Huge solar farm promises clean energy...

Huge solar farm promises clean energy, good jobs

There are 96 comments on the Columbus Dispatch story from Oct 6, 2010, titled Huge solar farm promises clean energy, good jobs. In it, Columbus Dispatch reports that:

This Wyandot County solar farm has a long-term contract with AEP and the type of solar arrays proposed for the new site, but it is much smaller.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Columbus Dispatch.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Uncle Bob

United States

#81 Oct 7, 2010
KnotStandingStill wrote:
And the Dispatch is FINALLY reporting on the massive coal slurry spill into Captiva Creek in Belmont County. The same creek that Murry Inc. wants to dam up with a massive slurry pond, and has been denied permits. But the fine Republican boot-lickers here on the boards would GLADLY allow any and all unregulated mining and industry to forge full speed ahead because they are knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers who are too stupid to see their own destruction.
Solar IS viable, the world is passing us by in production due to you troglodytes supporting scorched-earth candidates like Kasich, Stivers, and Portman.
People who have to resort to name calling are ignorant liberals. You have my sympathy, moron.
Glasnos

El Paso, TX

#82 Oct 7, 2010
WDRussell wrote:
You get to read a lot of posts from the pro-pollution lackeys.
Oh ... you mean the leftist socialists...
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/199/722/Libera...
History major

Columbus, OH

#83 Oct 7, 2010
Glasnos wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a complete airheaded progressive. It is not YOUR money, because you don't pay taxes. If you did, you would not want your representatives wasting your money like this. You do pay electric utility bills. I would expect you to throw a party when your electric bill triples! YAY!... the government loves me ... and is doing the right thing!! ROFL
Once again ... they tried this "enviornmentally friendly" approach to power generation in Spain ... and it pushed them to the brink of bankruptcy .... of course the USA is much more fiscally sound, and can afford it ... right?... moron!
Well, sir/madam, you lose the argument because you lower yourself to name calling like a child and that's a sign that you don't have a valid argument or the mental capacity to make your argument. I could call you a few things but I have self respect and I'm confident in my facts. The government's money is my money. I pay taxes to the government like millions of other people so every dime the government spends is the people's money and therefore "my" money. Or do you not know where the government gets its money?

Solar investments did not bankrupt Spain. I read Bloomberg Business Week regularly and have been following economists' analysis of the financial crisis in Europe. There are numerous factors and none of the analysis has cited solar energy as a factor in Spain's difficulties. Or maybe the economists are wrong and you are the expert?

Frankly, I believe our energy solution lies in more nuclear power. It's much cleaner than coal and provides plenty of baseload power for the grid. But Americans are too namby-pamby afraid of nuclear. France is almost entirely powered by nuclear. This is where we should be going, supplemented by cleaner coal technology with increasing use of wind, solar and hyrdo power were feasible.
Glasnos

El Paso, TX

#84 Oct 7, 2010
History major wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, sir/madam, you lose the argument because you lower yourself to name calling like a child and that's a sign that you don't have a valid argument or the mental capacity to make your argument. I could call you a few things but I have self respect and I'm confident in my facts. The government's money is my money. I pay taxes to the government like millions of other people so every dime the government spends is the people's money and therefore "my" money. Or do you not know where the government gets its money?
Solar investments did not bankrupt Spain. I read Bloomberg Business Week regularly and have been following economists' analysis of the financial crisis in Europe. There are numerous factors and none of the analysis has cited solar energy as a factor in Spain's difficulties. Or maybe the economists are wrong and you are the expert?
Frankly, I believe our energy solution lies in more nuclear power. It's much cleaner than coal and provides plenty of baseload power for the grid. But Americans are too namby-pamby afraid of nuclear. France is almost entirely powered by nuclear. This is where we should be going, supplemented by cleaner coal technology with increasing use of wind, solar and hyrdo power were feasible.
The same greenies who cheer for wind and solar refused to allow nuclear to be built ... It takes 10 years to build a nuclear plant and bring it online ... so for the nearterm at least, it's just not an option. Solar is way too costly and incapable of of providing more than 5% of our power needs. How can you possibly defend this total nonsense?$100 million to install a solar farm that will only save $1.2 million per year? Are you this fiscally ignorant? It is clear what Obama and the progressives want to do. They want to tax coal and fossil fuels to bring the price of electricty up so that solar can be seen as a viable alternative. Tax the crap out of fossil and susidize solar. This will not only triple people's electric bill ... but do you realize what that will do to other goods? Supermarkets use massive amounts of electricity ... you will see a lot less frozen foods ... and refrigerated products. And the price of food will also rise considerably ... just so we can have solar?... It is not the republicans that will starve the children and elderly ... it is the ignorant "envionmentalist" loons ... the democrats. To triple the cost of power will shut down a lot of businesses, and put many more people out of work.
History major

