Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS

No quick ‘fix’

May 5, 2013

By AARON RESLINK We are asking for a savior in natural gas — an angel to visit Dunkirk and not only repower our insufficient coal plant, but also to repower our economy....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




May-16-13 10:26 AM

Judgments aside, this is a decision that affects ALL of our futures. Relying on a corporation who has little to no interest in what happens to Dunkirk is irresponsible to our community and future generations. We have the opportunity in the next two years to find investors willing to bring renewables to Chautauqua county, an area with acres upon acres of rolling hills ideal for wind turbines. Even if the Dunkirk plant does not produce the wind itself, it can be used as a factory for constructing the turbines to be used at other sites in the area. Yes, some birds will be killed by wind turbines. However, it will be far less than what the common house cat does in its lifetime. House cats are chiefly responsible for the rapidly growing mortality rate of birds not only in the US but around the world, not windmills, but we don’t see anyone arguing against house cats. How long will we move from one impermanent solution to another before we decide to invest in a long term future for Dunkirk?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-16-13 10:23 AM

Fossil fuels renewable? I would like a source for that. Because as far as science is concerned, it can take over 650 million years of dead materials being compressed underground to create fossil fuels. You say the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow 24/7, while defending an energy supply projected to only last a few decades. Not only that but the government is planning to allow fracked gas to be shipped overseas. At least the sun and wind WILL be here forever, while continuing to rely on fossil fuels will lead to us missing the renewable boom that is inevitably coming be it now or when the fossil fuels are gone. And Veteran, your argument is simply another logical fallacy called ad hominem in which you attack your opponent’s character or personal traits instead of engaging with their argument.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-16-13 10:21 AM

Steiner, sources please? You are employing the logical fallacy of false cause by stating that the only way to determine that hydrofracking is dangerous would be by calculating death tolls. There is currently no way to safely dispose of fracked water, and it is usually injected back into the ground only to contaminate the water table and destroy the ecosystems that rely on it. We live on the largest fresh water supply in the world, and how irresponsible is it to perform such practices that put this precious resource at risk of contamination by carcinogenic chemicals? (Continued below)

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-16-13 10:21 AM

The effects on humans are actually much more painful than death. Take the case of Jaime Frederick, whose next door neighbor signed a fracking contract before she moved in to her Pennsylvania home. Within months she had to have her newly failed gallbladder removed, developed an intestinal infection which ate through the outside of her skin, and now cannot carry a child without the risk of hemorrhaging or death. This is all from drinking the water out of her tap which tested positive for high levels of barium, strontium, toluene and more (you can google this). Fracking is known to contaminate drinking water to the point it can be lit on fire (do a youtube search).

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-14-13 8:43 PM

Does it really matter whether the shutting down of the goal plant effects Aaron immediately and directly or not? It still effects his future. Maybe we should all be looking further ahead then tomorrow like Aaron. The impacts of hydrofracking are not immediately known, nor are we sure how long natural gas will last. What’s the*****point of investing so much time and energy on converting the plant into something that may very well be useless in future generations? Start thinking about your children. Just because you won’t have to be here to deal with the repercussions doesn’t mean your children or great children won’t be. The plant won’t employ all it’s current workers after the switch in the end anyway. While the switch to renewable energy may bring hardship for some, it’s only for a short period of time. It’s the best plan for everyone around. I applaud you Aaron, for using your brain and thinking beyond the present. That’s something we all need to start doing.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-06-13 6:35 PM

"FSU student" says it all......hardly anyone uses bottom ash on roads anymore around here. This kid has all the answers, he's a on mom & dads dime. By shutting the plant his world doesn't change...but for the folks that work & pay taxes it will. Someday sonny, we power our grid with granola bars & old Birkenstocks.....keep listening to your idiot professors...

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-06-13 8:07 AM

hey xx, you think green energy will work 24/7 ? Let me restate for all the unlearned libs. The fracking boom has placed the US on the world stage as an energy producer, not just user. It has disrupted russias plans on pricing. Here writes a lib , Aaron saying we should not do that.we uses 60 billion CF/day in US is what I read. You have no idea what a gas grower fertilizer means. It means fossil fuels are not fossil after all. they are a kind of renewable. Apply the right energy and grow more. we need natural gas as a feedstock and for heat. Learned libs, how are we to heat our homes without hydrocarbons ? green energy ? You gotta be kidding or so ignorant you need hospitalization for mental issues.Not to mention the constant ranting about the end of the world due to CO2. You need 5-10 acres / MW of solar panels, the dunkirk plant is 580 MW. Hundreds of acres of solar panels to equal that plant and the sun dont shine 24/7. The wind does not blow 24/7. what part of that dont ya get

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-05-13 5:59 PM

Excellent article. I am not sure that stating "learned libs, i will cause natural gas to grow with my natural gas grower fertilizer" is a viable argument for positive change. Aaron, you've made some very good points.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-05-13 7:47 AM

Aaron, you dont know too much, just the usual end of the world scenarios.Natural gas not around for very long ? LOL, people like you missed the fracking boom entirely. Plus, learned libs, i will cause natural gas to grow with my natural gas grower fertilizer. Windmills , lol again. About 200 would be needed to offset the dunkirk plant. The wind does not blow 24/7 qand we will see 1000's of dead birds. Fracking deadly ? lol again. There is a boom in other states. we should see massive deaths and we dont. So Aaron, join the LWV and tell us over and over , the end is near. The end is a dear bogey man to the libs.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 9 of 9 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web