Solar-energy rigs touted as way to help laid-off workers in Ohio

it's certainly a better use of money and peeps that need work than a nukie plant.

brat wrote:

it's certainly a better use of money and peeps that need work than a nukie plant.

Nuclear works ... solar energy is just make work .. and won't contribute significantly to the economy or our energy demands ... but that is why liberal love it so.

OSU has tons of flat roofs that would make great locations for solar fields. Then the cleaned up industrial sites can be used for trees, bushes and other natural green endeavors. The solar panels on the roofs would shade the buildings and cut down on the cooling bills in the summer. And solar does work. Look at Germany and their alternative energy initiatives.

Solar work is better then handouts on both sides of the equation.

There is no working proven way of sustaining enough solar power to power nieghborhoods. This is all through theory, and in this article I see a company ready to make a profit off our tax dollars. Any time someone talks about "green jobs" look around for the proof. Where are all these other wonderous large scale projects? I lived in the Southwest deserts, where it is sunny almost everyday, and this hasn't taken off because there is no way of getting the solar power to anything without using conventional power. It is just a farce, that lots of people are finding a way to make money without having to deliver. Even the Governments own reports about "green" jobs being created is shown to be theory if you read the whole thing. They try to hide it and someone is always trying to make a buck off it.

sure nukes work. problem is quality and safety. someone trying to make a buck was said. what makes you think nukie contractors aren't?
i suggest if you support nuclear power, live in the shadow of the cooling towers.

France's decision to launch a large nuclear program dates back to 1973 and the events in the Middle East that they refer to as the "oil shock." The quadrupling of the price of oil by OPEC nations was indeed a shock for France because at that time most of its electricity came from oil burning plants. France had and still has very few natural energy resources. It has no oil, no gas and her coal resources are very poor and virtually exhausted.

French policy makers saw only one way for France to achieve energy independence: nuclear energy, a source of energy so compact that a few pounds of fissionable uranium is all the fuel needed to run a big city for a year. Plans were drawn up to introduce the most comprehensive national nuclear energy program in history. Over the next 15 years France installed 56 nuclear reactors, satisfying its power needs and even exporting electricity to other European countries. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows...

Solar can be a real boost to the daytime power production, which is also one of the heaviest power use times. Place large collection sites in Southeast Ohio, where the economy has always struggled, and the land is too rugged for crop production. Use the southern exposures of the hills to collect solar.

The suggestion of someone earlier to put panels on some large buildings to make electricity and shade the buildings also makes a lot of sense.

Interesting proposal -- completely forgetting that solar energy in Ohio at best could only furnish maybe 10% of Ohio's energy needs. Our climate is not suited for efficient solar energy production because of two reasons; cloud cover and latitude. At best solar could only supplement Ohio energy needs during daylight hours by perhaps 10% and in doing so at great cost. This is not a good idea.

George wrote:

Interesting proposal -- completely forgetting that solar energy in Ohio at best could only furnish maybe 10% of Ohio's energy needs. Our climate is not suited for efficient solar energy production because of two reasons; cloud cover and latitude. At best solar could only supplement Ohio energy needs during daylight hours by perhaps 10% and in doing so at great cost. This is not a good idea.

10%?... No way! Liberals tout a solar aray for a Las Vegas air force base. It covers 140 acres and cost $100 million ... and delivers just 25% of the bases electic energy needs.
Does that seem practical? Liberals are proud of it!
Now it saves Nellis AFB $1 million a year.
Can any of you economic geniuses tell me the problem with this?... because the government and liberals can't seem to grasp it.

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

As a makework project for the permanently unemployed, it's about two ticks better than digging holes and then filling them up again. Note that this will all (wages, materials, etc.) be paid for by federal stimulus funds and then "another funding strategy". What happens when the stimulus money is used up? Where does the money come from then?

Angry Young American wrote:

As a makework project for the permanently unemployed, it's about two ticks better than digging holes and then filling them up again. Note that this will all (wages, materials, etc.) be paid for by federal stimulus funds and then "another funding strategy". What happens when the stimulus money is used up? Where does the money come from then?

The point is ... let's at least use it for something viable ... useful ... solar is a joke.
The investment/return is unrealistic.

Nellis AFB installed 140 acres of solar panels to supply 25% of electric needs, at a cost of $100 million dollars ... and the savings?$1 million dollars a year.... And our government and liberals think this is great?
If this does not point out the folly of "green" technology, I don't know what can.
It does not take a genius to figure out this is a very bad investment.