Columbus, OH

#85 Oct 8, 2010
Glasnos wrote:
<quoted text>
The same greenies who cheer for wind and solar refused to allow nuclear to be built ... It takes 10 years to build a nuclear plant and bring it online ... so for the nearterm at least, it's just not an option. Solar is way too costly and incapable of of providing more than 5% of our power needs. How can you possibly defend this total nonsense?$100 million to install a solar farm that will only save $1.2 million per year? Are you this fiscally ignorant? It is clear what Obama and the progressives want to do. They want to tax coal and fossil fuels to bring the price of electricty up so that solar can be seen as a viable alternative. Tax the crap out of fossil and susidize solar. This will not only triple people's electric bill ... but do you realize what that will do to other goods? Supermarkets use massive amounts of electricity ... you will see a lot less frozen foods ... and refrigerated products. And the price of food will also rise considerably ... just so we can have solar?... It is not the republicans that will starve the children and elderly ... it is the ignorant "envionmentalist" loons ... the democrats. To triple the cost of power will shut down a lot of businesses, and put many more people out of work.
You may be right on the costs - in the short term. Long term, we need alternative fuels. From my reading, estimates are that we have 100-150 years of coal in the ground in the U.S. and less than 100 years of oil reserves worldwide. Natural gas I'm not sure about. The point is, fossil fuels are finite resources. We aren't making any more of them - unless we want to wait a few million years. The sun should last several billion more years. Wind comes and goes, but will be available as long as the Earth is spinning. The rivers should keep flowing to provide hydro power - well, unless climate change is real ...

Bottom line is that we need to start developing alternative sources to fossil fuels. I frankly don't care if the solar field is built. I definitely would like small solar panels to become affordable enough to put them on my home. The electric bills you keep railing about would be negligible if I could get most of my electric needs from solar on the roof of my home. In the short term, this may be a more viable market than building acres of solar fields. My preference, as I stated, would be to develop more nuclear power plants. I believe Yucca Mountain is ready to store the low level nuclear waste (except for the NIMBY crowd out there) and as technology continues to develop, much of the spent reactor fuel could be recycled and used for something else. I'm not holding my breath for this to happen.
lol

United States

#86 Oct 8, 2010
You'd think a history major would be all into fossil fuel, wouldn't you?
Glasnos

