Dummerston looking into solar power

Dummerston looking into solar power

There are 123 comments on the The Brattleboro Reformer story from May 6, 2013, titled Dummerston looking into solar power. In it, The Brattleboro Reformer reports that:

Selectboard members this week authorized the Dummerston Energy Committee to research the idea of partnering with a private company to construct a solar array that eventually would be owned by the town.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Brattleboro Reformer.

Nuclear2B Death Of Us All

Newton Center, MA

#43 May 11, 2013
we've had enough of ewe'r disgusting discussions of 'adult' things Mr. Reach-Arounder

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/brattleboro-v...
I Know More Than You

Tilton, NH

#44 May 11, 2013
Village Idiot wrote:
we've had enough of ewe'r disgusting discussions of 'adult' things Mr. Reach-Arounder
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/brattleboro-v...
Quite the fixation there fella, why don't you just come out of the closet. Brattleboro is quite open minded I hear.
EweKnowAllAbout Sick Sh-t

Newton Center, MA

#45 May 11, 2013
pppppppffffffffffffffffftt!
EWE were the one that 'came out' admitting to be a pervert, knowing about such abscure twisted sicko things as that (linked to in #43)
DummerstonNotSoD umb

Newton Center, MA

#46 May 11, 2013
Vernon should be called Dumbestville

83-year-old nun gets 20 year sentence for peaceful nuclear protest
http://nuclear-news.net/2013/05/09/83-year-ol...
Depleted uranium munitions like the kind stored at the facility Sister Rice targeted are blamed for some of the worst birth defects and soaring cancer rates seen in post-war Iraq, particularly in the city of Fallujah following the siege of 2004, in which U.S. soldiers killed thousands of civilians.
The city has never recovered, particularly from the use of depleted uranium munitions, and to this day residents suffer from health effects “worse” than those seen following the nuclear detonations at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, according to a study by the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

Hanford Nuclear Cleanup May Be Too Dangerous, Future Of Storage Plant Uncertain
Scientific American
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/09/hanf...
I Know More Than You

Tilton, NH

#47 May 11, 2013
Village Idiot wrote:
pppppppffffffffffffffffftt!
EWE were the one that 'came out' admitting to be a pervert, knowing about such abscure twisted sicko things as that (linked to in #43)
Hard to type with one hand, isn't it?
MarkieMark

Brattleboro, VT

#48 May 12, 2013
Tom Bodett wrote:
This is the most entertaining and unhelpful comment thread I've come across in awhile. I know very smart people on both sides of debate about how much the taxpayers should be subsidizing the growth of rewable energy development. It's a legitimate difference of opinion and a necessary debate that cannot proceed without mutual respect. Can't we tone it down?
I've been making the same pitch to IKMTY for a year.

As for Dummerston and solar; I think the very fact that solar is subsidized by taxpayers means if Dummerston does this program they will be taking money they shouldn't be from taxpayers from out of Dummerston. Vermonters should be willing to stand on their own two feet or not do it.
I Know More Than You

Tilton, NH

#49 May 12, 2013
MarkieMark aka Fox News Idiot wrote:
I've been making the same pitch to IKMTY for a year.
Is that why you constantly refer to me as a 15 year liar?

Look in the mirror.
Scotty

Brattleboro, VT

#51 May 13, 2013
avery wrote:
<quoted text>But oil subsidies doesn't bother you huh ??
Oil subsidies were created to produce more and cheaper oil and energy and they work. Solar and wind subsidies only produce ugly facilities and more expensive energy. In other words they don't work. If the oil subsidies don't work get rid of them too.
Wasted in VT

Rochester, NH

#52 May 13, 2013
I drove on 91 and 89 this weekend and noted the acres of formerly undeveloped lands visible from the interstate now are covered with ugly industrial solar collectors. What a shame, what a waste!
subsidize solutions

Newport, NH

#53 May 13, 2013
TVA's $5-million solar eclipse
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/may/1...
May 12th, 2013

"It's disappointing to hear that the Tennessee Valley Authority has unplugged its TVA Green Power Providers program, the solar initiative that helped the utility build solar power up to a whopping 1 percent of its electric generation mix.

