Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

U.S. Offshore Wind Farm Receives $2 Billion From Japanese Banks

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the moar-power dept.

Power 185

kkleiner writes "The Bank of Tokyo has invested $2 billion into Cape Wind, the 130-turbine wind farm that is inching closer to becoming a reality. The project is vying to the first offshore wind farm in the U.S. after a decade-long campaign mired by red tape in order to receive approval. Proposed to be installed in Nantucket Sound, the wind farm is estimated to have a capacity of 468 megawatts."

cancel ×

185 comments

Meanwhile... (5, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43457205)

Meanwhile, in the United States... research and development cut. NASA budget shrunk. Science and engineering degrees from new graduates at all time lows. And at least one state (Tennessee) has recently tried to pass a law to make our educational system an actual Hunger Games by witholding food assistance from poor families with students who do poorly on state-administered exams.

Thank you, Japan, for investing in us... because we sure as hell aren't.

Re:Meanwhile... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457231)

Parent apparently doesn't ever read the news or, well anything. I don't even know where to start with all the money dumped into failed energy projects lately.

Re:Meanwhile... (5, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43457277)

Parent apparently didn't read the article, where it said, amongst other things, "politics and ghastly bureaucracies have thwarted efforts to adopt offshore wind farms in the US," "While the US is still waiting for its first offshore wind farm, much of the developed world has already," "everything from 'visual pollution' to the 'desecration of Indian burial grounds' have been thrown at Cape Wind"... Yeah. Sure sounds like money is the problem there.

But since you don't know where to start "with all the money dumped into failed energy projects", here [time.com] is as good a place as any. "According to the International Energy Agency, fossil fuels received $409 billion in subsidies globally in 2010, compared with $66 billion for renewable power." So how come a mature and developed industry needs six TIMES the amount of subsidies that research and development does? Is fossil fuel not profitable or something?

If we want to talk about wasting money on "failed energy projects", I can think of no better example than our wasteful spending on fossil fuel subsidies. Probably not what you had in mind though when you made your off the cuff remark though, eh?

Re:Meanwhile... (-1, Troll)

cinnamon colbert (732724) | about a year ago | (#43457327)

are you aware that I , as a boston home owner, am being forced to subsidze the project, as the super high cost electricity it makes is not viable unless the gov't forces me to buy it ?

Re:Meanwhile... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457385)

How high is "super high"?
Does this apply only to homeowners or to all rate payers?
Are these rate payers allowed to vote for the people who make the laws?
Are the rate payers who's votes align against the "super high" rates allowed to benefit from whatever benefits accrue?
Are the rate payers who's votes advance this scheme subject to the same detriments as you are?

Re:Meanwhile... (2)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year ago | (#43457973)

If you really want to know... Electrical utilities are a natural monopoly [wikipedia.org] . In most locations, you don't have a choice in who provides your electricity because the city (for municipal power) or the state chose for you and granted the utility a monopoly. They also created a public service board or commission to regulate the utilities. The board approves rate hikes. You don't choose who is on the board. The utility asks them to raise rates to they can buy high-cost electricity. They approve it. You don't have a choice.

Re:Meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457593)

It's those Liberal states that don't want to solve our energy problems!

Re:Meanwhile... (0)

blind monkey 3 (773904) | about a year ago | (#43457331)

++ Mod points needed....

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457687)

It could be dangerous to give you mod points if you think comments like this are worth posting at all. At least go AC so the rest of us don't have to waste mod points to drop this kind of thing to -1 where it belongs.

Re:Meanwhile... (3, Insightful)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year ago | (#43457343)

409 billion to 66 billion? Why don't you look at dollars per megawatt generated. Fossil fuels get pretty much the lowest subsidies per megawatt.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903285704576559103573673300.html

In fact they get a fraction of 1% of the subsidies per megawatt that renewable energy gets.

Re:Meanwhile... (5, Insightful)

flaming error (1041742) | about a year ago | (#43457833)

That's an interesting way to look at it. But honestly, I don't see the value of that point of view.

What is the point of subsidy? If the point were to benefit consumers, they would give us a tax credit for consumption, or at least drop the fuel taxes. It seems clear to me that subsidies exist to distort the market in favor of producers. Why is a single taxpayer penny going to such a mature, profitable, and global industry?

As far as I can see, it has nothing to do with "per megawatt," and everything to do with "per campaign contribution."

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year ago | (#43458037)

That's an interesting way to look at it. But honestly, I don't see the value of that point of view.

Actually, I don't think you understand the concept of value. Subsidizing solar power to the tune of $750.00 per megawatt is not good value.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

flaming error (1041742) | about a year ago | (#43458185)

If value means only purchase price, why would the industry with overwhelming market domination and the lowest retail price require taxpayer subsidies?

Re:Meanwhile... (3, Insightful)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year ago | (#43458395)

It doesn't, end them. The oil industry receives subsidies in the form of standard tax breaks. Solyndra, and other renewable energy companies receive their subsidies in the form of checks. There's a difference.

Re:Meanwhile... (3, Interesting)

Solandri (704621) | about a year ago | (#43458057)

That's an interesting way to look at it. But honestly, I don't see the value of that point of view.

What is the point of subsidy? If the point were to benefit consumers, they would give us a tax credit for consumption, or at least drop the fuel taxes. It seems clear to me that subsidies exist to distort the market in favor of producers.

If the argument is that the subsidies for fossil fuels are distorting the market, then $ per megawatt-hour is the correct way to compare it. If you and I are both selling lemonade, and I get a subsidy of $0.01 per glass, and you get a subsidy of $1 per glass it's pretty clear which way the market is distorted.

That I happen to sell 10,000 glasses for a total subsidy of $100, while you sell just 10 glasses for a total subsidy of $10, is beside the point from a market distortion standpoint.

Why is a single taxpayer penny going to such a mature, profitable, and global industry?

You are assuming the fossil fuel industry is a monolithic and static entity. There are new methods of extracting fossil fuels and more efficient ways of combusting them constantly being researched and developed. They get a large share of the subsidy dollars because most of our energy infrastructure is designed to run off of fossil fuels. So decreasing their cost has a proportionally larger benefit for our overall economy than decreasing the cost of a little-used technology (putting aside the issue of externalized costs due to pollution). Once renewables drop in price to the point where they're providing the bulk of our energy, they will get the bulk of the subsidy dollars. The point of the subsidies isn't to try to be "fair" to the little guy. It's to accelerate development of promising new technologies which will most benefit the economy.

Speaking of which, I don't see a problem with renewables currently having a poorer return per subsidy dollar than fossil fuels. The petroleum and coal industries were probably subsidized up the wazoo when they were first starting out. Nuclear certainly was. We are investing heavily in renewables now not because we're expecting an immediate return on that investment. Rather we see a long-term benefit of switching to these technologies, and wish to accelerate their development into an economically viable alternative. So there's nothing wrong with renewables getting more $subsidy/MWh. In fact if you look only at new fossil fuel technologies like clean coal (which I think is a terrible idea), the $subsidy/MWh is probably similar to that of renewables.

Re:Meanwhile... (5, Insightful)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about a year ago | (#43458097)

So decreasing their cost has a proportionally larger benefit for our overall economy...

That was the biggest load of bullshit I've heard all year. "Benefit the economy?" Are you kidding me? What happens when the power company uses tax money to find a way to combust coal more efficiently? They implement it, continue to charge me the exact same amount of money for electricity and pocket the difference as profit. That's not a "benefit to the economy." That's a benefit to the goddamn power company. If they want to increase their profits by improving the efficiency of their processes, they can pay for it with their own money, not my tax money. I already paid them. My neighbors all paid them. Together, we all paid them enough to do all the fucking research in the world and still post record profits. And you're trying to claim subsidizing them with government funds is a benefit to the economy?

The fucking nerve...

Re:Meanwhile... (2)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year ago | (#43458415)

I agree with most of that sentiment. But what do you think happens with those profits? Mentally trace them as they wind their way through the economy. When a company gets a taxpayer handout, literally a check, and then goes bankrupt and is sold off to China, who benefits from that?

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43458633)

some tax-haven ?

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

flaming error (1041742) | about a year ago | (#43458241)

"If you and I are both selling lemonade, and I get a subsidy of $0.01 per glass, and you get a subsidy of $1 per glass it's pretty clear which way the market is distorted. "

It would be pretty clear that the subsidies were stupid. If the goal were to give me a 99 cent advantage, It would be cheaper to give me ($0.99 * 10) than to shell out that for me plus ($0.01 * 10,000) for you.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

flaming error (1041742) | about a year ago | (#43458253)

Sorry, that was $1.00 * 10 for me. I didn't mean to underreport that dime on tax day.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

pod (1103) | about a year ago | (#43458733)

"It would be pretty clear that the subsidies were stupid."

Now you're using your noggin!

But they both got subsidies, so they are both happy, no? It's all about the votes.

Re:Meanwhile... (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43457865)

409 billion to 66 billion? Why don't you look at dollars per megawatt generated.

Well, that's a really good question. I suppose it has something to do with the difference between maintaining an existing technology and infrastructure that depends on a dwindling and non-replaceable natural resource, as opposed to developing new technologies and infrastructure that rely on one or more natural resources which are neither. So "dollars per megawatt" is the wrong metric to be using in this case.

