« Back to story "U.S. works to speed solar energy development in the West"

Story Comments

Posted by: NoWayMan 5 months, 4 weeks ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

100%
NoWayMan5 months, 4 weeks ago

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

"In a time where money is in very short supply, why would we ever consider building a solar power plant. It's unreliable, the average plant only produces power 20% of the time."

not in the southwest.

"The battery or capacitor storage required are not environmentally friendly and a bigger hazard than a coal or natural gas power plant."

thats just a lie, especially where the coal plant is concerned.

"I think if a state or community feels they need to build a plant like they, they should pay for it themselves. Not the tax payers. Raise the money through the sale of bonds like any other power plant"

if you think this is how "any other power plant" got built, you're seriously naive. and that's not even mentioning things like subsidies.

(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
Reply
2 Replies

loading ...
- 0%
  BB645 months, 4 weeks ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  Actually, no that isn't. The majority of the power plants we build currently are privately funded investments. You will find many small units in Pakistan, India or Bangladesh. Most are paid for large textile mills. With the plants comes the power for the community. With power comes running water too.
  
  On your systems, solar is a huge ticket item. Solar like wind, will have a difficult time producing more energy than is used in the building and maintaining of your solar systems. That is if the goal is to reduce carbon output.
  
  On the coal, why is it a lie. Coal can be used and is relatively clean. That is unless you still think CO2 is this evil product. Then the only solution is to reduce the human population by about 60% and move back into caves.
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
  Reply
  1 Reply
  
  loading ...
  - 100%
    NoWayMan5 months, 4 weeks ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    you're full of it.
    
    no such thing as "clean coal" no matter what you say. coal is not relatively clean. its relatively dirty. duh.
    
    solar is priced heavily up front but anyone with a brainstem, or a solar panel, knows you make the money on the back end since it doens't have the recurring costs that all other sources have. and you can sell excess power back to the grid.
    
    just ask Bush. he installed solar panels on the white house cause they're cost effective. (actually it was carter who installed them, then reagan, in his infinite wisdom (cough!) took them down).
    
    and you obviousy have no idea how much free money existing power companies take out of your own pocket.
    
    another point that I'm sure you didn't know about is how much water each type of energy uses, which is a BIUG factor going forward. and of course, solar is the best choice there as well since things like oil and nuclear use soooo much water that they simply won't be sustainable in the future as water is in shorter and shorter supply.
    
    and of course things water aren't included in any equation of how much energy costs, when it obviously should be, and its obviously being left out of the equation so they can fool people like you, which they've done.
    
    you've got one sitting on your shoulders.
    
    now would be a good time to start using it.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply
    0 Replies
    
    loading ...