El Paso, TX

#87 Oct 8, 2010
History major wrote:
<quoted text>
You may be right on the costs - in the short term. Long term, we need alternative fuels. From my reading, estimates are that we have 100-150 years of coal in the ground in the U.S. and less than 100 years of oil reserves worldwide. Natural gas I'm not sure about. The point is, fossil fuels are finite resources. We aren't making any more of them - unless we want to wait a few million years. The sun should last several billion more years. Wind comes and goes, but will be available as long as the Earth is spinning. The rivers should keep flowing to provide hydro power - well, unless climate change is real ...
Bottom line is that we need to start developing alternative sources to fossil fuels. I frankly don't care if the solar field is built. I definitely would like small solar panels to become affordable enough to put them on my home. The electric bills you keep railing about would be negligible if I could get most of my electric needs from solar on the roof of my home. In the short term, this may be a more viable market than building acres of solar fields. My preference, as I stated, would be to develop more nuclear power plants. I believe Yucca Mountain is ready to store the low level nuclear waste (except for the NIMBY crowd out there) and as technology continues to develop, much of the spent reactor fuel could be recycled and used for something else. I'm not holding my breath for this to happen.
We keep finding more oil ... and we find ways to extract more oil from previously thought depleted sources ... so I am not so sure about your timeline. But even taking your timeline ... Look at the difference in technology 90 years ago and today. Imagine what technological advances we may see 50 years from now ... Now is not the time to use technology that is over three times as expensive as fossil fuels ... and especially not when we are facing a global depression. That is insane. The rational for the use is not efficiency .. but the "global warming" scam ... a scheme to "spread the wealth" from capitalist countries to third world crap holes, where only dictators will benefit.
Odumbo seeks to shut down US oil production in the Gulf ... while at the same time loans money to Petrobas to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil ... The progressive Odumbo administration also seeks to prohibit access to huge amounts of oil shale in Utah, Colorado and Idaho.
History major

Columbus, OH

#88 Oct 8, 2010
lol wrote:
You'd think a history major would be all into fossil fuel, wouldn't you?
Why? Because I know the history of health and environmental damage caused by fossil fuels? You've heard of "London fog"? Yea, that wasn't really fog. It was air pollution from everyone (homes, business, industry, railroads) burning coal for heat and fuel in the 1800s/early 1900s. Enough history for ya?(Good comment though; it gave me a chuckle.)
History major

Columbus, OH

#89 Oct 8, 2010
Glasnos wrote:
<quoted text>
We keep finding more oil ... and we find ways to extract more oil from previously thought depleted sources ... so I am not so sure about your timeline. But even taking your timeline ... Look at the difference in technology 90 years ago and today. Imagine what technological advances we may see 50 years from now ... Now is not the time to use technology that is over three times as expensive as fossil fuels ... and especially not when we are facing a global depression. That is insane. The rational for the use is not efficiency .. but the "global warming" scam ... a scheme to "spread the wealth" from capitalist countries to third world crap holes, where only dictators will benefit.
Odumbo seeks to shut down US oil production in the Gulf ... while at the same time loans money to Petrobas to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil ... The progressive Odumbo administration also seeks to prohibit access to huge amounts of oil shale in Utah, Colorado and Idaho.
Look, you make a number of valid points, but I can't respect your opinion because you stoop to name calling and insults. How old are you? 12? Most new technologies are very expensive when they first come on line. Then the more they are used, the cheaper they get. I made that point several posts ago. Each generation of a technology gets better, so yes, 25-50-90 years from now who knows where tech will be?

I guess my question is when do we start working on these technologies of the future? Do we wait until there's only 10 years of oil reserves left, 50 years of coal? I didn't wait until they stopped making videotape cassettes to replace my VCR with a DVD player. Yet DVD players have advanced several generations in technology since I bought my first one. I know, it's not a true apples-to-apples comparison, but I hope it illustrates my point.

Gotta go. It's been interesting chatting with you. Have a good weekend.
Glasnos

El Paso, TX

#90 Oct 8, 2010
History major wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, you make a number of valid points, but I can't respect your opinion because you stoop to name calling and insults. How old are you? 12? Most new technologies are very expensive when they first come on line. Then the more they are used, the cheaper they get. I made that point several posts ago. Each generation of a technology gets better, so yes, 25-50-90 years from now who knows where tech will be?
I guess my question is when do we start working on these technologies of the future? Do we wait until there's only 10 years of oil reserves left, 50 years of coal? I didn't wait until they stopped making videotape cassettes to replace my VCR with a DVD player. Yet DVD players have advanced several generations in technology since I bought my first one. I know, it's not a true apples-to-apples comparison, but I hope it illustrates my point.
Gotta go. It's been interesting chatting with you. Have a good weekend.
Interesting ... When do we move away from fossil fuels? How about when we find something more efficient? Failing that ... how about something as economically viable? That might be a good time to switch... eh?
Your comparison of VCR to DVD is totally invalid ... Can you not see what the difference is? The DVD was better quality for the same price... Had the DVD been the same quality for three times the cost ... would you be so eager, because someone told you it was the newest technology?
howrad