Now, if we were to compare renewable energy over the entire developmental history of fossil fuels... we'd see that it cost a lot of money to make small, incremental improvements. You're making an apples to oranges comparison.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#43457997)

Now, if we were to compare renewable energy over the entire developmental history of fossil fuels... we'd see that it cost a lot of money to make small, incremental improvements.

So what? It costs more, if you're spending Other Peoples' Money. Also existing development is a sunk cost. Sure, maybe some renewable alternative would cost less to research than has been spent on a fossil fuel rival. But the latter exists now and doesn't require you to spend more to make it work. That's a powerful advantage.

Re:Meanwhile... (1, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43458063)

So what? It costs more, if you're spending Other Peoples' Money. Also existing development is a sunk cost. Sure, maybe some renewable alternative would cost less to research than has been spent on a fossil fuel rival. But the latter exists now and doesn't require you to spend more to make it work. That's a powerful advantage.

Okay, so short version is... after you spend a trillion dollars to make something work, getting something else to work at a fraction of that cost is wrong because of [bullshit political reason]. Meanwhile, oil supplies continue to dwindle, and our planet is heating up so fast that by some estimates, in another 20 years we won't have ice in antarctica. Clearly, us all roasting to death as most of the planet becomes an inhospitable desert is preferable to violating the tenets of (mumble mumble) other people's money (mumble).

Re:Meanwhile... (2)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year ago | (#43458049)

And because fossil fuels did this largely without the help of taxpayer subsidies, we have a mature profitable industry. As long as solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear are dependent on handouts, they will never achieve that status.

Re:Meanwhile... (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43458269)

And because fossil fuels did this largely without the help of taxpayer subsidies, we have a mature profitable industry.

Did you miss the part where I pointed out there's about 68 billion in subsidies every year going to fossil fuel producers, and renewable energy gets about a sixth of that? And as long as we're talking about "taxpayer subsidies", how about we discuss the storied and terrible history of Standard Oil, which became the first modern monopoly in the world through predatory business practices, rampant exploitation of natural resources, workers, price manipulation, etc. It was the catalyst for the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act and its later dismantlement by the government at significant cost to taxpayers. Most of our domestic oil producers can still trace their roots back to this monolithic entity that at one point controlled over 90% of domestic production and 80% of sales.

See, the problem with your logic is that it's myopic: You think taxpayer dollars only come from government subsidies. But whether you're paying for it due to legislation, or due to malignant business practices, you're still paying for it. The delineation between the two is artificial and arbitrary. Standard Oil, if it existed today, would probably own close to a third of the country, and have an operating revenue of over a trillion USD. That trillion a year revenue would be coming out of our pockets.

In short, your logic is bullshit: Every major infrastructure industry in this country depended on the government to get up and running, or to expand to a societal level of influence. Every. Last. One.

Re:Meanwhile... (2)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year ago | (#43458359)

Did you miss the part where I pointed out there's about 68 billion in subsidies every year going to fossil fuel producers, and renewable energy gets about a sixth of that? And as long as we're talking about "taxpayer subsidies", how about we discuss the storied and terrible history of Standard Oil, which became the first modern monopoly in the world through predatory business practices, rampant exploitation of natural resources, workers, price manipulation, etc. It was the catalyst for the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act and its later dismantlement by the government at significant cost to taxpayers. Most of our domestic oil producers can still trace their roots back to this monolithic entity that at one point controlled over 90% of domestic production and 80% of sales.

Not at all. Renewable energy only produces a few percent of the power in this country. I'll accept your definition of subsidies for the sake of argument. If they only produce a few percent of the power what entitles them to 1/6th of the subsidies? How about we just stop subsidizing altogether.

See, the problem with your logic is that it's myopic: You think taxpayer dollars only come from government subsidies. But whether you're paying for it due to legislation, or due to malignant business practices, you're still paying for it.

And you accuse me of being illogical? You can't just ignore facts and make up definitions. When you buy a product from a company that is not a tax. Tax is money that is taken from you by force by a government, either willingly or unwillingly.

The delineation between the two is artificial and arbitrary. Standard Oil, if it existed today, would probably own close to a third of the country, and have an operating revenue of over a trillion USD. That trillion a year revenue would be coming out of our pockets.

It doesn't. But I'll accept your scenario for the sake of argument. Fuel was far less expensive, adjusted for inflation, with Standard Oil than it is today.

In short, your logic is bullshit: Every major infrastructure industry in this country depended on the government to get up and running, or to expand to a societal level of influence. Every. Last. One.

The thing about taxpayer provided infrastructure is that everyone is supposed to be able to use it. When the Government gets involved and starts picking favored children to be spoiled with our money, that violates the principles this country was founded on. Level the playing field, don't tilt it.

