Dummerston looking into solar power

May 6, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Brattleboro Reformer

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.

Comments
101 - 120 of 123 Comments Last updated Jan 8, 2014
MarkieMark

Brattleboro, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105
May 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

I Know More Than You wrote:
<quoted text>
Good thing Boxer isn't a climate scientist.
She is just relying on the "consensus". Lol
I Know More Than You

Laconia, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106
May 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

MarkieMark aka Fox News Idiot wrote:
She is just relying on the "consensus". Lol
So close to having an legitimate point and then you had to go full derp.

Better luck next time!
ShootEmAll InTheirVaginas

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107
May 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

that's their solution to the non-existant problem-pay the globalist's carbon tax and they'll wave a magic wand and make the global warming 'problem' go away
pppffffFFFFFFFFFffffffffffftt! !

hypocrite scum Boxer ACTED as if she was against govt. tyranny when Bush was prez but is quite OK with it now-

Barbara Boxer: "This Is As Close As We've Ever Come To A Dictatorship"
July 13, 2007
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007...

Barbara Boxer Co-Sponsored PIPA and recieved $571,000 from the entertainment industry in 2010.
She supports the tyranny of Obamacare etc. and she voted FOR the unconstitutional NDAA, so did Vermont's vagina Pat Leahy who co-wrote the USA 'PATRIOT' Act.
Global Cooling denier Bernie BS Sanders at least voted against the Pat Act and NDAA but supports the bullsh't carbon tax scam

Boxer's Bill Allows IRS to Deny Americans Right to Travel
April 5, 2012
http://www.infowars.com/bill-allows-irs-to-de...

///
Connecticut Senate Backs Bill To Label Genetically Modified Foods http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-gmo-l...

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108
May 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Is this board so low class that calling a woman a "vagina" is considered acceptable? REALLY?
Pat The Putrid Pus sy

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109
May 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I didn't call any woman a vagina I called that NWO scum traitor Leahy one. He's also a pr ick.
No this does not mean I support Pri ck Cheney who famously told Pat to "F* yourself".
A radio talk show host recently said Hillary should be shot in her vagina for her treason
The Secret Service is wasting our tax $ giving him sh't over his extreme comment but protect the ones shredding our Constitution and destroying our republic
Do you find TREASON acceptable?
I Know More Than You

Laconia, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110
May 22, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

KitemanSA wrote:
Is this board so low class that calling a woman a "vagina" is considered acceptable? REALLY?
I take it you aren't familiar with "Alex the Village Idiot"?

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111
May 22, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

It really has to stop.
Are you there VT

Rochester, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

05/23/2013 | Wall Street Journal, The

Claims that solar power is what the world needs to combat climate change and meet energy needs are misleading, write Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, co-founders of the Breakthrough Institute. Nuclear plants are more economical and reliable in the long run, they write. Environmentalists need to reassess their opposition to nuclear power if they are truly worried about climate change, because the energy source is the best chance to dramatically reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, Nordhaus and Shellenberger write.

View Full Article in: Wall Street Journal, The
Published in Topics: Energy & Chemicals | Nuclear Energy
Published in Brief: NEI SmartBrief
FukushimaKilled 14K in US

Brattleboro, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

"Environmentalists need to reassess their opposition to nuclear power...blahblah"

WTFU nukenut!

Nuclear Power: Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive
video
http://blip.tv/envirovideo/nuclear-power-dirt...
===
'Nuclear power is not green power'
Vermont Guardian
http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/012...

====

Special report: Nuclear energy: The dream that failed
The Economist
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/0...
==
SEPARATION OF CHURCH & NUKES !
Karl Grossman: Worshipping Nuclear Power Like A Religion
http://www.lipolitics.com/blog/2012/06/18/kar...
===
Why Do People Claim that Nuclear Power is a Low-Carbon Source of Energy?
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-04-...
===

Greenwashing Uranium: Nuclear energy is not green energy
http://www.environmentalhealth.ca/fall08green...

'Nuclear power -- not a green option'
It generates radioactive waste; it requires uranium that's dangerous to mine; it's hugely expensive.
LA Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/05/opini...
----------
Nuclear - not clean, not green
30 minute vid

----

GE CEO Jeff Immelt,- Nuclear Power 'Really Hard' To Defend Financially
http://enenews.com/breaking-ceo-of-ge-says-nu...
===

The Cost of Nuclear Power: Numbers That Don't Add Up
U.S. needs to shift public support to less costly, less risky alternatives
Union Of Concerned Scientists
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_p...
****
***
**
*
Study: Fukushima Radiation Has Already Killed 14,000 Americans
http://www.infowars.com/study-fukushima-radia...

