If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Grist)   Cool: Electricity is again flowing from Fukushima. Super cool: From floating, offshore wind turbines   (grist.org) divider line 62
    More: Cool, offshore wind turbine, Hitachi, Fukushima Daiichi, offshore wind farms, Fukushima  
•       •       •

3038 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Nov 2013 at 3:57 PM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



62 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-12 04:01:15 PM
If we could just find a way to get rid of that nagging seeping pool of highly radioactive material, well then, we'd be all set.
 
2013-11-12 04:03:31 PM

pkrzycki: that nagging seeping pool


nagging, seeping,

I seem to have dropped my commas....
 
2013-11-12 04:04:47 PM
Blow that radiation towards the West Coast even faster!
 
2013-11-12 04:06:51 PM
But the birds!
 
2013-11-12 04:07:27 PM
2 down, only 4,398 megawatts to go.
 
2013-11-12 04:12:04 PM
Shame they didn't have some sort of tidal generators installed a few years ago...
 
2013-11-12 04:14:18 PM

Glendale: 2 down, only 4,398 megawatts to go.


If only our government had invested half a billion dollars in a solar panel plant, we could have delivered 2 more megawatts.

/go solyndra -
/go solyndra -
/go solyndra, go'ooooo.
 
2013-11-12 04:14:31 PM

phrawgh: But the birds!


and the bats!

Wind turbines blamed in death of estimated 600,000 bats in 2012

BOULDER, Colo., Nov. 8 (UPI) -- Wind turbines killed at least 600,000 -- and possibly as many as 900,000 -- bats in the United States in 2012, researchers say.
Writing in the journal BioScience, the researchers said they used sophisticated statistical techniques to infer the probable number of bat deaths at wind energy facilities from the number of dead bats found at 21 locations.
 
2013-11-12 04:14:59 PM
Too bad the Philippians didn't have those this past week. They would have powered the world for 25 years.
 
2013-11-12 04:15:44 PM

itsaidwhat: Glendale: 2 down, only 4,398 megawatts to go.

If only our government had invested half a billion dollars in a solar panel plant, we could have delivered 2 more megawatts.

/go solyndra -
/go solyndra -
/go solyndra, go'ooooo.


www.bartcop.com
 
2013-11-12 04:16:11 PM
So right now it is producing
 
2013-11-12 04:16:46 PM
I am ALL for wind and solar power but as the story makes clear - they'd need like 2500 of these turbines to replace the nukes.  Time for some next gen nuclear plants (which are about 5 generations ahead of the ones that went pththtptptpttpttthhhhhhh)
 
2013-11-12 04:21:58 PM
Baby steps

"Fukushima is making a stride toward the future step by step," Yuhei Sato, governor of Fukushima, said today at a ceremony in Fukushima marking the project's initiation. "Floating offshore wind is a symbol of such a future."

Fukushima residents may never go home, say Japanese officials

A report by members of the governing Liberal Democratic party [LDP] and its junior coalition partner urges the government to abandon its promise to all 160,000 evacuees that their irradiated homes will be fit to live in again.

The plan instead calls for financial support for displaced residents to move to new homes elsewhere, and for more state funding for the storage of huge quantities of radioactive waste being removed from the 12-mile evacuation zone around the plant.
 
2013-11-12 04:26:08 PM

Fizpez: I am ALL for wind and solar power but as the story makes clear - they'd need like 2500 of these turbines to replace the nukes.  Time for some next gen nuclear plants (which are about 5 generations ahead of the ones that went pththtptptpttpttthhhhhhh)


I wish, but...

New-Build Nuclear Is Dead: Morningstar

Nuclear reactors are not a viable source of new power in the West, Morningstar analysts conclude in a report this month to institutional investors.

Nuclear's "enormous costs, political and popular opposition, and regulatory uncertainty" render new reactors infeasible even in regions where they make economic sense, according to Morningstar's Utilities Observer report for November


It's not the tech but management that is the problem.
 
2013-11-12 04:28:01 PM

pkrzycki: If we could just find a way to get rid of that nagging seeping pool of highly radioactive material, well then, we'd be all set.


Ship it off to space.
 
2013-11-12 04:28:27 PM
Yeah, well you just wait until a bird runs into one. Then the Fukushima meltdown won't look so bad.
 
