Pittsfield WMECO names 3 possible sites

Pittsfield WMECO names 3 possible sites

There are 28 comments on the Berkshire Eagle story from Mar 2, 2009, titled Pittsfield WMECO names 3 possible sites. In it, Berkshire Eagle reports that:

Western Massachusetts Electric Co. wants to include Pittsfield in the utility's first- ever effort to produce solar-powered electricity that will reduce its dependency on providing customers with fossil fuel ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Berkshire Eagle.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
ya right


#21 Mar 2, 2009
ya right wrote:
<quoted text>collingwood? this idiot can even keep the roads plowed or fix the potholes..........collingwood? he should be fired
does collingwood do any real work himself? doubt it besides shoveling ruberto's sidewalk

Easthampton, MA

#22 Mar 2, 2009
battle of the city departments?
tired of naysayers

East Otis, MA

#23 Mar 3, 2009
So boring, all the pittsfield negativity. If you can't stand it in pittsfield and don't want to do anything to contribute positively, then leave, but I think you just really get off on something or someone to complain about, such low self-esteem.
Mr Clean

South Hadley, MA

#24 Mar 3, 2009
Interesting wrote:
Here we go again.....
Gee lets make electricity more expensive. Anyone do the calculations yet and determine the true cost?
The true cost of not doing solar is way more expensive!
Can you say FOSSIL FUELS?

Hartsville, SC

#25 Mar 3, 2009
Really Clean and how expensive are those? Perhaps you didn't read far enough. there is a multitude of different way of generating electricity short of coal... Perhaps you can tell me your economic solution?
ya right


#26 Mar 3, 2009
Mr Clean wrote:
<quoted text>
The true cost of not doing solar is way more expensive!
Can you say FOSSIL FUELS?
what is the kickback for collingwood? obviously our excise taxes arent going to fix our roads..........make collingwood fill potholes himself self righteous ......

Since: May 08

United States

#27 Mar 4, 2009
every drop of oil,and every pound of coal not burned is a plus for the environment and those of us who breathe the air!

Hartsville, SC

#28 Mar 4, 2009

Oil is not used to generate electricity. Coal is. You are blinding yourself to the fact that a bad decision for good reasons is still a bad decision. What are you going to do when all the heavy metals and toxic chemicals used to make solar cells are contaminating local ground water?

Will you be quick to scream that every we need to do something about that?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Ludlow Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Obama accepts Nobel Peace Prize, says war somet... (Dec '09) Jun 20 Mork from Ork 22
Dan Kirouac - acoustic concert at The Dockside ... Jun 20 New England Music... 1
News McCann teacher Robert Davis to retire after 23 ... Jun 16 space cadet 7
Massachusetts Adoptees and Birth parents Reunit... Jun 12 joan 1
Going green Jun 8 Estone617 1
News Pittsfield Bridges gets $475K grant to aid in f... Jun 7 Glen Back is Alwa... 9
News Keller @ Large: Casinos Have Been Bad Luck For ... (Nov '15) Jun 3 Herodotus 24
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Ludlow Mortgages