Solar power was just too successful, and people signed on to invest their own money in it so readily that the utility set capacity limits on the solar segment of its renewable energy programs for 2013. That "capacity" was met within the first four months of the year. And the program may not be reopened.

TVA officials say they don't want to "subsidize" solar power.

The utility -- the one that now has a $2 billion cost overrun for a second reactor at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant -- says the $5 million shortfall in the solar program is too much.

Here's how TVA's solar program worked:

A home or business owner opted to install a solar array on the roof or in the yard. They put up thousands of dollars for a private installation. TVA, looking to build renewable diversity in its power "portfolio," offered a $1,000 upfront assistance payment and contracted with the home or business owner to buy the solar power produced for about 9 cents more than the retail power rate. The difference was credited to the customer's utility bill. The customer also has been eligible for a 30 percent federal tax credit on the solar investment.

TVA got help paying its "subsidy" from its companion program called Green Power Switch, through which regular customers volunteered to pay a few cents more for electricity to help TVA obtain renewable energy sources.

When TVA first began pulling back on the Green Power Providers program in July 2011, utility officials said the difference between what Green Power Switch brought in and what TVA paid out as credits to "generation partners" was about $5 million a year.

Let's give that some context over and above the overrun at Watts Bar.

Each of TVA's six operating nuclear reactors makes $1 million a day for the utility that has an $11 billion a year operating budget.

The so-called annual shortfall in the solar program -- that $5 million with an M -- is about the same amount of money that each of TVA's top five executives makes in a year.

But there's another wrinkle.

Would that TVA -- and all of us -- were so steadfast about not subsidizing nuclear, coal and gas for power.

Nationally, within the past decade, federal subsidies have provided $72.5 billion -- that's billion with a B -- for fossil fuels to power our lives, according to the Environmental Law Institute. At the same time, we taxpayers have spent $16.8 billion for corn ethanol subsidies, while traditional renewable energy initiatives such as wind and solar power received $12.2 billion. We've also spent $2.3 billion on carbon capture and storage, a developing technology that would allow coal-burning utilities to capture and store their carbon dioxide emissions.

Other experts have said the nuclear industry has received more than $100 billion in subsidies in the past 50 years.

So it's fair to say that solar power -- the untapped oil well on the roof -- is but a sliver of the overall energy subsidy pie.

But here's the real mind-number.

Oil and coal and gas will eventually be gone. Maybe uranium, too. But the sun will still shine. And if for some reason the sun is gone, too, ratepayers and taxpayers won't need to worry about what powers the light switch."
Wasted in VT

Rochester, NH

#54 May 13, 2013
That's all fine and wonderful except for one minor problem,“25 by 25” much less 90% won't work without destroying the landscape.

"If we are going to build enough renewables to generate 90% of our energy needs, we will have to devote much of our state land resources to the cause of energy production." Meredeth Angwin
Wasted in VT

Rochester, NH

#55 May 13, 2013
"To make 18,000 GWh of electricity, my rough estimate (I’ll have more detailed numbers ready for publication later this spring) is that Vermont would need to build 140 wind farms with the approximate output of Lowell Mountain’s 21-turbine facility. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory web site and other comparisons, 21 turbines of this size would usually cover 5 miles of ridgeline. These 140 wind farms would use 2,240 industrial turbines over 700 miles of ridgeline." MA
Wasted in VT

Rochester, NH

#56 May 13, 2013
"Lowell claims to use only 3 miles of ridge line: in this case,”only” 420 miles of ridgeline would be required for the turbines. However, not all ridges have wind as good as Lowell, so more turbines would probably be needed. Keep in mind, the entire state of Vermont is 158 miles long and 90 miles across at its widest." MA
Wasted in VT

