Cabinet heads check out solar project

Giggles, you sound a little irritated. Not getting enough sleep? Worried about tomorrow? It will be ok, maybe.

Let me ask you a question. If our power comes from coal, or nuke, how does that make us dependent on Saudi? Hey, I assume your were talking about my saying that if I put solar in, that it would take ten years to break even, right? I guess you are just obsessed by the war, right? That's why you had to bring that one up.
That's ok, because I am sure you aren't always this angry with the world.
Have a great evening, and try to get some sleep.

Get a room, you two.

For me, this says it all about the Republican position.

I was told the if I installed solar on my house that it would take ten years, if lucky, before I would break even.

Good point Dogbyte. If it takes ten years to make money instead of you and your grandchildren sending it to Saudi Arabia forever while being subsidized by constant war that takes two-thirds of your taxes, why even try?

Why. Even. Try.

[Slap an elephant on that and sell it as a bumper sticker already.]

Drill here. Drill now. I like crack. Why. Even. Try.

You self-reliant, bootstrap types simply amaze me.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I also think it is important. But, I think you understand how I feel about spending right now. Have a good evening.

You're right that we don't agree, but I hope that in exploring the nuances of our disagreement, we BOTH become wiser. Maybe our dialogue will even help other readers explore their own views on the issues we've covered.

I think that I understand your basic objection to the solar farm subsidies as arising from your philosophical opposition to any government spending that isn't absolutely necessary to the immediate preservation of the Union. I accept that as a coherent position, albeit one that I can't support. It reminds me of Shakespeare's admonition against being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

As to the amount of time I spend addressing this issue, consider it a proxy for how important I think this issue is to the future prosperity and security of our country over the next 50 years.

"The more the words, the less the meaning, and how does that profit
anyone?"

I don't know whether to appreciate all the time you spent addressing this, or to wonder what folly would possess someone to feel compelled to defend controversial issues as this.
There is plenty of oil for drilling, but you don't want to admit this because then you would have to admit that you advocate wasting taxpayers dollars.
The "coherent" reason for the government NOT to spend taxpayers money is because there are plenty of private businesses out there that can do this experiment. Obviously, if there is no profit in it, why should they. Another reason for the gov. not to subsidize this, is because we can't afford it. That in itself should be sufficient cause to be frugal. Yes, I know that you are going to say "but, what about Bush". I could give a rat's a$s about what happened before now. It is now that we have fix. You are just like the wife on a spending spree. You are not thinking about how you are going to pay it back. Typical liberal personality.
Right now is NOT the time for exotic liberal ideas. Now is the time to figure out how to get out of the mess we are in. Another reason for postponing the health care issue. They haven't even fixed the Medicare of Social Security problem yet. Cap and Trade, if passed will be the ultimate crushing of the American economy.
Cry your liberal blues all you want, but my reason is sound, and yours although admirable is fiscally unsound.
I am not against research on wind or solar. I am against spending money that we don't have. You folks cry about foreign imported oil but will not allow for American production. What's that all about?
"But a witless man can no more become wise than a wild donkey's colt can
be born a man." Now you know where the Democrats got the donkey image.
"It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and
miss the way."
Either way, no offense meant to you. We don't agree, so it is not like we will have any influence on the matter. Have a great day, friend.

Dogbyte's reasoning fails on several counts.

1. Dogbyte does not understand that "oil reserves" in this conversation means the same thing as "oil available for drilling."

2. Dogbyte does not like Wikipedia's article on "oil reserves." Since wikipedia is basically a free market for facts, apparently dogbyte either dislikes the free market or dogbyte dislikes facts. Nor does dogbyte offer any other information for readers to consider.

3. Dogbyte confuses the message with the messenger. Sadly, this means that dogbyte is unable to evaluate another person's analysis on the merits of what they are saying. Instead, dogbyte is consigned to attempting to pigeon-hole a person's political philosophy based on that person's select statements on a single issue. Dogbyte does not understand that logical arguments can only be refuted by other logical arguments and never by ad hominem attacks.

4. Dogbyte seems to be laboring under the assumption that any time the government (i.e., taxpayers) pay for something, that is inherently bad. Dogbyte does not take into account the numerous legitimate expenditures of our tax dollars, not does s/he suggest any coherent reason why subsidizing solar power is illegitimate.

5. Dogbyte seems unable to grasp the concept of cost-benefit analysis. For instance, dogbyte bemoans the loss of forest land supposedly caused by the solar farm we're discussing; however, dogbyte does not compare this cost with the project's stated benefits.

6. Dogbyte seems to believe that we live in a zero-sum world where two wrongs make a right. Why else would dogbyte pretend that we should base our decisions about air quality on the decisions that Indian officials (and, implictly, Chinese officials) make about the air quality in their countries?

Ultimately, the sort of head-in-the-sand, damn-the-torpedoes perspective that Dogbyte exemplifies is the typical reaction of people who see energy security and climate change as just another liberal-conservative, us-versus-them issue. However, the emerging consensus on the need for America to achieve energy security demonstrates that these issues transcend party lines and facile left-v-right labels. Most people on both sides of the political spectrum agree that America should lead the way in developing green technology so that we can live cleaner, healthier, more pleasant lives while we make a profit marketing our innovative technology to countries who were a little bit slower in realizing that smog ain't cool.