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Nuclear power, the 1950s era, mechanical systems technology, is old hat. It is till better than any of the others, but it has problems. NEWclear power, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recycler (LFTR), avoids most of the problems, and actually helps SOLVE the rest.
It is inherently safe.
It is inherently stable.
It does not require uranium to be mined but can burn the fissile bomb inventory.
It can burn the long lived dangerous isotopes in Spent Nuclear Fuel.
It burns the radioactive waste that is produced when building wind mills (didn't know that wind mill production results in radioactive waste, did you?)

LFTRs, the leaner, cleaner, greener proven reliable energy source.

Beyond Nuclear is NEWclear.
Infowars dot com

Brattleboro, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

I Know More Than You wrote:
<quoted text>
I take it you aren't familiar with "Alex the Village Idiot"?
-with a name that arrogantly claims to know more than others* those new here can see who the real idiot of this village is
''''
*and Never proved such
/\\/

Mike Judge, Creator of Beavis & Butt-Head, King of the Hill, sounds off in exclusive Infowars interview with Alex- http://youtu.be/NzR_bfvxDZM
Nuclear-News dot net

Brattleboro, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KitemanSA wrote:
Nuclear power, the 1950s era, mechanical systems technology, is old hat. It is till better than any of the others, but it has problems. NEWclear power, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recycler (LFTR), avoids most of the problems, and actually helps SOLVE the rest.
It is inherently safe.
It is inherently stable.
It does not require uranium to be mined but can burn the fissile bomb inventory.
It can burn the long lived dangerous isotopes in Spent Nuclear Fuel.
It burns the radioactive waste that is produced when building wind mills (didn't know that wind mill production results in radioactive waste, did you?)
LFTRs, the leaner, cleaner, greener proven reliable energy source.
Beyond Nuclear is NEWclear.
10 Myths About Thorium As A Nuclear Solution

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/document...
I Know More Than You

Laconia, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Alex the Village Idiot wrote:
10 Myths About Thorium As A Nuclear Solution
Maybe if you understood the difference between fissile and fissionable and could actually discuss the issues intelligently rather than just cutting and pasting some random crap, I could upgrade you to "Village Imbecile" of even "Village Moron".

Until then, keep the derp flowing.
Fissile Material 101

Newton Center, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

oh do tell us Mr. Know it all, how is what kiteman proposes uhm..., SAFE?
pppfffffffffffffffftt!!
It's certainly not!
So we see that both of ewe LIE and support the continued endangerment of us all

/\__/\_/\

Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 –'so these are really U-233 reactors,' says Karamoskos.

This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years).
Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium's superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste.

--
The Promise and Peril of Thorium
http://wmdjunction.com/121031_thorium_reactor...
It's time to evaluate claims that thorium-fueled reactors can reduce the proliferation risks of nuclear energy.
"But following my own examination of the technology, I am forced to the very opposite conclusion: LFTRs could be used as highly efficient factories for very pure fissile material eminently suitable for bomb making. Furthermore, it is my belief—based on the facts set out here—that funding may have been cut because the widespread deployment of LFTRs would create an enormous proliferation hazard that is contrary to the US national interest."

//
so my linked first linked article was quite right in saying as it did:
"The bottom line is this. Thorium reactors still produce high-level radioactive waste. They still pose problems and opportunities for the proliferation of nuclear weapons. They still present opportunities for catastrophic accident scenarios -- as potential targets of terrorist or military attack, for example."
///
\\\
then there's the $$ factor, which is about the only thing the diehard nukeards will look at...

'Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option'
'Without exception,[thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/ju...

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119
May 23, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Nuclear-News dot net wrote:
<quoted text>
10 Myths About Thorium As A Nuclear Solution
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/document...
This non-fact sheet is drawn almost exclusively from IEER's "Thorium Fuel, No Panacea for Nuclear Power". Here are two rebuttals.

http://energyfromthorium.com/ieer-rebuttal/

http://energyfromthorium.com/2010/05/13/canna...

