Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Sunday January 29 2017, @08:24PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-about-my-ocean-view? dept.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has approved what will be the largest U.S. offshore wind farm when it's built off the east end of Long Island. It will generate enough electricity to power more than 50,000 homes on Long Island's South Fork.

The South Fork Wind Farm will consist of 15 wind turbines with 90 megawatts (MW) of capacity. While the project still needs to complete its permitting process, construction could start as early as 2019 and it may be operational as early as 2022.

The approval of the South Fork Wind Farm, to be located 30 miles southeast of Montauk, is the first step toward developing 1,000 megawatts (1 gigawatt) of offshore wind power in that area, Cuomo said in a statement.

[...] "This is a big day for clean energy in New York and our nation. Gov. Cuomo has set a bold vision for a clean energy future, and this project is a significant step toward making that a reality...," Deepwater Wind CEO Jeffrey Grybowski said in a statement. "There is a huge clean energy resource blowing off of our coastline just over the horizon, and it is time to tap into this unlimited resource to power our communities."

Source:
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3161753/sustainable-it/ny-okays-largest-us-offshore-wind-farm-off-long-island.html


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:11PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:11PM (#460398) Journal

    It's time for fusion!

    http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/01/terrestrial-energy-notifies-nuclear.html [nextbigfuture.com]

    (getting rid of tabs)

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:33PM

    by Whoever (4524) on Sunday January 29 2017, @09:33PM (#460409) Journal

    Nuclear power is theoretically a good idea.

    The problem is that the people building and operating it at some point go cheap on the safety, making accidents far more likely than they should be.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:02PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:02PM (#460420) Journal

      The problem is that the people building and operating it at some point go cheap on the safety, making accidents far more likely than they should be.

      It's not much of a problem, let us note. The Fukushima accident, for example, killed much less people than the Japanese societal response to the accident.

      Second, that's what regulation is for.

      • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:40PM

        by Whoever (4524) on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:40PM (#460434) Journal

        Number of people killed in the immediate aftermath isn't the only metric. What about the cost of the cleanup? What about the people who will die, or suffer heath complications from radiation exposure? What about the financial considerations of such large assets being destroyed long before their expected end of life?

        • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:49PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:49PM (#460438) Journal
          Note I said "the Japanese societal response to the accident". That covers both the cost of clean up which is ridiculously inflated as well as the people who died from panicked evacuations or opportunity costs of making nuclear power expensive. I believe that will be considerably larger than health complication from radiation exposure by a considerable amount.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday January 30 2017, @04:55AM

            by aristarchus (2645) on Monday January 30 2017, @04:55AM (#460521) Journal

            That covers both the cost of clean up which is ridiculously inflated

            khallow, this is Control. You are making an assertion that implies intentional deception with no evidence for either what said costs are, nor why they would be inflated. Radioactive material cannot be "cleaned up", it has to be removed, quarantined, and stored. So what are the figures on this for Fukushima? How could you know these figures are "inflated", other that such an accusation fits into your ideological predilection to conspiracy theories? You are in a bubble again, and the obvious rebuttal is that you need to provide some basis in reality for your claims. (This is all assuming you actually wanted me to help. Did this help? )

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by khallow on Monday January 30 2017, @08:17AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 30 2017, @08:17AM (#460564) Journal

              You are making an assertion that implies intentional deception

              By who? You? Surely, the implication has more meat to it than that vague accusation. Currently, there's nothing there to discuss.

              with no evidence for either what said costs are, nor why they would be inflated

              So, for example, it was a rational decision to shut down unharmed nuclear reactors for years because of Fukushima? One doesn't have to look very hard to see evidence of public hysteria and government risk adverse behavior, both which are notorious for greatly increasing costs of human activities.

              • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday January 30 2017, @06:25PM

                by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday January 30 2017, @06:25PM (#460735) Journal

                Aristarchus is clearly asking for some evidence to back up your factual claims. That you need to resort to the "pretend I can't read" defense does not engender much confidence in said claims.

                • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:05AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:05AM (#461126) Journal

                  Aristarchus is clearly asking for some evidence to back up your factual claims.

                  Then where did the accusation that I implied intentional deception come from? I have experience with aristarchus's obfuscations and straw men before. This is part of a greater pattern of misbehavior.