Re:Meanwhile... (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43458533)

Not at all. Renewable energy only produces a few percent of the power in this country.

Weren't you the one just ragging on me a short while ago about "cost per megawatt"? Now you're moving the goal posts. And what does the size of an industry have to do with its return on investment, public good, etc.? Nothing.

You can't just ignore facts and make up definitions.

Why? You're doing it. I've taken the position that we need to invest in alternative energy before the planet becomes uninhabitable, and you're making arguments about taxpayer dollars. Who's being more illogical here? The person who realizes you can't eat money, or the person who values only money?

Fuel was far less expensive, adjusted for inflation, with Standard Oil than it is today.

The modern automobile didn't exist until about the time Standard Oil was broken up. At that time, oil was mostly used for heating and limited industrial applications. Demand has gone up considerably; But I'm certain that they could have figured out how to go international and gain monopolies elsewhere as well. Oh wait... they were in the process of doing exactly that when we broke them up. We would have wound up with the next OPEC in our backyard if not for that.

The thing about taxpayer provided infrastructure is that everyone is supposed to be able to use it.

You use the roads. You use the gas stations. You indirectly make use of the pipelines, trucks, and other transportation equipment, etc. The government is involved in every aspect from the time it comes out of the ground until it hits your gas tank. And yet... you try to make the argument "everyone is supposed to be able to use it?"

When the Government gets involved and starts picking favored children to be spoiled with our money,

68,000,000,000 dollars per year goes to the "favored children" of the fossil fuel production industry. I just want to make sure we're clear on exactly how many zeros are in that: apparently billion isn't something you've wrapped your head around yet.

that violates the principles this country was founded on

Yes, so we should allow the industries that have profited from all that government investment before to continue to do so, without repayment... but give no alternatives equal access to funding, because of principles that you yourself only sometimes adhere too.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year ago | (#43458671)

It helps to quote your opponent's argument in full when countering. That way it doesn't look like you are ignoring portions.

Actually, the TIME article claims 68,000,000,000 goes to renewable energy, and 409,000,000,000 goes to fossil fuels. But that number is misleading in fossil fuel's case, because the government never gave it to them. It simply didn't take it in the first place.

By the way, 68,000,000,000 is a large number that I fully comprehend. So is 225,000,000,000, which is the amount we will spend this year paying interest on the debt. And so is 1,200,000,000,000, which is the amount we will spend this year that we don't have. And so is 5,600,000,000,000, which is the amount of our debt that is held by foreign governments. We can go on, there are several even larger figures that I could bring up.

Re:Meanwhile... (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43458791)

It helps to quote your opponent's argument in full when countering. That way it doesn't look like you are ignoring portions.

So you've corrected me because I was an order of magnitude lower in my estimates, but failed to attack any of the main points and merely done a dismissal handwave. Classy.

Re:Meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43458301)

Fossl fuels got $409 Billion in subsidies. I sugget you read the first post again.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year ago | (#43458439)

So, the TIME article is claiming that fossil fuels had 2/3 as much money budgeted to them as Defense? I smell some week old Halibut.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year ago | (#43458163)

In fact they get a fraction of 1% of the subsidies per megawatt that renewable energy gets.

A mature technology with a massive amount of installed infrastructure gets lower subsidies per [arbitrary unit] than a new technology with a miniscule fraction of the installed base.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Color me surprised.

Maybe 100 years from now, we can have a meaningful comparison of renewables and fossil fuels, assuming we're still using fossil fuels in 100 years.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year ago | (#43458195)

OK, so tell me when fossil fuels, oil, coal or NG were ever subsidized to the tune of $750 per MW adjusted for inflation of course to make it fair. Were they ever even subsidized at $10 per MW? I highly doubt it. Solar is currently subsidized at a rate more than 1000 times higher per unit of electricity generated.

Re:Meanwhile... (2, Insightful)

bjdevil66 (583941) | about a year ago | (#43457445)

In the end, this windfarm's problems weren't regulations or "sacred ground" of some nearby tribe. It was just a huge case of NIMBY from certain, powerful residents in the region who had connections and cash.

And in this case, I can't totally fault the NIMBYs this time. Unless one is wearing rose-colored glasses about "going green", large windmill farms are an eyesore. Sure, they're a novelty to look at - as you DRIVE BY THEM in the middle of nowhere (such as the one in the barren hills on I-10 between LA and Phoenix, near Indio, CA). If I had them to look at all the time, however, it'd be no better than throwing up giant power lines and trusses a ways behind my backyard wall. If I'd paid millions to have a nice cape view and had some treehugger coming in and spoiling my view, I'd be pretty pissed off too.

