It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S Town rejects solar farm, worried they will 'suck up all the energy from the sun'.

page: 3
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Large solar arrays are a huge blight on the landscape, as are wind farms. I've seen vast landscapes, once beautiful, completely destroyed by wind and solar arrays. The state of Wyoming is a classic example.

Solar and wind produce electricity and electricity is only one of the forms of energy used by man. Electricity is notoriously inefficient for things like heating dwellings. Electric cars are a panacea of misnomers and (less than) half-truths. Battery technology is very environmentally un-friendly, so life is great when everything is new, but when things wear out and require replacement the negative side of the equation (that nobody wants to admit) rears its ugly head.

Regardless of what some may say here, large solar farms (and wind farms) absolutely have a negative impact on property values. If I invest $100,000 in something I want it to appreciate, not depreciate. Call me despicable and selfish, but it's MY money...not yours! If I make that investment and then someone comes along (for the "greater good") and wants to do something which will negatively affect that investment I'm absolutely going to object. The facts are at the current level of development solar and wind do not result in a positive ROI (return on investment) without government subsidies. They just don't. Therefore, that "greater good" really just translates into somebody trying to make a quick buck...at MY expense! And I say BS to that.

I happen to live in an area where there are numerous solar and wind projects. I've seen firsthand what these types of developments do to property values. Yes, oil and gas fields are also a blight on the landscape, and they too drive down property values, BUT the footprint per calorie (BTU, kWh or whatever measure you want to use) for fossil fuels is far less than the footprint for solar and wind.

I don't disagree that the world needs to break/reduce its addiction to fossil fuels and look for renewable resources, but in the same breath I'll be damned if I'm going to stand in line to buy a ticket to be allowed the privilege of seeing the sun, or not be deafened by the roar of wind turbines (they are loud you know)...and that's where solar and wind is headed right now. Just do the math, if we covered every square INCH of planet Earth with wind and solar we would still be upwards of 2 (possibly as high as 4) ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE short of being able to meet just the current energy demands.

So let's not be foolish and gulp the cool-aid down so fast! That some small town rejected yet another solar farm in their backyard should come as no surprise to anyone. Frankly, we should expect to see more of it. Just because some kook of a retired science teacher says some idiotic thing and the media gets ahold of it doesn't mean jack squat. People are smarter than this.




posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




This is a blog post from 2011 with no links to hard data. The Congressional budgets from the year in question show dramatically different figures.


How much more dramatic? What is the difference between then and now with the budget that would change the figures?



That shows that solar, at its cheapest, is still the same as natural gas at its highest.


I said many of the renewable energy technologies would be cheaper. In fact the cheapest out of all would be geothermal.




That is an article discussing making fuel from seawater that would cost $3-6 a gallon. Gasoline by me is currently in the $1.70's.

I know what the article is about which is why I linked it and said for the pump(replace gas).

Now I refer you back to my original statement which I linked an article to that states without subsidies the cost would be $12.75 per gallon. I am sure if Renewable energy and new technologies such as above received the current subsidies that fossil fuels do you would probably be paying half that $1.70 a gallon.



The more people that disgruntled individuals such as ourselves voice our concerns to is more that may ultimately change their own opinions.


I am pessimistic about that. It would take an actual movement instead of a few or a lot of grumbling on the internet about it.

If one is subsidised and not the other I disagree with it. Like I said I would be happy if neither were subsidised, but that looks like it is unrealistic talking point more than anything.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   
And another thought....

Before we go getting all lathered up about the injustices of some town objecting to another solar array, and the selfishness of the individual over the greater good; perhaps it might be better to redirect that anger and vitriol elsewhere. Here's an example...

Closed circuit Geo-thermal energy conservation is a real saver which actually DOES have a positive ROI. Depending on location, this technology can cut energy consumption by upwards of 50% (even higher in some regions)...so why don't more people (i.e. industry) use it??? Well, because it has a much higher up-front capital outlay, or CAPEX. Lending institutions (banks, municipal bonds, etc.) don't want to wait that long for their money (investment) so the only alternative is to either downsize the program to use the technology or forego the technology in the interest of profits up front to pay down the debt service. It's simple math really. When lending institutions only offer punitive interest rates for the same sized projects including these technologies, they don't get used.

So who's the bad guy?



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: cuckooold
Well, they sure can't use wind farms then. It'll block the wind from blowing. That, or the spinning blades will make the earth spin funny and they'll all puke.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I have been in favor of Geothermal for a long time. IMO it is a far better source of energy with no need for batteries.