              • (Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday January 30 2017, @10:25PM

                by aristarchus (2645) on Monday January 30 2017, @10:25PM (#460825) Journal

                khallow the Bootlicker! I am trying to help you here! So listen up!

                You are making an assertion that implies intentional deception

                By who? You? Surely, the implication has more meat to it than that vague accusation. Currently, there's nothing there to discuss.

                Wow, what to say when someone fails at reading comprehension of something they wrote theirself? No matter.

                You claimed "inflated" costs. To make a case for this, we would have to be able to give us some "realisitic" costs, based on something, and then show that the estimates others are making (figures needed for this too), and then should the inflationary difference. And you would have to prove that this difference was intentionally created, and what the motivations for doing so were.

                Of course, your other assertion suffers from the same lack of evidence. What exactly are the costs/lives of the alleged "over-reaction"? I am sure the Japanese are pretty good at collecting data like that. And what exactly is the total costs, including clean-up, of the Fukushima disaster? You can probably get some more reliable estimates by comparing the Hanford and Cherynobl clean-ups, except of course, they never managed to clean either of those up, yet.

                So, your bare prejudice for nuclear power has led you to make claims that seem to you correct, but the obvious rebuttal is that you have provided no evidence, and have not even specified metrics. Do try to put some substance in your next attempt!

                • (Score: 2, Troll) by aristarchus on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:55AM

                  by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:55AM (#461077) Journal

                  OK, Fuch you, khallow! I was just trying to help! And I get modded down, for telling the truth? You are not the Trump Administration! Or, perhaps you are! But in either case, you being wrong will be made evident eventually, since reality has a well known liberal bias. It is called, facts, truth, data, stuff like that. So down mod away, all you adherents of alternate facts, alternate reality, and alternate right! You will burn! You will burn in the fire of your own mendacity! The lies you tell, each one, intended or not, will come back upon you tenfold! You will stick to the TarBaby, khallow! Punch him again! The more you insist on your lies, the more you will suffer, once you realize how badly you have been used! Poor khallow. My once dear khallow! I thought he could be saved from the holocaust that is the Republican party. But now I only more the loss of a once sort of rational Soylentil.

                  Soylentils! Salute!!!! A Brother has gone to join the dark side! We will miss him.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:29AM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:29AM (#461136) Journal
                    While I'm pleased that the emissions of my mental failwaves have downmodded your post, we need to recognize that the observation that there have to be facts out there somewhere is a lower quality fact than the facts which are out there somewhere.
                  • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:15PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:15PM (#461172) Journal

                    And I get modded down, for telling the truth?

                    If you were really a philosopher, you'd know that one seeks truth, one doesn't tell it.

                    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 01 2017, @12:15AM

                      by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday February 01 2017, @12:15AM (#461493) Journal

                      you'd know that one seeks truth, one doesn't tell it.

                      Ah, but what good is it to seek truth, if you can't even tell it is truth when you find it? I mean, if you can't tell the truth from the alternate truth, well then you will seek in vain.

                      • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Wednesday February 01 2017, @12:20AM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 01 2017, @12:20AM (#461498) Journal

                        Ah, but what good is it to seek truth, if you can't even tell it is truth when you find it?

                        You'll have to figure that out on your own. I seem to recall someone saying that one couldn't think for another. I grant this is one of those cases where it might apply.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:27AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:27AM (#461135) Journal

                  You claimed "inflated" costs.

                  There are many ways costs can be inflated. Sure, we could dishonestly just make the billed costs bigger to get more profit out of some client. We could also just attach a bunch of theater to the act either as a display of how much we care or because we have a tremendous lack of confidence in what we don't understand. I believe that happened with Fukushima. such as with over-the-top procedures for stripping away soil just to remove a little radiation.

                  Consider a door to a home in a neighborhood with some theft. When the owner leaves the house and locks the door, there will be some sort of minor ritual associated with the locking of the door. After all, one doesn't want to consistently leave the door unlocked, because that makes it more likely that their home will be robbed. But after you leave, how do you know you locked the door (including properly keeping track of your keys)? The answer is the consistent ritual. Perhaps the homeowner always pulls their keys out of their right pocket or purse, locks the door, jiggles it a bit, and puts the keys right back where they came from. Then latter that day, they can always think back to whether or not they did the ritual.