Re:Meanwhile... (4, Insightful)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43457535)

except these rich people are tree huggers themselves who force their views on others

Re:Meanwhile... (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | about a year ago | (#43457557)

Well, the Kennedys make a lot of tree-hugging noises, but they still like to use their private jets.

-jcr

Re:Meanwhile... (0, Troll)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year ago | (#43457763)

If only more Kennedys flew in private jets *cough* JFK Jr *cough*

Re:Meanwhile... (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43457759)

If I'd paid millions to have a nice cape view and had some treehugger coming in and spoiling my view, I'd be pretty pissed off too.

Sounds like you (and they) need to review Yertle the Turtle.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about a year ago | (#43457767)

I don't think they're a significant eyesore during the day but the huge mass of blinking red lights at night is not such a great thing.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about a year ago | (#43458659)

If I'd paid millions to have a nice cape view and had some treehugger coming in and spoiling my view, I'd be pretty pissed off too.

Then you clearly didn't pay enough millions. You should have bought the whole of Nantucket Sound if you wanted to dictate what could happen within sight of and not merely on your property. I'd be pissed too, if I'd bought the property for a view that would be spoiled. But I'd have no real claim. Owning a piece of shoreline doesn't allow one to determine what can happens miles from shore.

Re:Meanwhile... (3, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | about a year ago | (#43457551)

I can think of no better example than our wasteful spending on fossil fuel subsidies.

Those are bad, too.

How about, we end all tax money going to energy companies, make all taxes uniform, and let buyers determine which ones succeed and which ones fail?

-jcr

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457603)

Because buying energy isn't the only concern. The costs of energy producition matter a lot, and addressing them is hard.

How am I to prosecute the polluting power plant that is upwind of me?

Martha's Vinyard and Nantucket Island - windfarms (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457701)

The costs of energy producition matter a lot, and addressing them is hard.

The ending of the subsidies will address that.

Hmmmmm, it costs XXX to get coal or oil out of the ground and it produces Y energy. Or Wind costs AAA to develop and produces B energy.

How am I to prosecute the polluting power plant that is upwind of me?

What ever that means.

And that Boston homeowner above - he doesn't want to have to deal with the energy HE uses. He wants OTHERS to live with the consequences of HIS energy production.

Right now, some poor slobs are living next to the oil, NG or coal fired power plant the produces the energy that he uses.

HE wants the Bay clear and HIS landscape clear of that nasty energy production. Just having energy production somewhere else subsidizes his lifestyle because by not having some nasty power plant near HIS house, HE doesn't have to deal with the reduction in property values because of that fume spewing plant.

You know, Martha's Vinyard and Nantucket Island are VERY windy. The wind farm should be placed on those islands. After all, those islands were originally INDUSTRIAL areas anyway - whale processing. It would be fitting karma for that area.

Re:Martha's Vinyard and Nantucket Island - windfar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43458137)

The ending of the subsidies will address that.

No, it won't, because it's not the price, but the cost that matters.

There are costs to every coal mine, to every oil well, every dam, and yes, every windfarm and nuclear plant.

Price is another matter, and I'm sure that the companies involved will make us pay for every drill bit and turbine, but the costs of what they do? Well, we will pay, but not in a free market kind of way.

What ever that means.

That burning coal has a cost?

How am I supposed to get recompense for that?

Re:Meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43458035)

How about, we end all tax money going to energy companies, make all taxes uniform, and let buyers determine which ones succeed and which ones fail?

Have you talked to the average person lately?

Re:Meanwhile... (2)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year ago | (#43457325)

We spend 3.6 trillion dollars a year on ourselves. We are now spending more on ourselves than any time in history. Why isn't it working?

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457417)

We spend 3.6 trillion dollars a year on ourselves. We are now spending more on ourselves than any time in history. Why isn't it working?

Because you don't have a fucking clue as to where any of that 3.6 trillion dollars actually goes.

And those taking all that money like it that way.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year ago | (#43457447)

That's right. So let's cut the problem off at the knees, and stop funding it.

Re:Meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457645)

The dog is sick,
shoot the dog......

Re:Meanwhile... (2)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year ago | (#43458013)

No. If your dog is so fat it cant get off the couch, you give it less food to fix it. If you get terrible gas mileage because your car is filled with 500 lbs of junk that's been in there for three years, you remove the junk. If your company is failing because you spend too much on catering and travel, you spend less on catering and do more teleconferencing.

Re:Meanwhile... (0)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#43458189)

If your company is failing because you spend too much on catering and travel

Unless you're a catering and travel company.

You understand that sovereign nations with fiat currency are not at all like your fat dog, your car, or a company. It's not like your family, or your poker night or a piggy bank.