2013-11-12 04:29:08 PM
I'm curious to know what they'll do with units 5 and 6, which are supposedly undamaged.
 
2013-11-12 04:29:37 PM

neversubmit: itsaidwhat: Glendale: 2 down, only 4,398 megawatts to go.

If only our government had invested half a billion dollars in a solar panel plant, we could have delivered 2 more megawatts.

/go solyndra -
/go solyndra -
/go solyndra, go'ooooo.

[www.bartcop.com image 526x569]


What's the yield, in Megawatts, for renewable vs. fossil fuel subsidies?
 
2013-11-12 04:30:42 PM

CygnusDarius: pkrzycki: If we could just find a way to get rid of that nagging seeping pool of highly radioactive material, well then, we'd be all set.

Ship it off to space.


There is that old risk/reward calculation involved here.  If the rocket assplodey on the launch pad, well you've made a bigger problem biggerest.
 
2013-11-12 04:32:31 PM

stevarooni: neversubmit: itsaidwhat: Glendale: 2 down, only 4,398 megawatts to go.

If only our government had invested half a billion dollars in a solar panel plant, we could have delivered 2 more megawatts.

/go solyndra -
/go solyndra -
/go solyndra, go'ooooo.

[www.bartcop.com image 526x569]

What's the yield, in Megawatts, for renewable vs. fossil fuel subsidies?


Let me Google that for you.
 
2013-11-12 04:42:47 PM
Are they nuclear wind turbines?  They're supposed to provide power and literally blow away Kaiju right?
 
2013-11-12 04:51:36 PM
Glendale: I'm curious to know what they'll do with units 5 and 6, which are supposedly undamaged.

TBH The smartest move would be to MASSIVELY double down.
The area is already COMPLETELY farkED, so go FULL Sim City on it.

Ecology/Ecosystem: MASSIVELY farkED. So you dont have to worry about killing a spotted owl. Bulldoze, damn, seawalls, more seawalls, massive construction to stop the leaking and what not.

People living there: nope. so you dont have to "worry" about the long term affects of low level pollution. Dig out all the hot spots, vitrify it and (this is the BEST PART), leave it there.

PAVE OVER THE WHOLE FARKING CITY

Build TONS more nuclear power plants on the site. Concentrate all of the risk in one already destroyed area. There is zero risk of it getting worse!!

Yes, build newer and safer.
Yes, build reactors and containment which is able to survive 2-10 times what happened.

But the BEST use of this space is ... radioactive dumping ground and nuclear power plants.
Call the US and tell them that you will store 100% of their nasty nuclear waste!!!

Seriously, once you have given up making the are "safe" again for citizens, it opens up whole new opportunities!!
 
2013-11-12 04:53:02 PM
Salt water and electricity don't mix.  How do they string the power lines to the shore?
 
2013-11-12 04:55:24 PM

another cultural observer: Blow that radiation towards the West Coast even faster!


morbo.jpg
 
2013-11-12 04:57:25 PM

neversubmit: What's the yield, in Megawatts, for renewable vs. fossil fuel subsidies?

Let me Google that for you.


Thanks, neversubmit!  Turns out...renewables are too expensive (link).
 
2013-11-12 05:02:57 PM

another cultural observer: Blow that radiation towards the West Coast even faster!


Hmmm. THIS.
 
2013-11-12 05:04:17 PM
When I read the headline I was sure this story would be about how they had harnessed the electricity on Godzilla's spines that happen when he shoots those fire ray things...
 
2013-11-12 05:06:10 PM
But if it's an offshore turbine, what's to keep it from airboating itself across the damn ocean?
 
2013-11-12 05:10:24 PM

stevarooni: Thanks, neversubmit! Turns out...renewables are too expensive (link).


From the bottom of your link:

www.skepticalscience.com

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like (from the average 2009 numbers) Wind and Geothermal power are barely behind that of coal and NG, and quite a bit cheaper than nuclear.

Although when you look at the latest EIA numbers, wind power is now cheaper than any source of energy, other than Nat Gas. Interestingly, even solar PV output these days is within spitting distance in cost/output of a conventional turbine nat gas plant.
 
