Another dead whale today …..

[bulletbob]

One of the vids is by John Skinner who is well regarded here... Fishing looked pretty damn good to me, Lots of fluke mixed in with the Porgies, Sea Bass and Blues.... Like I said, I don't know what to think.. Half of me thinks it a horrible thing, but the other side knows what happens when this sort of structure is introduced into the marine environment... In a few years, they will teem with life... At this point, its going to happen , and I for one hope its a boon to sport fishing, and not a disaster... Time will tell.... bob

[blindalfred]

Originally Posted by Capt Sal

Your post should be taken down. Thank God we don't have more like you.

There is, at least, one more like him. More facts, actual examples, rather than speculation would be helpful. shresearchdude is a voice of sanity on this board. Actual citations rather than opinions.

[Gumada]

Here you go...


The total subsidy burden on the consumer will only fall as the 20 year support duration ends for individual sites and they cease to be subsidised. There are six live offshore wind farm sites subsidised via Contracts for Difference as at the end of 2020.



https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/370-...ntinue-to-rise

[Blind Squirrel]

Originally Posted by Gumada

Offshore wind turbines are only profitable as long as the subsidies last. That’s a proven fact ! Once the subsidies run out they will be abandoned and left to rust and fall into the sea where they will become an ecological disaster and require tax payer funding to clean up (superfund sites). In the mean time, while they research and plot where and how they will be built they will kill untold amounts of marine creatures. The wind industry has permits from NOAA to kill up to 400 marine mammals during the projects on the east coast. That tells anyone with common sense that they KNOW they will be killing marine mammals and so does the government. It’s all a money grab, right out of our pockets.

NOAA declared an unusual mortality event for marine mammals in 2016 along the east coast which is ongoing. Guess what year they started the offshore wind projects.....

Offshore wind turbines are profitable as long as they continue to generate electricity, and have an estimated working lifespan of 25 to 35 years before some of their moving parts need to be replaced. Their support structure is similar to an offshore drilling platform's, and marine life thrives around them indefinitely.
Please provide more information on the NOAA 2016 declaration you referenced. They seem to be well aware of any possible harm to marine life that might result from the installation & operation of offshore wind turbines...
Offshore Wind Energy: Protecting Marine Life

[Ol Pedro]

Originally Posted by Blind Squirrel

Research the ROI of one of those wind turbines! Government tax credits for new construction expire after 10 years, while fossil fuel subsidies continue indefinitely.

B.S.,on year 11 they will shut them down or lobby for more free money. If there is no profit then there is no green energy.
Why build them if they can't generate all the time when the winds blowing? (design flaw?) What about all the bird life that will be clubbed out of the sky?
Why not put them on land? If they are so important then why not put them where they can be maintained easily? Wouldn't it be cheaper to build? I guess that people don't think they are pretty so put them out of sight.(not in my back yard)
We have electric cars that catch fire that we can't put out, windmill farms that kill wildlife, and toxic solar farms. Why build more if we don't find solutions for the existing problems?
I don't think that green energy is so green. I'm just an old man ranting on a cold winter day.

[Blind Squirrel]

Originally Posted by Ol Pedro

B.S.,on year 11 they will shut them down or lobby for more free money. If there is no profit then there is no green energy.
Why build them if they can't generate all the time when the winds blowing? (design flaw?) What about all the bird life that will be clubbed out of the sky?
Why not put them on land? If they are so important then why not put them where they can be maintained easily? Wouldn't it be cheaper to build? I guess that people don't think they are pretty so put them out of sight.(not in my back yard)
We have electric cars that catch fire that we can't put out, windmill farms that kill wildlife, and toxic solar farms. Why build more if we don't find solutions for the existing problems?
I don't think that green energy is so green. I'm just an old man ranting on a cold winter day.

If there's no profit, then there's no any kind of large-scale energy production. There's generally more wind in offshore locations, which have fewer other uses and less commercial value than land-based sites.
Wind turbines obviously don't generate electricity when the wind's not blowing, and that's hardly an argument against installing them. You're essentially saying that anything less than a perfect replacement or addition to dirtier forms of energy production is unnecessary.
I don't think fossil fuels are so green either. I'm (probably) just an older man than you ranting on a cold winter day, my friend.

[blindalfred]

Originally Posted by Gumada

Here you go...


The total subsidy burden on the consumer will only fall as the 20 year support duration ends for individual sites and they cease to be subsidised. There are six live offshore wind farm sites subsidised via Contracts for Difference as at the end of 2020.



https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/370-...ntinue-to-rise

Funded by Calor. The company was formed in 1935, and is one of the UK's largest suppliers of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). It is currently servicing around 4 million homes and businesses, supplying LPG to power gas appliances from central heating and hot water, as well as cookers, fires and barbecues. Follow the money.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by bulletbob

Mostly reading reports online, watching videos etc...

Point made

[Ol Pedro]

Originally Posted by Blind Squirrel

If there's no profit, then there's no any kind of large-scale energy production. There's generally more wind in offshore locations, which have fewer other uses and less commercial value than land-based sites.
Wind turbines obviously don't generate electricity when the wind's not blowing, and that's hardly an argument against installing them. You're essentially saying that anything less than a perfect replacement or addition to dirtier forms of energy production is unnecessary.
I don't think fossil fuels are so green either. I'm (probably) just an older man than you ranting on a cold winter day, my friend.

B.S., Were you born before 1955? Lesser of 2 evils just as evil? What about natural gas or hydroelectric? Can the turbines generate power at over 10 kt winds? Still old and cold my friend.

[2na]

Why are we so divided here? Both sides think they're smarter or more moral than the other. The simple truth is, you don't have to look hard to find "proof" to argue either side of this debate. "Scientists" and authors from both sides of the fence can distribute (or keep silent) whatever bias propaganda they want to establish their point. It's embarrassing society has become so gullible...

SHORTS