U.S. Offshore Wind Farm Receives $2 Billion From Japanese Banks 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."
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Effective versus fair? (Score:4, Informative)
... 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:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Informative)