                  But did they really lock the door? Perhaps, they merely remember the habit and not the actual act. They can always come back later that day and jiggle the door again. But that in turn can be misremembered. Perhaps another jiggle or three is in order. Once one ceases to be confident of their memory of such events, then the ritual can become theater as repeated checkings of the door confirm what was already known in poor confidence. At some point, you've passed the point of any possible gain from checking your unreliable memory.

                  I believe that has long been the case with nuclear power. There are a variety of indications that our collective lack of confidence in nuclear power has reached the point of insanity, particularly, in the situation where new plant construction is blocked because we're not sure it's safe, resulting in older, less safe plants being run for longer - making us less safe in the long run. A similar situation happened in Japan with the several year halt in nuclear power operation. A number of the plants weren't affected at all. There's no rational excuse to leave them off.

                  Similarly, the clean up requires a lot of hazardous operations by people (that kills people, aristarchus!). But what are they protecting against? Some slight increase in exposure to radiation that might in theory cause a few more cancers than the people would otherwise get. This is the nature of things that inflate costs.

                  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 01 2017, @12:22AM

                    by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday February 01 2017, @12:22AM (#461502) Journal

                    There are many ways costs can be inflated.

                    Yes, obviously, without rebuttal. But that is not the question. Specific evidence that there was inflation in the estimates of cost to clean up Fukushima?

                    The answer is the consistent ritual.

                    Umm, no, it is not. And what are you talking about? I ask again, are you alright, khallow?

                    I believe that has long been the case with nuclear power.

                    Oh, OK, I think. So, you believe! I was asking for figures, you know, numbers of Yen or Euros or Dollars or Twinkies that the disaster cost, that the clean up will cost, that the alleged "over-reaction" cost. And we get what you believe. Just have to leave it there, I guess. You have no data, khallow! You only have bias and prejudice, and ideological blindness.

                    • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday February 01 2017, @02:50AM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 01 2017, @02:50AM (#461530) Journal

                      Specific evidence that there was inflation in the estimates of cost to clean up Fukushima?

                      You might recall I wrote:

                      A similar situation happened in Japan with the several year halt in nuclear power operation. A number of the plants weren't affected at all. There's no rational excuse to leave them off.

                      What should be the cost of shutting down unharmed, well-functioning nuclear plants? Should be zero yen, because you shouldn't be doing that.

                      Similarly, how many people should be dying in panicked hasty evacuations, money spent by government agencies showboating their concern about small doses of radiation exposure, or the costs of halting construction on safer nuclear reactors than Fukushima while simultaneously extending the lifespan of Fukushima?

                      At one point, you have demanded [soylentnews.org]:

                      What exactly are the costs/lives of the alleged "over-reaction"?

                      Or the coyly specific language of:

                      Specific evidence that there was inflation in the estimates of cost to clean up Fukushima?

                      Since when have you been such a bean counter? "Exactly"? I'm not omniscient with respect to the multitude of opportunity costs present here. I can't tell you to the Yen what the cost of a plodding regulatory environment will be where even a change like going from research indicating that 1 in 500 year tsunami are a lot bigger for a site location than expected to resulting sea wall can take more than ten years. Or missing that all the backup generators can be taken out by a single tsunami event.

                      And why should we ignore the variety of ways to inflate costs without inflating the estimates of the costs? For example, the cost of clean up would be significantly less, if the clean up merely did less. You might find this hard to believe, but Fukushima is an ideal place for a nuclear plant. If that were done, instead of an attempt to restore the site to a pristine condition centuries from now, then they could considerable lower some of the costs associated with the site's clean up now. For an industrial site with low staff on location, they can reduce the standards of clean up over say restoring the site to some hypothetical level where normal people could reside there.

                      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 01 2017, @04:18AM

                        by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday February 01 2017, @04:18AM (#461550) Journal

                        If you cannot argue seriously, khallow, there is no point in continuing.

                        What should be the cost of shutting down unharmed, well-functioning nuclear plants? Should be zero yen, because you shouldn't be doing that.

                        You are intentionally shifting the meaning of "cost" from your original claim. At least try to be honest, please? Shutting down the other plants had costs in terms of other forms of generation that had to be utilized, with impacts, and so on. Your claim is that these costs exceed the costs of cleaning up the Fukushima nuclear accident. Again, this is your claim, so the burden is on you to provide figures.

                        Since when have you been such a bean counter? "Exactly"? I'm not omniscient with respect to the multitude of opportunity costs present here.

                        You are correct. Philosophers tend not to be quantitatively oriented. But that is not the point here. You claimed something about costs, and all I am asking is that you at least attempt to provide some evidence for your claims. If you are not omniscient (and believe me, all Soylentils are aware of this), at least provide some figures. And who the hell said anything about bringing opportunity costs into the mix?

                        And why should we ignore the variety of ways to inflate costs without inflating the estimates of the costs?

                        OMG! I thought you were educated? Why are you changing the issue from the costs to estimated costs when the clean-up of Fukushima really has not begun? This is an entirely different issue, and you are trying to wriggle out of your original claim. You are an eel, khallow.

                        For example, the cost of clean up would be significantly less, if the clean up merely did less.

                        Oh, great. "If we accept only a 10% increase in premature cancer deaths due to residual background radiation, then nuclear power would be economically feasible!" Again, you are changing the issue. You claimed that the panic cost more than the clean up. Now you are claiming the "panic" cost more than the "not quite clean-up". You know, what those other Soylentils said about you, that you were not arguing in good faith, well, I am kind of slow, and I abide by the "principle of charity" and "Hanlon's Razor" with regard to all my opponents in intellectual arguments, but you are starting to try my patience.

                        So, now, khallow, you claimed the cost of the reaction was in excess of the costs of the clean-up. Give us the facts. Or are you just making stuff up, because Nukes are cool, and Hank Rearden deserves to make a ton of money because he is already rich.

                        • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Wednesday February 01 2017, @11:05AM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 01 2017, @11:05AM (#461615) Journal

                          If you cannot argue seriously, khallow, there is no point in continuing.

                          Back at you. I've showed the absurdities in your argument as well. '

                          You are intentionally shifting the meaning of "cost" from your original claim.

                          No. Opportunity cost is just as much a cost as anything else. But it naturally doesn't have a clear price tag attached to it.

                          You are correct. Philosophers tend not to be quantitatively oriented. But that is not the point here. You claimed something about costs, and all I am asking is that you at least attempt to provide some evidence for your claims. If you are not omniscient (and believe me, all Soylentils are aware of this), at least provide some figures. And who the hell said anything about bringing opportunity costs into the mix?

                          And I did. I'm not wasting more of my time with this. If you're not considering opportunity costs then as usual you are missing the true cost.

                          "If we accept only a 10% increase in premature cancer deaths due to residual background radiation, then nuclear power would be economically feasible!"

                          Among what size population again? 10 people?

                          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 01 2017, @11:26PM

                            by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday February 01 2017, @11:26PM (#461836) Journal

                            Opportunity cost is just as much a cost as anything else. But it naturally doesn't have a clear price tag attached to it.

                            Balderdash! Often very clear. What are you saying? No figures?

                            And I did. I'm not wasting more of my time with this.

                            And, . . . you did not. It am taking this as an admission of defeat. You do not have any evidence or figures to back up your claim, and so anyone with any sense is probably correct in just going with the common sense position that the clean up costs of Fukushima will vastly exceed any other relevant cost, including an alleged "over-reaction" whether artificially inflated or not.

                            I accept your surrender, khallow. Better luck in the future. (Pro tip, get the evidence before coming to your conclusion.)

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:12PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday January 29 2017, @10:12PM (#460423) Journal

      safety

      Do you even molten salt reactor?!!!!!111

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 3, Touché) by DannyB on Monday January 30 2017, @02:42PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 30 2017, @02:42PM (#460645) Journal

      Nuclear fusion power has become sufficiently economical to be used today by corporations and private citizens. The price of solar panels continues to fall thus making nuclear fusion power even cheaper tomorrow. It is also quite safe to use this nuclear fusion power.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday January 30 2017, @05:56PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Monday January 30 2017, @05:56PM (#460723)

      And despite that, including assembly and disassembly, and even mining, nuclear fission is by orders of magnitude the safest energy source per GWh.