Not at all.

Re:Meanwhile... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457841)

Because we're spending it all on:

1) Blowing other people up.
2) Ridiculously high health care costs that would decrease immensely if the right would stop cock-blocking us on universal health care.

Re:Meanwhile... (2)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year ago | (#43458061)

Right, because universal health care always ends up being cheap and good.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43458351)

The current system certainly hasn't ended up being cheap or unquestionably good.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#43458177)

We spend 3.6 trillion dollars a year on ourselves.

Not all of it is "on ourselves", unless one of us is an Afghani warlord.

Re:Meanwhile... (0, Flamebait)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year ago | (#43457349)

meanwhile in the united states, a private company is raising funds instead of being on scientific welfare producing nothing of note for the last 3 decades

PS, I kind of like the TN law, its not instant, theres a process to go though to improve student performance, if you and your child DO NOT choose to actually work for their education, why the fuck should we be paying both of you to sit on your ass all day for yet ANOTHER generation?

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

bbelt16ag (744938) | about a year ago | (#43457409)

the stick does not work better then the honey. These kids will end up on the streets and in your neighborhood selling crack and heroine to anybody who will buy it. This solution will not work with out them WANTING to change. They will just say screw and leave the system.

Effective versus fair? (3, Informative)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year ago | (#43457459)

... why the fuck should we be paying both of you to sit on your ass all day for yet ANOTHER generation?

Because that's an emotional argument, not a rational one?

Rather than do whatever "feels" right, we should put our emotions on hold and make decisions based on evidence and effectiveness.

So my question to you is - will the new rule be more effective in educating children than the current system?

Note that poor, uneducated children are more likely to grow up to be criminals. By choosing the "justice feels right" option, you may be inadvertently sending your children into a less safe future. Education is the best way we know to bring people out of poverty.

It is well known that proper diet has a beneficial effect on schooling, so *my* gut feeling is that the new law will do more harm than good. But I can put that aside and look at the evidence.

Do you have any evidence that the new law won't make matters worse?

Re:Effective versus fair? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year ago | (#43457655)

"So my question to you is - will the new rule be more effective in educating children than the current system?"

no clue, its not even on the books as of yet, what I think is that yes there are some totally helpless people, and they are just leeches. Then there are people who are overwhelmed.

This kind of sorts the people out, if you and your child really dont care, get a job, else here is a series of steps you and your student can do to improve their education, show effort and we should help you.

Re:Effective versus fair? (1)

j-beda (85386) | about a year ago | (#43457733)

That sounds a bit like an emotional argument again. Will we as a society be better off if we fund education via method "a" or method "b"? Regardless which one funds "leeches" and which one funds the "overwhelmed". I suspect that there is some value to not-incentivizing leech-like behaviour, but it is also probably true that there is a point of diminishing returns where the costs in implementing systems to avoid any leeching can become dramatically greater than the costs of the leeching in the first place.

Re:Effective versus fair? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year ago | (#43458017)

well its a good thing I did not argue it for the state senate, I am sure they have professionals to argue

Re:Meanwhile... (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43457817)

PS, I kind of like the TN law, its not instant, theres a process to go though to improve student performance, if you and your child DO NOT choose to actually work for their education, why the fuck should we be paying both of you to sit on your ass all day for yet ANOTHER generation?

Hey, I've got a great idea! How about we take Little Timmy here, who's poor and hungry, and make him poorer and tell him it's his fault! I bet that'll encourage him to bust a nut on the next standardized test. Meanwhile, other kids, who are also doing crappy on standardized tests but aren't poor... they still get government assistance in the form of, I don't know... police service, roads, fire department, etc.

How exactly is it moral or ethical to deny only poor children access to food unless they perform well academically? Please, I really want to know.

Re:Meanwhile... (0)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year ago | (#43458011)

little timmy is 16 years old and has not gone to school for 3 months

cry me a river

girlintraining ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457507)

How YOU do'in?

I promise: I won't cum in your mouth, I'll use a condom, and I'll call you afterwards.

Really.

Re: girlintraining ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457783)

You know "she" has a penis, right?

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

GLMDesigns (2044134) | about a year ago | (#43457541)

You obviously are just parroting some nonsense. By every yardstick R&D is steady or has grown; regarding science and engineering degrees- yes that is not a good sign. Our problem is not R&D budgets - it creeping dependency on state; the erosion of individual rights and the rise of imperial washington.

nasas budget under obama... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457781)

actually not shrunk

Re:Meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457863)

As long as a parent attended 2 parent teacher conferences in the entire school year, they would get the same amount of money. If a parent can't be relied upon for that, then why not just take their children away.