Rochester, NH

#57 May 13, 2013
"What about solar? A 2.2 MW solar facility was recently installed in White River Junction. An area of 15 acres was cleared for this facility. Do to our northern locations and frequent cloud cover, this can be expected to generate only 2,755 MWh or 2.8 GWh per year. Making 18,000 GWh per year with solar would require 6,700 such facilities or 100,000 acres of solar installations. They would cover an area approximately one-fourth the size of the Green Mountain Forest. And, of course, they would not provide any power when the sun isn’t shining." MA
Wasted in VT

Rochester, NH

#58 May 13, 2013
"People who are against large-scale renewable energy development are often ridiculed as NIMBYs. However, they may simply be aware that achieving renewable-energy goals will have huge effects on Vermont’s landscape and ecosystem, and they don’t want that to happen. In other words, people opposed to renewable developments are often true environmentalists. It is time to reject the impossible goals of the CEP, and implement only the renewables that are reasonable and cost-effective for the citizens of our state."

- Meredith Angwin is a physical chemist who worked for electric utilities for more than 25 years
Nixon was a saint

Rochester, NH

#59 May 13, 2013
Tom Bodett wrote:
This is the most entertaining and unhelpful comment thread I've come across in awhile. I know very smart people on both sides of debate about how much the taxpayers should be subsidizing the growth of rewable energy development. It's a legitimate difference of opinion and a necessary debate that cannot proceed without mutual respect. Can't we tone it down?
Debate was taken off the table with the gutting of the wind moritorium legislation; Montpelier has no interest in any debate much less intelligent and civil debate.
Not In My Thyroid

Port Huron, MI

#60 May 13, 2013
Wasted in VT wrote:
"People who are against large-scale renewable energy development are often ridiculed as NIMBYs. However, they may simply be aware that achieving renewable-energy goals will have huge effects on Vermont’s landscape and ecosystem, and they don’t want that to happen. In other words, people opposed to renewable developments are often true environmentalists. It is time to reject the impossible goals of the CEP, and implement only the renewables that are reasonable and cost-effective for the citizens of our state."
- Meredith Angwin is a physical chemist who worked for electric utilities for more than 25 years
Angwin is a nukenut so anything she says is automatically discounted
try again
Nixon was a saint

Rochester, NH

#61 May 13, 2013
You seem to think its an automatic DQ, so it should't be a problem for someone as superior as you to show us exactly how she is wrong on this issue.
Nuclear-News dot Net

Port Huron, MI

#62 May 13, 2013
Nixon was a saint wrote:
You seem to think its an automatic DQ, so it should't be a problem for someone as superior as you to show us exactly how she is wrong on this issue.
as the founders said in the Dec of Ind:
"We Hold These Truths to Be Self-Evident"
It's not about me dummy, those superior to Angwin in nuke know-how point out the dangers and downfalls of nuclear and radiation, and they include not only well qualified nuclear engineers and nuclear safety experts but the previous head of the NRC as well as the late Dr. John Gofman, Dr. A. Stanley Thompson,, Bob Bowman, Robert Alvarez, Arnie Gundersen, Paul Blanch, Dr. Helen Caldicott, the 'GE Three'* etc. etc.
oh and Albert Einstein who ended up expressing regret for having greatly helped bring about nukedom in the first place, as well as Admiral Hyman Rickover who created the nuclear Navy.

Gofman who was part of the Manhattan Project went on to do govt.-sponsored reaearch that proved low-level raditation causes cancer, and recent university studies have also shown that to be true.
I have posted those studies here b4.

Paul Blanch:
'A Fukushima-type accident could happen here'->
http://www.commonsnews.org/site/site02/story....

Paul Blanch speaks about dangers posed by Indian Point's continued operation


The 'GE Three', the 3 original nuclear reactor design engineers who 40+ years ago whistleblew on it and said that the GE Mark I design was NFG and suseptible to meltdowns-
http://www.google.com/#output=search&scli...
^now we've seen THREE Mark Is meltdown in Japan and about 30 more still are running in the US including the one at Indian Point which is on TWO faultlines and the one in Vernon Vermont.

