• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Half a billion for California off-shore wind turbines

HIP56948 said:
Very nice. Seems like Mr. Trump will foot the bill. Quite generous!
Click to expand...
It is a funny coincidence the amounts are the same and of course you're kidding, but as you know his current fines are to New York and his victim. On the other hand, he does help power the wind turbines, with his big mouth, doesn't he.
 
While it all seems generous and moving forward the real facts are Huge Nuclear Power generation,
huge electrical power draws are the only way to answer the need. the rest is just stupid politics.

The Point being Taxpayers need not pay one cent of the expansion. It's all about public need and financing.
Politics is about give aways of Taxpayer cash not the needs of the public. The public political system is just systemic gangrene!

There is no National Security in Offshore Wind Generation of Power. Just another Californian POC line of B.S.
 
Last edited:
Given that California is crisscrossed with faults capable of producing strong earthquakes, nuclear power plants don’t appear to be the best option. (The Northridge Quake in 1994 which caused buildings and structures to collapse from the San Fernando Valley to Santa Monica and West Los Angeles was produced by a previously unknown fault.) The Fukushima nuclear power plant demonstrated the damage a strong quake can cause.
 
P_T said:
There is no National Security in Offshore Wind Generation of Power. Just another Californian POC line of B.S.
Click to expand...

You didn't prove your claim.
 
While I do not approve of such experiments, it will say one way of the other if the
Whale deaths off of New Jersey were a result of Wind Turbine Construction!
 
Well, they’ve dumped millions upon millions into creating wind farms off the Atlantic Coast and it has proven to be a money suck and no windfarms are built.

NJ is trying to get money BACK from a Danish company and they’re fighting it.

apnews.com

Orsted wants out of $300M forfeiture for scrapped New Jersey offshore wind farms

Offshore wind power company Orsted is trying to get out of a $300 million guarantee it agreed to pay New Jersey in the event it failed to build its first wind farm off the state’s coast.
apnews.com apnews.com

They aren’t the answer off the East Coast, so I can’t see why they’d be the answer off the West Coast.

The size, scale, costs, limited lifespan of turbines, etc…all create a situation where the juice is not worth the squeeze.
 
venice_ca said:
Given that California is crisscrossed with faults capable of producing strong earthquakes, nuclear power plants don’t appear to be the best option. (The Northridge Quake in 1994 which caused buildings and structures to collapse from the San Fernando Valley to Santa Monica and West Los Angeles was produced by a previously unknown fault.) The Fukushima nuclear power plant demonstrated the damage a strong quake can cause.
Click to expand...
The technology is there to create smaller nuclear plants vs. gigantic ones. The smaller plants are less vulnerable to earthquakes.
 
LOL half a billion down the drain. Not a surprise since its the dems.
 
BirdinHand said:
Well, they’ve dumped millions upon millions into creating wind farms off the Atlantic Coast and it has proven to be a money suck and no windfarms are built.

NJ is trying to get money BACK from a Danish company and they’re fighting it.

apnews.com

Orsted wants out of $300M forfeiture for scrapped New Jersey offshore wind farms

Offshore wind power company Orsted is trying to get out of a $300 million guarantee it agreed to pay New Jersey in the event it failed to build its first wind farm off the state’s coast.
apnews.com apnews.com

They aren’t the answer off the East Coast, so I can’t see why they’d be the answer off the West Coast.

The size, scale, costs, limited lifespan of turbines, etc…all create a situation where the juice is not worth the squeeze.
Click to expand...
And we also have the study that says areas that get Hurricanes, will lose a lot of turbines.
Quantifying the hurricane risk to offshore wind turbines
In the most vulnerable areas now being actively considered by developers, nearly half the turbines in a farm are likely to be destroyed in a 20-y period.
Click to expand...
Now this study did not include the west coast, but they also get Hurricane force storms, even if some are not
tropical cyclones.
Hurricane-force gusts topped 100 mph in Bay Area during rare storm
 
longview said:
And we also have the study that says areas that get Hurricanes, will lose a lot of turbines.
Quantifying the hurricane risk to offshore wind turbines

Now this study did not include the west coast, but they also get Hurricane force storms, even if some are not
tropical cyclones.
Hurricane-force gusts topped 100 mph in Bay Area during rare storm
Click to expand...
Yeah, it’s a losing proposition on the East Coast.

I don’t know if there’s something substantially different about the West Coast that makes this more feasible, but I’m guessing not.

Hopefully they’ll at least not hand hundreds of millions to foreign companies there but I’m doubtful.
 
BirdinHand said:
Yeah, it’s a losing proposition on the East Coast.

I don’t know if there’s something substantially different about the West Coast that makes this more feasible, but I’m guessing not.

Hopefully they’ll at least not hand hundreds of millions to foreign companies there but I’m doubtful.
Click to expand...
I wonder about the price guarantees, on how high they can sell the electricity for.
It is looking more and mor like off shore wind power is not economically viable.
Perhaps it will be with different technology, but when we see stories like this,
Avangrid asks to renegotiate contract prices for Mass. offshore wind project
"As a result, the project is no longer viable and would not be able to move forward absent amendments to the PPAs."

The PPAs are with the Massachusetts distribution utilities of Eversource Energy, National Grid PLC and Unitil Corp. They set an energy price of $47.68/MWh for the first year, which would escalate to $76.22/MWh in the project's 20th year, according to state filings. And they set renewable energy credit prices at $11.92/REC for the first year, escalating to $19.06/REC in the 20th year.
Click to expand...
 
venice_ca said:
Given that California is crisscrossed with faults capable of producing strong earthquakes, nuclear power plants don’t appear to be the best option. (The Northridge Quake in 1994 which caused buildings and structures to collapse from the San Fernando Valley to Santa Monica and West Los Angeles was produced by a previously unknown fault.) The Fukushima nuclear power plant demonstrated the damage a strong quake can cause.
Click to expand...
None of the Japanese reactors sustained any significant damage as a result of the Earthquake of 2011, the disaster happened as a result of the subsequent tsunami:

"Eleven reactors at four nuclear power plants in the region were operating at the time and all shut down automatically when the earthquake hit. Subsequent inspection showed no significant damage to any from the earthquake."

Link

By that logic, no buildings over 400 ft should be built in California.
 
I'm glad to hear that new wind farms are going to be built.
 
Helix said:
I've seen a bunch built. It's a good investment.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but at what price guarantee, and how does that impact the electricity cost to the consumer?
 
I am still on the fence for wind turbine power production being the answer, even in part.
 
longview said:
Perhaps, but at what price guarantee, and how does that impact the electricity cost to the consumer?
Click to expand...
Energy is a national security issue. Profitability shouldn't be a primary concern. I support a public sector energy production competitor to build and operate any energy technology that isn't immediately profitable.
 
Helix said:
Energy is a national security issue. Profitability shouldn't be a primary concern. I support a public sector energy production competitor to build and operate any energy technology that isn't immediately profitable.
Click to expand...
Companies have to pay to maintain the infrastructure, otherwise there will be no infrastructure.
A project is ether economically viable or it is not, subsidies do not count, as they will eventually go away.
Price guarantees cause the cost of goods sold to increase, and will impact the consumer.
 
Helix said:
I've seen a bunch built. It's a good investment.
Click to expand...
Where?

There are exactly zero large scale offshore windfarms in the US.

There are a few smaller farms, but they don’t even run at full capacity on a reliable basis.
 
longview said:
I think solar has a much better long term potential.
Click to expand...

Nuclear is going to have to take a bigger seat at the table of discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom