• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kentucky Coal Mining Museum converts to solar power

But do you see it happening?

If they were smart they would take away the restrictions and let them get back to moonshining and maybe some pot growing. Agriculture jobs are nothing to sneeze at.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can't make either with polluted water.
 
Out of Appalachia, yes. There is there is no future for anyone.

Okay, you piqued my curiosity... So I have a question. Would you also support relocation of the poor from someplace like Detroit because there is no future for them there?

My first thought was if it was necessary for the Government to take action, why wouldn't that action involve bringing jobs to the people, instead of evacuating a region? Where exactly would all those people be relocated to? Pittsburg wasn't evacuated when the steel industry collapsed. The people stayed put and new industry was brought in.
 
Okay, you piqued my curiosity... So I have a question. Would you also support relocation of the poor from someplace like Detroit because there is no future for them there?

My first thought was if it was necessary for the Government to take action, why wouldn't that action involve bringing jobs to the people, instead of evacuating a region? Where exactly would all those people be relocated to? Pittsburg wasn't evacuated when the steel industry collapsed. The people stayed put and new industry was brought in.

Things can change in Detroit and they are, Appalachia not so much. There is no infrastructure and never will be, the water in many areas has been poisoned, there is no educated population and no way to attract one, and there is no other industry besides coal.
 
Last edited:
Okay, you piqued my curiosity... So I have a question. Would you also support relocation of the poor from someplace like Detroit because there is no future for them there?

My first thought was if it was necessary for the Government to take action, why wouldn't that action involve bringing jobs to the people, instead of evacuating a region? Where exactly would all those people be relocated to? Pittsburg wasn't evacuated when the steel industry collapsed. The people stayed put and new industry was brought in.

Great post.
 
Things can change in Detroit and they are, Appalachia not so much. There is no infrastructure and never will be, the water in many areas has been poisoned, there is no educated population and no way to attract one, and there is no other industry besides coal.

In other words, we should keep coal there.
 
It's not dying it because it's still far more efficient than solar. The money being used to prop up a worthless industry should instead be used into research on cleaning up coal.

You mean the fast growing industry that employs far more people than coal?
 
Getting nearly $40 billion in subsidies will do that for any industry.

Despite $39B in Annual Gov't. Subsidies, Solar Produced 0.5% of Electricity in US

Further, your statistic is wrong. Coal employs 174,000. Solar employs 32,490.

Coal and jobs in the United States - SourceWatch

Whoops, I meant renewable resources. We should be investing in it, that is the future of energy, not coal. You should be investing in dying industries, we should be investing in where the jobs will be now and in the future. Even within coal the future is automation.
 
Last edited:
Whoops, IO meant renewable resources. We should be investing in it, that is the future of energy, not coal. You should be investing in dying industries, we should be investing in where the jobs will be now and in the future.

Solar is economically nonviable. So what's left? Wind? You tell me, if it's so much better than coal, then why isn't it producing more energy?
 
I've seen conflicting reports on wind vs. coal, but I found this source.

Institute for Energy Research said:
Under a true apples-to-apples comparison, new wind resources are nearly three times more expensive than existing coal resources.
... Wholesale prices don’t take into account the lifetime costs of building and operating a generation resource, nor do they factor in the multiple subsidies that wind producers receive (e.g., federal wind PTC, accelerated depreciation rules, federal loan guarantees, Renewable Energy Certificates, state and local utility property tax rebates).

News Flash: Wind Power is Not Cheaper than Coal - IER

It seems like wind advocates are not taking into account the cost of intermittent energy generation, transmission, and other factors.
 
Solar is economically nonviable. So what's left? Wind? You tell me, if it's so much better than coal, then why isn't it producing more energy?

Like I said it is the future, it is getting exponentially better, but if we do not allow it to get better it never will. Would it not be beneficial for the US to be on the forefront on renewable energy technology? Coal cannot even compete with nuclear and natural gas. We need to invest in the economic future. Coal is dying and becoming a less and less popular choice for energy production and within the industry cost-cutting and automation is replacing people.
 
Like I said it is the future, it is getting exponentially better, but if we do not allow it to get better it never will. Would it not be beneficial for the US to be on the forefront on renewable energy technology? Coal cannot even compete with nuclear and natural gas. We need to invest in the economic future. Coal is dying and becoming a less and less popular choice for energy production and within the industry cost-cutting and automation is replacing people.