2013-11-12 05:11:35 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Salt water and electricity don't mix.  How do they string the power lines to the shore?


beams
crankshafts
ummmm
long cables?
insulated cables??

yah, regardless, now add 2000 more towers ....
shudder
 
2013-11-12 05:26:35 PM
neversubmit:

[www.bartcop.com image 526x569]

Ok, which subsidy do you want to get rid of?
$570 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program?
$1 billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?
Almost $1 billion in tax exemptions for farm fuel? Ya know the one where farmers don't have to pay the road use tax built into fuel since they burn that fuel on their farms and not on the roads.
These are all included in your graphic that says Big Oil is bad. When you realize what makes up all the "oil subsidies", you should find that most of it makes sense and is not a kick-back to the oil companies.
What "subsidy" actually goes directly to the oil companies? The same one that goes to all US manufacturers, of which the oil companies get less of a percentage off their taxes than any manufacturer that doesn't produce oil.
 
2013-11-12 05:35:24 PM

MarkEC: Ok, which subsidy do you want to get rid of?


Easy - when it comes to pumping oil out of areas that are public lands, pay into a public fund 1/2 the value of that barrel you just pumped.

You pump out a barrel of crude oil from public property that is worth $100 on the market, you pay $50 in taxes to cover the value of that property you just took away from the public. I have no idea why we allow private corporations to fleece public owned assets for pennies on the dollar.

Seems like a pretty good deal to me - they're still getting an asset at half the value. I'd even let them keep the tax write-offs for exploring for oil, cap-ex writeoffs for buying the pumping equipment, and even keeping the rule allowing them to inventory the pumped crude with either LIFO or FIFO accounting practice.
 
2013-11-12 05:37:13 PM

pkrzycki: pkrzycki: that nagging seeping pool

nagging, seeping,

I seem to have dropped my commas....


maybe your comma received too much radiation...
 
2013-11-12 05:41:03 PM

boyvoyeur: Too bad the Philippians didn't have those this past week. They would have powered the world for 25 years.


The Lord should have spoken unto them, then.
 
2013-11-12 05:42:53 PM
MarkEC: Ok, which subsidy do you want to get rid of?

There's actually trillions of oil subsidies each year. But nice try trying to limit the discussion to the 1 billion of it that has a good purpose.
 
2013-11-12 05:43:08 PM
And just because, I decided to graph out the 2009 and 2013 new electricity production cost, by source:
scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net
It is interesting to note that within the past 4-years, new solar PV $ per MWh dropped over 30% in cost - almost matching "clean coal" and conventional turbine nat gas. If it drops another 25%, solar PV will be in striking range of even conventional coal.
 
2013-11-12 05:45:34 PM
Yea, Yea?
Well, who the hell wants radioactive electricity?
Answer me that?
 
2013-11-12 05:48:02 PM

MrSteve007: MarkEC: Ok, which subsidy do you want to get rid of?

Easy - when it comes to pumping oil out of areas that are public lands, pay into a public fund 1/2 the value of that barrel you just pumped.

You pump out a barrel of crude oil from public property that is worth $100 on the market, you pay $50 in taxes to cover the value of that property you just took away from the public. I have no idea why we allow private corporations to fleece public owned assets for pennies on the dollar.

Seems like a pretty good deal to me - they're still getting an asset at half the value. I'd even let them keep the tax write-offs for exploring for oil, cap-ex writeoffs for buying the pumping equipment, and even keeping the rule allowing them to inventory the pumped crude with either LIFO or FIFO accounting practice.


And when no oil company agrees to your solution, and instead makes more deals in Mexico and other countries? You cannot raise the price of doing business and not expect it to have consequences.
 
2013-11-12 05:50:59 PM

J. Frank Parnell: MarkEC: Ok, which subsidy do you want to get rid of?

There's actually trillions of oil subsidies each year. But nice try trying to limit the discussion to the 1 billion of it that has a good purpose.


Please elaborate. Show us where those trillions in subsidies are. Is every penny deducted from taxes considered a subsidy to you? Is your mortgage interest that you get to write off on your personal taxes a subsidy?
 
2013-11-12 05:54:48 PM

MarkEC: MrSteve007: MarkEC: Ok, which subsidy do you want to get rid of?

Easy - when it comes to pumping oil out of areas that are public lands, pay into a public fund 1/2 the value of that barrel you just pumped.

