't see any from my house, it's because I'm in the city proper. And I really, genuinely wouldn't care if I could. There's nothing inherently more objectionable about a wind tower than say... a barn.
For most of the objectors, this isn't about the view. It's about the existing investments in fossil fuels. Competition bad.
Re:Fine, build them... (Score:4, Interesting)
Back when my in-laws were still alive, we'd make regular trips back to eastern Washington - which involved going through the Ellensburg-Vantage stretch of Interstate 90. There are lots of wind turbines there. I remember stopping at a rest area there one particularly cold, foggy winter day. There was no noise from the interstate... all you could hear was a quiet "whoosh" from the nearby turbines, which were poking out of the fog into the blue sky. It actually was pretty awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a bit like the Eiffel tower. A lot of Parisians really thought it was ugly and objected to it when it was built. These days, few think like that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd more like to believe those sitting in Martha's zip code were suddenly subjected to the kinds of green taxes us peasants have to often pay, and were suddenly against paying for it.
Yeah, Obama..those turbines are going to reduce your electric bill, JUST like you promised when you were in office. Sometime in 2037. After you pay for them. And the CEOs yacht.
I was curious. A 2.5Mw turbine costs about $4.2 million CDN. Where I live, time-of-use prices for electricity average about $.15/kWhr. So the power that tower produces costs consumers about $375 CDN/hour. Or $9,000 CDN/day. Or $3,288,600 CDN/year.
Now... there are yearly maintenance costs. About $60k/year.
Point is... in less than a year and a half a tower has paid for itself and the first couple years of maintenance. Apparently these things last 25 to 35 years. Meaning... there's 23.5 to 33.5 yea
Re: (Score:1)
Every insult is a projection, every fucking time. It’s incredible. Of all the insults out there, you choose one that perfectly encapsulates the most incurious buffoon of a president of all time, who *on the exact subject of wind turbines*, publicly demonstrated his profound ignorance just the other day by talking about China not having any. You live in a shit-coloured bubble, and boy is it fucking tiresome for everyone else
Re:Fine, build them... (Score:4, Insightful)
President Obama, was directly responsible for helping hand-craft President Autopen.
These bizarre issues don't mean anything to anyone outside of the echo chambers of partisan hacks and are often are not even factually coherent. Trueman not Obama started with the autopens.
Reminds me of the crackpot crowd currently cosplaying as public health officials who are all over bizzare HIV doesn't cause AIDs conspiracies.
And America's first Open Border Czar. To great detriment in a country infected with denialist one-sided media. President Obama in that regard, helped create and justify President Trump.
What I find amazing is Obama deported and turned away a couple million more people in his first term than Trump did in his. He made some lefties so mad they went around calling him deporter-in-chief.
It's really sad that incompetent nonsense that Didn't Earn It represents the first black representation in Americas leadership.
Personally I'd take Obama over a goddamn pathological liar, rapist, insurrectionist autocratic lunatic who didn't meet a murderous dictator he didn't instantly "fall in love" with any day.
Re: (Score:1)
article is 23 years old. ted kennedy is dead
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
just because donnie two dolls has an irrational hatred of wind and solar, that doesn't mean that others do too
Re:Fine, build them... (Score:5, Funny)
Fine, build a coal plant next to mar-a-lago?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they'll welcome those views, just like they welcomed the illegal aliens flown in from Texas and Florida
So, in other words, you think they will welcome those views? The community in Martha's Vineyard did, after all, act to help those kidnap victims.
Also, inveiglement/kidnapping is a crime in Texas and Massachusetts. Naturally Texas prosecutors found no grounds for criminal charges and Massachusetts had jurisdictional issues. It is pretty clear though that tricking people into what they will receive and where they will be going and transporting them elsewhere is criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they'll welcome those views, just like they welcomed the illegal aliens flown in from Texas and Florida
So, in other words, you think they will welcome those views? The community in Martha's Vineyard did, after all, act to help those kidnap victims.
And they did, in fact, welcome the wind farm view, or at least not oppose it strongly, because the wind farm under construction is, in fact, offshore of Martha's Vineyard.
It's actually quite far offshore, though. I sailed around Martha's Vineyard in August -- we spent the night moored off of Edgartown, then in the morning decided to make our way by going down the eastern side, against the open ocean. The instructor (this was a sailing class, Advanced Coastal Cruising) told us about the wind farm so we l
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually quite far offshore, though. I sailed around Martha's Vineyard in August -- we spent the night moored off of Edgartown, then in the morning decided to make our way by going down the eastern side, against the open ocean. The instructor (this was a sailing class, Advanced Coastal Cruising) told us about the wind farm so we looked for it, but couldn't see it. The farm is 15 miles offshore, so you can't see the wind turbines during the day at all, even on a clear day.
Right. At 15+ miles, depending on where you were viewing from, the very tip of a blades would still reach 760 feet above the horizon with maybe the bottom 100 feet hidden. However, that would look about as big at that distance as a pinkie nail at arms length. Add to that that it is a spindly thing made of stick-like objects and painted a non reflective light gray. Depending on conditions in the background, atmospheric haze and other weather conditions, you would expect them to be barely visible if at all ag
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually quite far offshore, though. I sailed around Martha's Vineyard in August -- we spent the night moored off of Edgartown, then in the morning decided to make our way by going down the eastern side, against the open ocean. The instructor (this was a sailing class, Advanced Coastal Cruising) told us about the wind farm so we looked for it, but couldn't see it. The farm is 15 miles offshore, so you can't see the wind turbines during the day at all, even on a clear day.
Right. At 15+ miles, depending on where you were viewing from, the very tip of a blades would still reach 760 feet above the horizon with maybe the bottom 100 feet hidden. However, that would look about as big at that distance as a pinkie nail at arms length.
You mean the height would be about like a pinkie nail at arm's length? I haven't done the math, but I can buy that. You make a good point, though. I was going off the height of the light (I wonder why it's so low -- is the chart notation wrong maybe?), but the turbines are much taller than that.
Add to that that it is a spindly thing made of stick-like objects and painted a non reflective light gray.
Yes, this is the core point. The towers are about 30 feet in diameter. A 30-foot wide object at 15 miles would look about as wide as a human hair does at arm's length. So, could you see something as wide as a h
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the height would be about like a pinkie nail at arm's length?
Right. Approximately, anyway. Varies by arm length and pinkie nail size obviously, but would appear somewhere in the neighborhood of a third of an inch tall at around average arm length. Now, I could still certainly see something that relatively thin on my fingernail at arms length, but maybe not if I wasn't looking right at at. In my peripheral vision, I might have trouble noticing it. Then, as mentioned, the color, atmospheric effects, etc.
I am not sure about the light. Like you said, they may be below th
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know much about the exact requirements for lights though. Would they have lights at the top for planes?
I think that is the primary purpose. They aren't classified as ATON (Aids TO Navigation) because the wind turbines are floating on a tether, and move around a little, which makes them unreliable for navigation fixes. So the the lights are there to make them visible to boats and aircraft. Maybe they have 70 foot-high yellow lights for boats and red lights on the generator nacelle at the top of the tower for aircraft, and those just aren't mentioned on the nautical charts? Dunno.
Now I really want to sail
Re: (Score:1)
You mistake actually understanding things for being "leftwing". Not that much a surprise, right-wingers are reliably known to be significantly dumber and significantly more disconnected from reality than the average person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: this site (Score:2)
Re: this site (Score:2)