Money troubles stall green town project »
Posted By jeremytoday 1 year, 3 months ago in Science & TechnologyThis one-stoplight farming hamlet had big dreams in 2005 when it was christened BioTown USA.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
94 Views Share Story 7 Comments Report
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 12 (view all)
-
0%
simonsez1 year, 3 months ago
Nice try, but "green" is more expensive and the economic benefits don't exist yet.
Reply -
0%
saintetienne1 year, 3 months ago
Going green means going broke. It's why nobody REALLY cares about Al Gore's "Inconvenient" hooey.
Well, nobody that is, except psychopathic, irrational liberals.
Reply -
0%
bill29361 year, 3 months ago
A while back the 'Gore Defenders' were talking about buying and selling 'Carbon Credits' and that the money was supposed to be used for things like this in the bill of goods they sold to people. Well, where is the money? Why isn't it being put up to help this town go green? Is the 'Carbon Credit' nothing more than a scam?
Reply -
-
0%
Jaydee401 year, 3 months ago
Not really, what you need to wonder is are they trying to fail in the first place? They mention the cost of creating there own power grid, why do that at all, it's a wast of money and not needed. All power flow can be measured and directed with some simple modification. If it's being done elsewhere why must it be harder to do in the US? Could it be because big business wants it to fail?
Reply
-
-
0%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
LOL
France has gone nuclear with their power plants and that is a green technology. Waste from a nuclear plant for a year is the size that fits in a pickup truck. Coal plants will fill a football field. This town ignores that most power in this country comes from fossil fuels. The rest of the things are cost prohibitive. Also ignored is the fact that the program started in the 60's to clean up the air, water, and ground has been very successful.
Reply-
0%
Jaydee401 year, 3 months ago
Your right about the amount of power from fossil fuels, as of 2006 seventy percent is derived from coal (50%) and oil and natural gas (20%). I don't think nuclear qualifies as green simply on the toxicity and length of toxicity of the waste left. While some clean up has worked by and large it is still getting worse and not better out there. If I lived in almost any major city in north America there would be so many days a year I couldn't go outside because of poor air quality, most of that is directly related to motor vehicle emissions, coal use, and manufacturing using chemicals. Thats why I would like to see major changes in fuel consumption standards for cars and trucks and more power generated from natural resources.
Reply
-
-
0%
KMFDM1 year, 3 months ago
Oh no! What good is it if we save the planet and we are all broke?!?!
As long as we are all rich, who care what happens to this planet, we can just buy another one, right?
How many hundreds of light years could the next possible inhabitable planet be anyways.
Im sure we will have enough crude oil left over to get us there.
Reply-
0%
Jaydee401 year, 3 months ago
If greedy hands can be kept out of it going green can be cost effective.
Reply
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.