Like I said, America has plenty of oil available for the drilling. I was not talking about your reserves. I was talking about the failure of congress to allow the drilling. You might want to try some more resources, and not just wikipedia which allows anyone to submit information to it. But, I am not saying they are inaccurate. I am saying there is plenty of oil out there for drilling. Did I say that solar is bad? Nope, I said it is NOT the taxpayer that should be investing our taxes into this project. It needs a lot more research before they can come up with a viable solar system that will actually work sufficiently to provide the population with power.
You have to remember that I was responding to what you said about oil and coal. Of course, being a liberal you seem to think that everything is free, or that the gov. will provide. But, you fail to consider who has to pay for it. The taxpayer. Wind technology and solar is great for areas conducive to supporting that kind of environmentally viable product. You might be a tree hugger, but you would gladly clear miles of timber to experiment with your less than adequate science project. The ole pie in the sky ideals once again.
Once again, there is no conclusive evidence of global warming, regardless of the so called expert, Alvin Gore.
Clean air is great. Why don't you go to New Delhi and tell them that. When I was there, you couldn't even land a plane at times in the winter, the pollution was so bad. Tell the other countries and watch them laugh at you. Cleaning our country is admirable, but you won't see other countries worrying about clean air, when they can boost their economy the dirty air way. While our economy goes further down the drain, because we want clean air, the rest of the world will be laughing. Get indignant then sweetheart.

I agree that renewable energy is important since we need to diversify the grid. But, more important than the relative importance of oil vs renewable energy is ENERGY EFFICIENCY since making our existing & future buildings more efficient will have a much larger impact on energy independence. The priority is to REDUCE our need for energy. I understand Southern Energy Management is focused on that effort in addition to building large-scale solar farms. Good.

On the surface, some folks on this site appear to be conservative fans of a free market and complain that the government should not subsidize renewable energy. OK...so what's the story on federal subsidies for coal/gas/oil? How many billions does the federal government earmark for non-renewable energy and what is being done with those subsidies? Subsidies for renewable energy has resulted in relatively large increases in power production...not so for coal/gas/oil. Don't think for a second that coal/gas/oil is a self sufficient free market paradigm...far from it.

Also, Dogbyte writes, "It is NOT the government's responsibility to subsidize experimentation into alternative energy."

If by "responsibility", you mean something that the government is constitutionally bound to do, then I think you're correct. However, to the extent that you are suggesting that government does not have the legitimate authority to encourage alternate energy and provide subsidies to that end, I refer you to the Preamble to the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Do you see the part in there about "promote the general welfare" in there? To me, that means that our elected representatives have a duty to perform their constitutional responsibilities in such a way as to do what is best for the citizens of this country. If that includes subsidizing clean energy, then the government absolutely has the power to do so.

You managed to write an entire paragraph without addressing any of the reasons that I support subsidized solar farms. In particular, you did not defend your support for the current subsidy for coal, and you did not dispute that government subsidies in the nascent computer industry helped our country.

Oh, wait, you did assert that the U.S. has enough oil capacity to meet our needs, but you failed to provide any facts to support your assertion. Is there an objective news journal or a reputable website where other readers can look for themselves? I found one:

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

Make sure you notice all of the A-shaped graphs off to the right with a big peak around 1970. Next time, I encourage you to take a little more time drafting your response so as to avoid submitting such a bush-league, hollow reply to a well-reasoned argument.

Just because you wrote a lot of misinformation. I will not call them lies because that is being too rude. But, put lipstick on...... Anyway, there is NO proof of global warming, and there is no proof that man is causing any definitive change in the climate. So, since you can't prove ME wrong, I would suggest that you dispense with the juvenile assertions.
You are blatantly wrong regarding oil production in the U.S. and ability to sustain our use no a non-foreign import basis. You need to do a little more research, unless you already know that and are just purposely trying to mislead people based on political sympathies.
It is NOT the government's responsibility to subsidize experimentation into alternative energy. We always get much better results when we encourage private investment. Taxpayer dollars shouldn't be invested in these programs when they will eventually be turned over to or contracted to private industry for more profit FROM the taxpayer.
Providing temporary government jobs is not a boost to the economy. Anyone knows that.

I'm sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but the fact that man-made emissions are causing climate change is thoroughly supported by scientific research. A large enough majority of scientists have concluded that man-made global warming is occurring for that theory to be held by consensus. A few scientists may question the degree of warming, but almost no one actually question whether it is happening. Nevertheless, I don't anticipate that I'll change your mind on that point, so we must acknowledge that our reasoning proceeds from different assumptions. EVEN if I were to assume, for the sake of this discussion, that global warming is irrelevant, your points don't persuade me that government-subsidized pilot projects in solar power are a waste of taxpayer money.