The bad news ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457211)

The bad news is that $2 billion was in bitcoins which are now worth about $11.79

Turbine-themed limericks (2, Funny)

Guano_Jim (157555) | about a year ago | (#43457269)

Could someone please come up with a dirty limerick about this wind farm? It's got NANTUCKET in it, for the love of pete.

I've been sitting here for ten minutes and I got nothin'.

Re:Turbine-themed limericks (4, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43457291)

I've been sitting here for ten minutes and I got nothin'.

A planned for wind farm near Nantucket
Risked the view of a rich tourist's junket
So a judge stepped on in
Said, "give safety a spin"
"To test the idea, then I'll flunk it." ... Okay, maybe it's not dirty... but better than nothing. :D

Re:Turbine-themed limericks (1)

blind monkey 3 (773904) | about a year ago | (#43457389)

I've been sitting here for ten minutes and I got nothin'.

A planned for wind farm near Nantucket
Risked the view of a rich tourist's junket
So a judge stepped on in
Said, "give safety a spin"
"To test the idea, that'll f%#k it." ...

% == u
# == c
Subtlety doesn't work well at /.

Re:Turbine-themed limericks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457761)

WTF? Are you 12? Five things:1. You can say "fuck" on the internet. Even on /. 2. Everyone knows what f**k means, you don't need to explain. 3. If you're going to self censor, WHY would you explain what the character substitution is 4. In my expirence, == is for comparison, = is for assigning. 5. Nothing subtle happened here (except maybe the joke you missed in the parent - intentionally NOT using the obvious "fuck" rhyme)

Re:Turbine-themed limericks (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#43458449)

The limerick was halfway decent because it didn't take the easy and obvious route of using an expletive that was clearly being set up from the start. It plays with the reader's expectations. Not only that, but it makes much more sense with "flunk" than what you've proposed, since the original refers to rejection, whereas yours refers to destroying it, which makes no sense in the context of this case.

Re:Turbine-themed limericks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457309)

There once was a wind farm in Nantucket.
      I tried to make a limerick,
but then I said fuck it.

Re:Turbine-themed limericks (1)

dugjohnson (920519) | about a year ago | (#43457313)

There was a wind farm in Nantucket
Delivering power by the bucket
Though the U S of A
With it's bucks said "no way"
There were people with yen who could ....back it

Re:Turbine-themed limericks (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#43457377)

The Red Sun planned a farm in Nantucket.
But not corn, it was wind that they shuck-ed.
The rich folks they cried,
until Congress denied.
But when Kennedy died, they said "fuck it."

Re:Turbine-themed limericks (2, Funny)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | about a year ago | (#43457429)

There once was a wind farm in Nantucket
That the US told to suck it
The Japs prefer a blow
To Fukushima glow
So they bought a share for their socket

Re:Turbine-themed limericks (5, Funny)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43457635)

On a windfarm down in Nantucket,
Some rich bastards there tried to fuck it.
But the press badges stopped by,
And they invoked the public's eye,
Who then told all the fuckers to shove it.

In Japan they feel it's a must,
To rid themelves of nuclear dust,
So they dropped a fat cheque
On said windfarm's deck
To help them win the public's trust.

Due to the fortunes that they hold dear,
Of these bastards, it is abundantly clear:
All projects they will attempt to defraud,
To keep construction out of Cape Cod
Using rhetoric both truthful and smear.

Re:Turbine-themed limericks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43458463)

Holy shit, that was awesome!

Re:Turbine-themed limericks (2)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year ago | (#43458503)

Shell shills' oil spills by the sea shore
darken not Nantucket's back door;
“green pow'r” of Jap bankers' billions
melts the hearts of Hell's dark minions:
Windfarms no longer pose an eyesore.

Burma Shave.

Re:Turbine-themed limericks (2)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about a year ago | (#43458755)

They once had turbines for Nantucket
that aroused the rich (where they stuck it)
for the juice didn't flow
when the wind didn't blow
so instead they contented to suck it.

japanese banks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457311)

getting money from a japanese bank is like getting sex on craiglist

damn awful.

and yes, I speak from experience(s). :|

red tape ? (1, Insightful)

cinnamon colbert (732724) | about a year ago | (#43457315)

I suppose if you owned a house or motel or resturant with a nice view of the ocean, you would consider regulatory reivew so much red tape ?
A lot of fishermen and boaters use that area - alot; i don't think it is unreasonable to have a public hearing or two on safety

You may not know this, but I, a homeowner in the boston area (newton to be exact) will pay higher electric rates cause of shady deals blessed by state politicians; why should i be forced to pay for this ??
why wasnt' there more red tape so i could object

one mans red tape is another womans reasoanble review

Re:red tape ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457353)

You may not know this, but I, a homeowner in the boston area (newton to be exact) will pay higher electric rates cause of shady deals blessed by state politicians; why should i be forced to pay for this ??