You pump out a barrel of crude oil from public property that is worth $100 on the market, you pay $50 in taxes to cover the value of that property you just took away from the public. I have no idea why we allow private corporations to fleece public owned assets for pennies on the dollar.

Seems like a pretty good deal to me - they're still getting an asset at half the value. I'd even let them keep the tax write-offs for exploring for oil, cap-ex writeoffs for buying the pumping equipment, and even keeping the rule allowing them to inventory the pumped crude with either LIFO or FIFO accounting practice.

And when no oil company agrees to your solution, and instead makes more deals in Mexico and other countries? You cannot raise the price of doing business and not expect it to have consequences.


Bullshiat - if there's oil (or gold or whatever) to be gotten at a profit then it will be exploited.  Oil companies will pay because it's a cost of conducting business that returns a profit.
 
2013-11-12 05:57:36 PM

MarkEC: And when no oil company agrees to your solution, and instead makes more deals in Mexico and other countries? You cannot raise the price of doing business and not expect it to have consequences.


No problem with me. Considering we're the largest producer of crude oil in the world, I have a feeling they'll be more than willing to play ball in a country that (largely) doesn't require armed security or bribing of local officials to get the work done. They're already more than willing to work in countries where the petro-biz is completely owned and controlled by the state.

And if they aren't right now, give it a decade or two, and suddenly the economics of giving up half the value of oil looks pretty good when it's $250 to $300+ a barrel to source new crude. Plus taxpayers will get a lot more value for the property that they/we own.
 
2013-11-12 06:13:36 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-12 06:17:28 PM
I heard that wind turbines sentence grandma to death
 
2013-11-12 06:20:00 PM

phrawgh: But the birds!


The radiation will handle that nuisance.
 
2013-11-12 06:23:28 PM

MarkEC: Please elaborate. Show us where those trillions in subsidies are.


Enjoy.
 
2013-11-12 06:35:34 PM

J. Frank Parnell: MarkEC: Please elaborate. Show us where those trillions in subsidies are.

Enjoy.


So your trillions of dollars are 'On a "post-tax" basis which also factors in the negative externalities from energy consumption' from the ENTIRE GLOBE!

In your link, US subsidies are mentioned ZERO times, therefore, you fail.
 
2013-11-12 06:36:32 PM

namatad: Yes, build reactors and containment which is able to survive 2-10 times what happened.


Just don't put emergency generators in basements.
 
2013-11-12 07:51:01 PM

MarkEC: So your trillions of dollars are 'On a "post-tax" basis which also factors in the negative externalities from energy consumption' from the ENTIRE GLOBE!

In your link, US subsidies are mentioned ZERO times, therefore, you fail.


I wasn't talking about the US. This article isn't even about the US. We're talking about the oil industry in general, which the entire planet is subsidizing. And you accuse me of failing.

But if you do want to just talk about the US, which i'm sure you do. Have a look at this.

Providing a couple hundred million to support emerging technology is an entirely different thing than dumping tens of billions into businesses which are already established, and have been reaping massive profits for a freaking century. There is no way to justify it at all. But i'd be interested in watching the mental gymnastics as you try. Remember to focus on the 1 billion out of 50 that went to something you can defend.
 
2013-11-12 08:07:26 PM
should be plenty of wind available with all the godzillas and mothras spawning there.
 
2013-11-12 08:10:12 PM

MarkEC: MrSteve007: MarkEC: Ok, which subsidy do you want to get rid of?

Easy - when it comes to pumping oil out of areas that are public lands, pay into a public fund 1/2 the value of that barrel you just pumped.

You pump out a barrel of crude oil from public property that is worth $100 on the market, you pay $50 in taxes to cover the value of that property you just took away from the public. I have no idea why we allow private corporations to fleece public owned assets for pennies on the dollar.

Seems like a pretty good deal to me - they're still getting an asset at half the value. I'd even let them keep the tax write-offs for exploring for oil, cap-ex writeoffs for buying the pumping equipment, and even keeping the rule allowing them to inventory the pumped crude with either LIFO or FIFO accounting practice.

And when no oil company agrees to your solution, and instead makes more deals in Mexico and other countries? You cannot raise the price of doing business and not expect it to have consequences.


Well, let's see. Oil supply present? Yup. Infrastructure present? Yup. Social and political climate stable? Yup. Market present? Yup. Don't be a disengenous ass.
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report