That's great if it's getting better. I hope that it does. But if it really is the wave of the future, does it need government subsidies?
 
That's great if it's getting better. I hope that it does. But if it really is the wave of the future, does it need government subsidies?

Yes, so that it can become viable and to make sure it is the US that becomes the leading force in the industry. It is a lot easier and cheaper to be the best at something first than play catch up later.
 
Yes, so that it can become viable and to make sure it is the US that becomes the leading force in the industry. It is a lot easier and cheaper to be the best at something first than play catch up later.

So why do you think that Japan isn't doing the same? Instead they're building 45 new coal power plants.
 
So why do you think that Japan isn't doing the same? Instead they're building 45 new coal power plants.

They want cheap and quick, because they had to shut down some nuke plants. Also Japan would not really benefit from solar, considering its lack of wide open spaces. Canada however is doing the same thing as well as many European countries. But the biggest competition the US faces is by far China.
 
They want cheap and quick, because they had to shut down some nuke plants. Also Japan would not really benefit from solar, considering its lack of wide open spaces. Canada however is doing the same thing as well as many European countries. But the biggest competition the US faces is by far China.

Based on current costs, the only renewable worth spending any investment on is wind. Certainly they have wind, so why not build those instead?
 
Based on current costs, the only renewable worth spending any investment on is wind. Certainly they have wind, so why not build those instead?

They needed something very fast and very cheap also I assume that wind turbines are not exactly viable in earthquake and tsunami prone regions. All it would take is one tsunami or earthquake. Japan's most viable energy resource would be nuclear but there is no public support for that.
 
They needed something very fast and very cheap also I assume that wind turbines are not exactly viable in earthquake and tsunami prone regions. All it would take is one tsunami or earthquake. Japan's most viable energy resource would be nuclear but there is no public support for that.

So outside of immediate need, what would you recommend for a seismically unstable region like Japan? I can't see solar being viable any time soon, if ever, and if you can't do wind, or nuclear (Fukushima), then what's left?
 
Solar is economically nonviable. So what's left? Wind? You tell me, if it's so much better than coal, then why isn't it producing more energy?


I am not sure I agree with this.. Or maybe I miss what your meaning is.. I put up solar about 5 years ago.. Just got tired of the California energy rate's going up every year.. I have not had an electric bill sense.. Sure I don't generate power at night but the excess generated during the day more than covers my nighttime usage.. I do have some acreage that allows me to have a solar array on a ground mount..

My only mistake was to hire a company to do the work.. Had I put the system up myself, I could have save $7k or so..

In my opinion this has been one of the best improvements I have ever did on my property. It has already paid for itself.. The panels are warrantied for 25 years ( by law) my inverter's for 15 years.. There is no maintenance other than an occasional cleaning of the panels.

djl
 
So outside of immediate need, what would you recommend for a seismically unstable region like Japan? I can't see solar being viable any time soon, if ever, and if you can't do wind, or nuclear (Fukushima), then what's left?

Nuclear but apparently the Japanese do not support that not that you can blame them. Japan has a rather unique predicament because of its lack of natural resources, political situation, and geographic issues. Solar will be viable, it is getting exponentially better and things like Tesla's batteries will make them more useful but only for states like California or Nevada with large open areas and of course for individuals.
 
I am not sure I agree with this.. Or maybe I miss what your meaning is.. I put up solar about 5 years ago.. Just got tired of the California energy rate's going up every year.. I have not had an electric bill sense.. Sure I don't generate power at night but the excess generated during the day more than covers my nighttime usage.. I do have some acreage that allows me to have a solar array on a ground mount..

My only mistake was to hire a company to do the work.. Had I put the system up myself, I could have save $7k or so..

In my opinion this has been one of the best improvements I have ever did on my property. It has already paid for itself.. The panels are warrantied for 25 years ( by law) my inverter's for 15 years.. There is no maintenance other than an occasional cleaning of the panels.

djl

Do you realize how much of the cost was subsidized by the government? You got a subsidy not only from the federal government, but also the state government.
 
Back
Top Bottom