Hell yeah! And l don't get me started with all those roads they built using MY tax money, even though I ride only a horse, like real men do!

Re:red tape ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457407)

It probably will get killed because of red tape. I expect the sticking point will be how to handle it if something breaks and spills wind everywhere.

Re:red tape ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457431)

No one objects to "a public hearing or two on safety." That is not what has happened here. The project has been fought tooth and nail since 2001 by opponents on every ground imaginable. Look at a wind map. This site has among the best wind resources in the United States and it is located near an area that consumes lots of electricity.

Re:red tape ? (1)

Hadlock (143607) | about a year ago | (#43457623)

The good news is that there's no red tape in Texas, and despite Massachusetts marketing campaign, Texas will likely be first in the water.... with a much larger installation. Texas' office of natural resources has an open door policy and are a lot further long...without the need for federal funding.

Re:red tape ? (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about a year ago | (#43458829)

They have a smaller shoreline than Texas so the wealthy owners are worried, in Texas they probably have plenty of places to choose from. In addition, shipping lanes and commerce ports are also closer together because of the smaller area. Any changes will be met with FEAR, if you've ever known a small to mid sized business owner they fear everything that could impact them.

There is a documentary on the fishing limits; hinted at how their senator worked.... he knew it was stupid but didn't want to go into a fight with them when they'd just shoot themselves in the feet resulting in them learning the hard way and him representing their foolishness. I figure wind worked something like this as well... along with the wealthy land owners, whole towns of TOURISM worried citizens... It is not just wealthy sailors, it's all the people who RENT sail boats, the resorts with views, the towns with beaches... They all FEAR any changes - even if the things would be out of view from shore.

This isn't just rich people; they have a grassroots effort as well as some astroturf - the inland and courageous citizens will just have to overpower them.

FYI:
Texas is a big welfare state that wouldn't best Mexico if it wasn't supported by the productive states. The lack of regulations doesn't make the state a net earner... Now if they owned that oil instead of let a small group claim it... and dodge taxes maybe texas would contribute some $ for a change. Meanwhile most of New England pays far more to the feds than they get in return, so they should feel entitled to FREE wind farms because they've more than payed for it. Also, Texas schools suck and well, a whole lot more. Disclaimer, I've never been in either region.

Meanwhile Japan still hasn't got electricity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457345)

Seems like they don't have enough faith in their own country's power generation to invest in that.

Would Someone Think of The Kennedys! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457405)

Their poor, pristine sound will be ruined to yachting.

Bank of Tokyo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457565)

They might want to abbreviate the name differently. The Bank of Tokyo ceased to exist as independent entity in 1996, whereas Mitsubishi UFJ [wikipedia.org] is--ranked by assets--the fifth largest publicly traded company in the world [forbes.com] .

1.21 JIGGAWATTS!! (0)

Jeremiah Smith (2886481) | about a year ago | (#43457679)

It's over 9000!!!!

It's not altruistic. (2)

fullback (968784) | about a year ago | (#43457683)

The bank name is Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ...

Ironically, Mitsubishi will probably be building and selling wind turbines as part of this deal.

There's nothing wrong with, though.

Irony (1)

stoploss (2842505) | about a year ago | (#43457925)

Ironically, Mitsubishi will probably be building and selling wind turbines as part of this deal.

...for certain, non-ironic values of "ironically".

Unless you count Ally Bank (nee GMAC) financing the sales of GM vehicles as irony. Or Toyota Finance offering loans to Toyota vehicle buyers.

There are countless examples. Hell, even the Marshall Plan was similar in concept—and that might be considered ironic (considering that US aid was given to reconstruct Japan after WWII).

Re:It's not altruistic. (1)

JanneM (7445) | about a year ago | (#43457983)

Mitsubishi isn't a major shareholder in the bank from what it seems. It's a merger of several banks, one of which (Tokyo-Mitsubishi) was owned in part by the Mitsubishi group.

Re:It's not altruistic. (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year ago | (#43458235)

OMG, it's not altruistic? And here I was thinking that Japanese investors threw money around for the good of the planet.

Phew! Thanks a bunch for clearing that up. I'm going to rip up my loan application immediately.

468 megawatts for bitcoin mining!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43457775)

bwa ha ha ha

Opposed by wealthy Dems as much as Repubs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43458453)

Just goes to show you can't trust any politician. Cape Wind was held up not just due to red tape, but the fact that it was opposed by John kerry, Ted Kennedy, Mitt Romeny... all wealthy politicians who didn't want their Nantucket Sound sailing disturbed even if it meant developing one of teh best offshore wind sites in the US.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...