'Japan ministers ignored safety warnings over nuclear reactors'
Seismologist Ishibashi Katsuhiko claimed that an accident was likely and that plants have 'fundamental vulnerability'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/12/j...

"A scientist who runs the region's seismographic network for Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory says the New York City area is past due for a significant earthquake.
And some researchers are jittery about the proximity of one fault line to the area's only nuclear reactors."
http://www.lefthudson.com/2011/02/lamont-dohe...

/////

Chernobyl's REAL deathcount was ONE MILLION http://www.youtube.com/watch...

"When you hear 'no immediate danger'[from nuclear radiation] then you should run away as far and as fast as you can."
-Alexey Yablokov, member of the Russian academy of sciences, and adviser to President Gorbachev at the time of Chernobyl
Nixon was a saint

Rochester, NH

#64 May 13, 2013
Nuclear-News dot Net wrote:
<quoted text>
as the founders said in the Dec of Ind:
"We Hold These Truths to Be Self-Evident"
It's not about me dummy, those superior to Angwin in nuke know-how point out the dangers and downfalls of nuclear and radiation, and they include not only well qualified nuclear engineers and nuclear safety experts but the previous head of the NRC as well as the late Dr. John Gofman, Dr. A. Stanley Thompson,, Bob Bowman, Robert Alvarez, Arnie Gundersen, Paul Blanch, Dr. Helen Caldicott, the 'GE Three'* etc. etc.
oh and Albert Einstein who ended up expressing regret for having greatly helped bring about nukedom in the first place, as well as Admiral Hyman Rickover who created the nuclear Navy.
Gofman who was part of the Manhattan Project went on to do govt.-sponsored reaearch that proved low-level raditation causes cancer, and recent university studies have also shown that to be true.
I have posted those studies here b4.
Paul Blanch:
'A Fukushima-type accident could happen here'->
http://www.commonsnews.org/site/site02/story....
Paul Blanch speaks about dangers posed by Indian Point's continued operation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =rg1-XB2LknwXX
The 'GE Three', the 3 original nuclear reactor design engineers who 40+ years ago whistleblew on it and said that the GE Mark I design was NFG and suseptible to meltdowns-
http://www.google.com/#output=search&scli...
^now we've seen THREE Mark Is meltdown in Japan and about 30 more still are running in the US including the one at Indian Point which is on TWO faultlines and the one in Vernon Vermont.
'Japan ministers ignored safety warnings over nuclear reactors'
Seismologist Ishibashi Katsuhiko claimed that an accident was likely and that plants have 'fundamental vulnerability'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/12/j...
"A scientist who runs the region's seismographic network for Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory says the New York City area is past due for a significant earthquake.
And some researchers are jittery about the proximity of one fault line to the area's only nuclear reactors."
http://www.lefthudson.com/2011/02/lamont-dohe...
/////
Chernobyl's REAL deathcount was ONE MILLION http://www.youtube.com/watch...
"When you hear 'no immediate danger'[from nuclear radiation] then you should run away as far and as fast as you can."
-Alexey Yablokov, member of the Russian academy of sciences, and adviser to President Gorbachev at the time of Chernobyl
man what a rant, now if its not any trouble back to the point. Exactly how is she wrong on the 25 in 25 and then 90 and negative environmental impact?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Brattleboro Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Vermonts new economy (Jun '14) Aug 16 Community Disorga... 216
Obama's Top Ten Lies Last Night/ Clinton's Crim... (Jan '16) Aug 5 LI Meddler 5
Actor Says Obama Stole His Persona (Nov '13) Jul '16 TheReligionOfPeac... 13
Melissa Barratt's family and friends... (Aug '11) Jul '16 her sister 24
News Road Pitch investors ride motorcycles into Brat... Jun '16 internet troll 1
Happy Zombie Jesus Day (Apr '15) Jun '16 SDIPN dot Net 25
Seek God And Receive Answers For Your Troubles (Apr '15) Jun '16 Light For All 4

Brattleboro Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Brattleboro Mortgages