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."
Meanwhile... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In the rest of the world it does ... at least far cheaper than the USA system.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all of it is "on ourselves", unless one of us is an Afghani warlord.
Re: (Score:3)
We spend 3.6 trillion dollars a year on ourselves... Why isn't it working?
In all fairness you do spend 16% of that on free stuff for others: bombs, missiles, armies, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Meanwhile...you go where the money is (Score:2)
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.
Given that wealth in the US flows upwards, not downwards or even laterally, smart kids become lawyers, doctors, and hedge fund managers, not engineers or scientists, because smart kids know you have to go where the money is if you want to be wealthy. Certainly, wealthy people want innovative new products, but their demand for new technology and new knowledge about the universe is not nearly as constant (nor as profitable) as their demand for competent legal, medical, and financial services.
You are being
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?
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
If value means only purchase price, why would the industry with overwhelming market domination and the lowest retail price require taxpayer subsidies?
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your math isn't sensible. You do realize the purpose of solar subsidies is to get the industry off the ground, right? Per-megawatt cost means nothing. Going by your logic of what is good value, the very first Tesla cost millions of dollars. Never mind how much less expensive the second one was, nobody wants to buy the first one so why bother.
It's not working.. The first Tesla was subsidized with DOE loans. It is morally wrong to make you or me or anyone else pay for that first car, for the benefit of private profit, without receiving a tangible benefit in return. When everybody is forced to sacrifice for the common good, or in this case the benefit of a private company, how is that commonly good? Everyone is just worse off.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
Sorry, that was $1.00 * 10 for me. I didn't mean to underreport that dime on tax day.
Re: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
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.
It is exactly not besides the point. The low volume he is selling has absolutely no effect on the market. It only has an effect on his business, and that is the point about "correctly done" subsidies.
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
in another 20 years we won't have ice in antarctica
That won't be the case even for the Arctic Ocean. If you had read the story in question, it didn't say that the Arctic Ocean would be ice-free all the time, just during the summers.
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).
There are more important things vexing us than a slight increase in temperature. I get a bit tired of the angst over first world problems that just aren't that important to anyone rather than huge problems like poverty, preventable disease, that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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,
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 s
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Renewable energy only produces a few percent of the power in this country.
Yes, the US is way behind other countries when it comes to renewable energy, despite having vast renewable resources. Scotland is on coarse for 100% renewable energy by 2020 (they will generate 200% of what they need, half exported to other countries). Even the rest of the UK that seems to hate renewable energy almost as much as the US is aiming for about 20% by 2020, overtaking nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
Scotland is on coarse for 100% renewable energy by 2020
Of course we will ignore the fact that the only difference between renewable and non-renewable energy is the time scale. There is actually no such thing as renewable energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps your definition of renewable is simply to old fashioned?
Otoh the term renewable perhaps is exactly coined for this reason? Why not call it green energy or carbon neutral energy or biotope preserving energy?
Re: (Score:2)
What has the price of fuel to do with your (the) argument?
Do you really still believe in supply and demand? That is so 18xx.
The customer pays what the provider is able to deprive him from. Because you have no choice! Prices of live necessary goods are not driven by supply and demand but by market power of the providers (and taxes on top of that).
So fuel now costs as much the customers CAN pay, not what they voluntarily 'would' pay if there was a 'free market'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Standard Oil was such a terrible company, constantly lowering prices for its product over the half of century of operations, lowering prices faster than anybody else based on reinvestment and technological and business process improvements.
Totally screwed its customers by lowering prices 6 fold over the first 40 years of operations.
Customers gained so much by the government stepping in to help some third party interests to break up the economy of scale (which was not a monopoly, competition existed), and cu
I have replaced roman_mir with a Markov chain (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
... 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.
Interesting you point to Standard Oil as an example of evil monopolies. Recently read an article challenging that common view. Excerpt:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2013/Hendersonbarons.html#.UTjpzGTanh0.facebook
" But what is not speculative is how he [Rockefeller, of Standard Oil] expanded his market share. He did so by cutting prices and almost quadrupling sales. University of Chicago economics professor Lester Telser, in his 1987 book, A Theory of Efficient Cooperation and Competition,4 points out that between 1880 and 1890, the output of petroleum products rose 393 percent, while the price fell 61 percent. Telser writes: "The oil trust did not charge high prices because it had 90 percent of the market. It got 90 percent of the refined oil market by charging low prices." Some monopoly! "
... 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.
Uh, who else will pay for our individual oil consumption but ourselves? If that trillion a dollar revenue buys 2 trillion dollars of value for the buyers (to use for transportation, heating, oil byproducts), that trillion dollar figure would be a good thing!
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.
Your examples fail to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Not, the money wasn't budgeted to them. Time was merely reporting as subsidies what most normal people would call writing off business expenses. The money that was given to renewables was real budgeted money from taxpayers. The money reported as being given to fossil fuels was standard business deductions that could not be taken into consideration as part of the government's budget.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think fossil fuels will exist in 100 years
Of course they will.
There are several factors here. First, the amount that we use is dependent upon the cost. As the cheaper-to-get fossil fuels are used up, the cost goes up and the amount that will be used will go down. So, there will be a shift in the market from fossil fuels to others, but the fossil fuels will continue to be used for some purposes because they are so damn useful: really high energy / weight and energy / volume ratios and easy to manage at industrial scales.
Also, the amount of
Re: (Score:2)
Comparison by Megawatt makes absolutely no sense. ...
*Installed* Megawatts of *established* energy resources *obviously* by far excede the future ones
On top of that: why don't you make the math and add up what the established ones got (nuclear/fossile) over the least 50 years and *demand* that renewables will get the same funding the next 50 years?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:5, Insightful)
except these rich people are tree huggers themselves who force their views on others
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
The same argument can be made about any development. The guy living a bit further back from the coast would probably object to your house being built and want it demolished to improve his view too. People objected when telegraph poles were first installed, and power lines.
Wind turbines are not a horrible eye-sore as long as they are positioned such that they don't cause flickering in the early morning/evening. People are just going to have to accept them, just like the accept roads and railways lines and ot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To sad you have to point this out. Common sense should make this pretty obvious!
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because people will just choose the cheapest option, even if it pollutes some far off place and makes the people there choke on smog.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
well its a good thing I did not argue it for the state senate, I am sure they have professionals to argue
Re: (Score:3)
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 we
Re: (Score:2)
cry me a river
Says the man who basically had it all handed to him on a plate compared to little timmy.
Re: (Score:2)
Tip: you are a fucking retard. Meditate on this before you decide to have an opinion on something that you know nothing about (other than the garbage you regurgitate from AM radio).
Re: (Score:2)
Turbine-themed limericks (Score:3, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
I've been sitting here for ten minutes and I got nothin'.
A planned for wind farm near Nantucket ... Okay, maybe it's not dirty... but better than nothing. :D
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."
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting you were trying to be sarcastic? If so, then I'll definitely agree that sarcasm doesn't work well on the Internet in general, but there was nothing subtle about your post at all. You tried to make a joke at the expense of the people here, and had it flop since it was crudely done and not as funny as the one that preceded it. Trying to suggest that we just didn't get it is the lazy way out for people who shouldn't tell jokes.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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.
red tape ? (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Texas is a big welfare state that wouldn't best Mexico if it wasn't supported by the productive states.
But that's wrong! Do you even research things before you decide to post them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state [wikipedia.org] -- Net contribution per capita: $2,243
Please work harder and try to be less wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, Texas even contributes nearly twice as much as California does, whiles running a very similar set of social programs
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Ignorant moron. Not even close to true. Texas is one of the bigger contributors to the federal coffers (9th in nation). Contribution per capita: ~9500$. Funding recieved in turn per capita: ~7200$. That's a net plus to the fed of ~2300$ per person living in the state of texas. $2300 per person, leaving the state. Texas is a net contributor, not a taker. Not a welfare state. For every dollar contributed to the fed, they recieved back only 0.75; phrased another way, they contribute 1.32 for every dollar they
Re: (Score:2)
Also, you're claim that most of New England is a net contributor? Wrong also. New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Maryland, and Maine, are all net takers from the Fed. That's 5 out of 11 states, or nearly half.
You have a very interesting take on what constitutes "New England."
Re: (Score:2)
What they're really worried about is their precious "views" from all that pricey beachfront property.
It's not altruistic. (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Phew! Thanks a bunch for clearing that up. I'm going to rip up my loan application immediately.