Please learn something true about Thorium Fuel.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fissile Material 101 wrote:
oh do tell us Mr. Know it all, how is what kiteman proposes uhm..., SAFE?
pppfffffffffffffffftt!!
It's certainly not!
So we see that both of ewe LIE and support the continued endangerment of us all
It is SAFE because it operates at atmospheric pressure. It uses liquid fluoride salts as the working fluid, salts which are among the most stable chemicals both thermally and radiologically. It has a large negative coefficient of reactivity so it is strongly self regulating. If the power goes out, the fuel dumps into a non-moderating, passively cooled tank, i.e., it is walk away safe. The units produce only fission products for waste, the dangerous ones of which are stable in about 300 years. Because of these characteristics, they are inherently MUCH safer than current nuclear plants which, despite two major accidents, are still the safest energy source known to man.
/\__/\_/\
Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 –'so these are really U-233 reactors,' says Karamoskos.
This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years).
Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium's superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste.
--
That is the neat thing about Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers (aka, LFTReactors), they can use the long lived NASTY parts of LWR Spent Nuclear Fuel as starter charge, and then use the neutrons from that material to breed enough fissile fuel to continue operating forever. The only thing that needs to be added is Thorium which is a radioactive waste material from the refining of the Rare Earth Elements needed to build wind mills. And the contamination with U232 is the best part. Presence of U232 makes it EXTREMELY difficult to build a bomb with U233. There have been two R&D devices using U233 tried in the entire history of bomb making. Neither worked well.
And the thing to remember about fission products is that the longer the half-life, the less dangerous.
And the thing to remember about the actinides mentioned is that they are left in the core to burn up. You don't have to pull out "Spent" fuel bundles from a LFTR like you do from a solid fuel reactor.

Please don't let ijuts think for you. Please investigate the NEWclear technology I proposed, the LIQUID Fluoride Thorium Recycler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFTR

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121
May 25, 2013
 
Fissile Material 101 wrote:
The Promise and Peril of Thorium
http://wmdjunction.com/121031_thorium_reactor...
It's time to evaluate claims that thorium-fueled reactors can reduce the proliferation risks of nuclear energy.
"But following my own examination of the technology, I am forced to the very opposite conclusion: LFTRs could be used as highly efficient factories for very pure fissile material eminently suitable for bomb making. Furthermore, it is my belief—based on the facts set out here—that funding may have been cut because the widespread deployment of LFTRs would create an enormous proliferation hazard that is contrary to the US national interest."
//
so my linked first linked article was quite right in saying as it did:
"The bottom line is this. Thorium reactors still produce high-level radioactive waste. They still pose problems and opportunities for the proliferation of nuclear weapons. They still present opportunities for catastrophic accident scenarios -- as potential targets of terrorist or military attack, for example."
Since Thorium is available world wide, why hasn't it happened before?
The members of the "Nuclear Club" have had seven decades of practice at making nuclear weapons. If it were so easy, explain this.
The current score card:
Weapons derived from Uranium ~20,000
Weapons derived from Thorium =ZERO!
If they haven't done it by now, that should tell you something.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122
May 25, 2013
 
Fissile Material 101 wrote:
then there's the $$ factor, which is about the only thing the diehard nukeards will look at...
'Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option'
'Without exception,[thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/ju...
All past commercial attempts to use Thorium relied on solid fueled reactor technology. That means that in order to use the bred fissile material, the pellets need to be removed, cooled, turned into liquids, reprocessed, turned back into solids, re-manufactured into fuel pellets again... All in all, a VERY cumbersome process. Using Thorium in a solid fuel reactor is akin to trying to use diesel in a gasoline engine. It might work after a fashion, but should it be used in a Diesel engine? The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor is that Diesel engine. Use the right engine with the right fuel and good results ensue.

LFTRs have been estimated to be able to produce electricity cheaper than from coal. There is no real cost issue. There may be a mal-regulation issue.

Assuming LFTRs will require major taxpayer subsidies is not warranted. Such taxpayer investment might speed thing up, but it is hardly needed. One of the reasons it was discontinued back in the 70s was that it was viewed as too cheap to require the large, career making, investments (subsidies) that the competitor (LMFBR) did.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#123
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Nukes are so passe- wrote:
Tepco admits Fukushimat area is MORE radtastic with the huge containers of contaminated water, which are leaking badly
http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/05/checkmate-...
The report gnashes teeth over a 6mSv/y dosage rate. Folks, this is about one HALF the normal background levels at Denver.
DEMographics

Rochester, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124
May 26, 2013
 
There are good examples in Vermont of responsible reclaiming of renewable energy; why are we wasting our money and resourses on solar and wind?

Locals plan Pownal hydro revival effort

http://www.benningtonbanner.com/ci_20563134/l...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Westminster Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Dummerston skeptical of solar deal (Feb '14) Aug 11 Bob Story 4
Clark seeks third term as sheriff Jul 29 vern 39
Putney's free walk-in clinic closes after 22 years Jul 29 Former New Englander 3
Police Log Jul '14 If Sheeple Would ... 6
Some roads in Putney to get fiber optic broadband Jul '14 Flat Lander 1
Vermont legislators hear of child protection co... Jun '14 Truth Hurts 1
Stroll Parade order of march Jun '14 Biz or not 7

Search the Westminster Forum:
•••

Westminster News Video

•••
•••

Westminster Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Westminster People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Westminster News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Westminster
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••