First, our domestic capacity for additional oil production does not even come close to make up for the amount of oil that we currently import. We must either continue to rely on imports from middle eastern countries or we must find alternative sources of energy. Solar is one such alternative, and I think it is very wise from a national-security and economic-security perspective for our government to encourage innovation in the production of domestic solar power.

Second, I acknowledge that there are cleaner ways to use coal than current practices, and I think that those cleaner practices have a place in the transition period away from coal over the next 10-30 years. However, I question why those cleaner methods are not already in place. Until coal companies start taking into account the true cost of mining and burning coal, they are imposing significant external costs on the general public. One of these costs is the risk of a coal ash pond spill. Another of these costs is the increased rate of respiratory illness in our nation's citizens. Under a true free market system, the market would force coal companies (and other polluting industries) to pay for the costs of their pollution. In effect, the current system provides those companies with an enormous subsidy that encourages polluting. You may already know that coal companies are seeking gigantic subsidies under the cap-and-trade program. This is merely to replace the off-the-books subsidies that they currently receive. So, if we're going to choose between subsidizing healthy, renewable energy and subsidizing dirty, poisonous energy, I think that we should choose the clean and renewable.

Third, you mention that wind and solar power are currently not cost competitive with other methods of power production. This is no reason to end subsidies in these industries; in fact, it leads to the opposite conclusion. Many of America's most successful industries required an initial period of government-subsidized innovation in order to reach economies of scale at which they could graduate to independence. Do you wish that the government had never subsidized railroads or steel production? Do you think in retrospect that the U.S. government made a poor choice to subsidize computers or jet aircraft?

Finally, you imply that the solar farm hasn't created any jobs. Please explain how all of those panels and the thermal water systems and all of the cables connecting them and the computers running them...please explain how all of those things built and maintain themselves. Also, I want to remind you that if a job is "created", it is inherently a "new" job. Your statement seems confused on this point.

In answer to your accusations, there is no global warming. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is NO evidence of it. Our dependence on oil from the middle East is due to congress denying drilling in our own country. As far as coal ash ponds, there are cleaner ways to utilize coal.
Now that we got your lame accusations out of the way, let's discuss the current situation. Solar is a good research project that hasn't been cost effective on a large scale, yet. That said, I am all for private research and experimentation. It is not up to the taxpayer to fund it. Like wind energy, it needs a lot of thought before implementation. Right now, neither are cost effective. We are going through an economic crisis. It matters not what or who is at fault. We need to address this problem before investing money that will not show any return for years to come. We have oil. There is absolutely NO reason for it NOT to be used. Drilling for oil will not harm the environment at all. Not with today's technology.
As far as creating jobs with this solar plan, show me the list of jobs that you are going to create, that can't be used somewhere else. For that matter, give me a list of NEW jobs that it will create. You can't. You just parrot the liberal philosophy without investigating what they are telling you is fact.
Don't let a politician tell you something without researching their statement. Why would you think they would know more than you? After all, they are still insisting that they can give 30 million free health insurance without it costing us a penny.

I find it astounding that there is so much anger and opposition to renewable energy amongst some on this blog. I mean, here we have a pioneer facility right in the heart of NC, giving our citizens a headstart on green-collar jobs in what is certain to become an extremely important industry. I, for one, am thrilled that Southern Energy Management is out in front of the effort to wean ourselves from foreign oil and destructive coal mining/burning.

BUT, the perpetually negative among us state that "This is a complete joke" and "It's part of the UN takeover agenda" and "it may take ten years to be profitable...just seems like a good idea to the tree-huggers." Every silver lining's got a touch of grey, I guess, but i doubt many readers share such irrational, knee-jerk opposition to the prospect of NC taking the lead in the production of energy from renewable resource.

Maybe those who belittle and scorn the SAS-Southern Energy Management project actually have some reason to like dependence on oil from the middle east, coal ash ponds, and global warming. Maybe they don't like the fact that this project "offset more than 74 million pounds of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of planting 5.7 million trees." Or then again maybe these critics just haven't thought through the issues very carefully, and so their bitterness leads them to obstruct and molest progress out of simple spite.

Wow, this is cool! How many trees did they cut down to set this thing up? Was this a high school science project? How much did it cost and how much will they recoup? I was told the if I installed solar on my house that it would take ten years, if lucky, before I would break even. I wonder if anyone is asking enough questions, or does this just seem like a good idea to the tree huggers. So, how much land would we need to clear in order to produce enough power to satisfy the needs of our state?

Evil democrackkks at work fleecing the taxpayers. Its all part of the UN takeover...Agenda 21, etc.

THIS WILL NOT GET US ENERGY INDEPENDENT!!

THIS WILL NOT SAVE NATURAL RESOURCES!!!

If only we could hook you up to a histrionics machine.

OMG

This is a complete joke right? They got 2 megawatts out of 5 freaking acres?

Just as a comparison. A typical turbine generated plant (be it gas, coal, or nuclear) generates well over 1000 megawatts - on a constant baseload - using a similar landmass.

A single wind turbine can generate 1.5 megawatts - albeit at about 30% efficiency.

THIS WILL NOT GET US ENERGY INDEPENDENT!!

THIS WILL NOT SAVE NATURAL RESOURCES!!!