The only plants I know of that are being constructed have been loaned the funds from the government. Precisely for the reasons you listed.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   
You know when I was waay younger, I used to read Omni magazine,Heavy Metal, popular science and the like, yes I was the type nerd, I used to imagine that come year 2000 we would have moon colonies and Mars would began terraforming, I never thought of the internet but I knew if you had walkie talkies then perhaps a Star Trek like device or a Dick Tracy watch might be possible, but here we are heading into 2016 and in the same nation that fired the imagination of a nerdy pre teen failed at firing the scientific curiosity of a community even the lead scientist in that community got left behind..why is this so..



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: cuckooold
Well, they sure can't use wind farms then. It'll block the wind from blowing. That, or the spinning blades will make the earth spin funny and they'll all puke.


Lol!



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
How much more dramatic? What is the difference between then and now with the budget that would change the figures?


About $35billion on the oil/gas numbers.



I said many of the renewable energy technologies would be cheaper. In fact the cheapest out of all would be geothermal.


I at one time wanted to go with that option but I am unable to with my current property due to regulatory issues.




I know what the article is about which is why I linked it and said for the pump(replace gas).

Now I refer you back to my original statement which I linked an article to that states without subsidies the cost would be $12.75 per gallon. I am sure if Renewable energy and new technologies such as above received the current subsidies that fossil fuels do you would probably be paying half that $1.70 a gallon.


They are using incorrect figures of $40billion+ in subsidies when it is around $6billion.

Both are a travesty but one is obviously more than the other and the correct figure is the lower one.



I am pessimistic about that. It would take an actual movement instead of a few or a lot of grumbling on the internet about it.


How does any movement happen my friend? It needs to begin somewhere, I choose to be vocal about my objections, if it makes a difference, great, if not, I feel I have at least attempted to address the situation.


If one is subsidised and not the other I disagree with it. Like I said I would be happy if neither were subsidised, but that looks like it is unrealistic talking point more than anything.


I would like to see a truly free energy market where the most viable product/system rises on its merits.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




They are using incorrect figures of $40billion+ in subsidies when it is around $6billion.

Both are a travesty but one is obviously more than the other and the correct figure is the lower one.


Well I couldn't find 2015 but I did find 2013 which said 35billion. 12 billion was for exploration and the trend is going up.
priceofoil.org...




How does any movement happen my friend? It needs to begin somewhere, I choose to be vocal about my objections, if it makes a difference, great, if not, I feel I have at least attempted to address the situation.


To realistic about though I don't see it going anywhere. Too many people do not want to see prices go up.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: cuckooold

I'm thinking such a town would need to be populated by citizens somewhat resembling the wee fellow that plays the Banjo in "Deliverance".




They must think "Mr Burns" is after there Sunshine. LoL


edit on 14-12-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Well I couldn't find 2015 but I did find 2013 which said 35billion. 12 billion was for exploration and the trend is going up.
priceofoil.org...


That includes some hefty coal subsidies as well. The CBO shows $4.7billion for 2014 which is for producers.

The full subsidized amount for all fossil fuels is $14.7billion for the FY14 budget. This certainly is not the $41billion the other site was claiming (and also erroneously including coal in their calculations). Again, this is still unacceptable as there should be zero subsidies of any kind for anything.



To realistic about though I don't see it going anywhere. Too many people do not want to see prices go up.


Agreed, it is a difficult road but one of the bright sides is that people started to understand what a scam the ethanol market was with it obscene subsides which are now dropping.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: cuckooold


edit on 14-12-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: cuckooold
The Australian news-site seems to have dropped the page.
I would have more confidence in the story coming from a more local newspaper.



Seems they moved it SMH



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Attorney General: "So wait a minute. What you're saying is that you want us to put water on the crops.
Joe: Yes.
Attorney General: Water. Like out the toilet?



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I noticed you made a great deal of unsubstantiated assertions - most were completely false.

Here is a comprehensive study on the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE): Lazard 2015 LCOE of power generation



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
My guess would be that the science teacher didn't actually believe what she was saying but she knew if she said it..... many of the townspeople might believe it...thereby causing them to vote against it .

If that is the case .......it is an underhanded way to assure the vote goes your way.
edit on 14-12-2015 by HarryJoy because: correct wording



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: cuckooold

Yes it appears that the Goldfish and potential Darwin award winners are alive and well. Oh Well. Oh i hope they remember to plug up empty electric socket holes so the electricity doesn't run onto the rugs.

I am off to run with the Lemmings now
edit on 14-12-2015 by Hermit777 because: needed to add another thought.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join