Cincinnati, OH

#91 Oct 8, 2010
DrC Ohio wrote:
All new buildings should be required to have solar panels on them. And there should be an effort to retrofit all the existing buildings where it makes sense.
Should we borrow the money from China or are you going to foot the bill, because I am all tapped out?
Liddleguy

Columbus, OH

#92 Oct 8, 2010
howrad wrote:
<quoted text>
Should we borrow the money from China or are you going to foot the bill, because I am all tapped out?
Did you misspell your name? Looks like the R and A are backwards.
Reader

Columbus, OH

#93 Oct 12, 2010
Glasnos wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting ... When do we move away from fossil fuels? How about when we find something more efficient? Failing that ... how about something as economically viable? That might be a good time to switch... eh?
Your comparison of VCR to DVD is totally invalid ... Can you not see what the difference is? The DVD was better quality for the same price... Had the DVD been the same quality for three times the cost ... would you be so eager, because someone told you it was the newest technology?
You missed the point on the DVD-VCR comparison. They were NOT the same price when DVD players came out. I could get a VCR for $40-$50 when DVD players were $200 and up. So I waited. As more people started buying DVD players, the price came down to where I was willing to buy. Alternative fuels, and virtually anything in the marketplace works the same. When more people use an alternative energy/fuel it will become more profitable and more widespread. When it's in more widespread use, the price will come down.
Pipe Dream

United States

#94 Oct 12, 2010
Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
You missed the point on the DVD-VCR comparison. They were NOT the same price when DVD players came out. I could get a VCR for $40-$50 when DVD players were $200 and up. So I waited. As more people started buying DVD players, the price came down to where I was willing to buy. Alternative fuels, and virtually anything in the marketplace works the same. When more people use an alternative energy/fuel it will become more profitable and more widespread. When it's in more widespread use, the price will come down.
You're missing an important point. The new product has to work at least as efficiently as the product it hopes to replace. To date, no alternative product compares in scope and performance to petroleum-based products.
History major

Columbus, OH

#95 Oct 12, 2010
Pipe Dream wrote:
<quoted text>
You're missing an important point. The new product has to work at least as efficiently as the product it hopes to replace. To date, no alternative product compares in scope and performance to petroleum-based products.
Agreed.(sorry I posted as Reader in the post above, it's not my usual screen name) All I am saying is that we don't throw alternative energy and fuels out of the portfolio because they aren't as efficient. If you look at my prior entries on this thread (as History Major), you will see that I support nuclear and coal as baseline energy sources. Moreso nuclear than coal because of coal's high public health and environmental costs. But I also say we should keep working on clean coal technology. In my book, everything has to be on the table because fossil fuels are a finite resource. They won't last forever and by many estimates, 3-4 generations from now oil will be mostly depleted, except for the very expensive extraction from oil shales and sands. So we better be working on more efficient technology for refining oil sands, too. As I said, everything must be on the table. As technology improves, things will become more efficient, but not if we give up and stop working on it because it's currently expensive.
howrad

Cincinnati, OH

#96 Oct 14, 2010
Liddleguy wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you misspell your name? Looks like the R and A are backwards.
Negative. Don't believe your lying eyes.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
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.

Wyandot County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News LocalWyandot prosecutor found dead in apparent ... (Oct '14) May '15 lays 2
News Columbus Mileposts | July 12, 1937: City mourns... (Jul '12) Jul '12 CatInTheHat 6
News KCS gets voter support to build new elementary (Nov '11) Nov '11 haha 3
Kody Bowling (Dec '10) Dec '10 Scammed 1
News Clean energy, good jobs (Oct '10) Oct '10 Just the Facts 1
News 2 programs help track Ohio sex offenders (Oct '10) Oct '10 Rose Dawson 1
PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FOR 11th & ... (Sep '10) Sep '10 9th Degree 1