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

Keeping NRG in Dunkirk

July 10, 2013

What will losing NRG mean to Dunkirk, Fredonia and everyone in Chautauqua County? I spoke recently with state Sen. Catharine Young about the pros and cons of NRG vs....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(39)

hadenough

Jul-12-13 8:34 PM

Of course Young is going to say that NRG should stay in Dunkirk. After all she is a politician and every one knows politicians look for votes.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

Jul-12-13 8:21 AM

for the luddites like judeye and the greens, the fracking boom in texas or one area has produced 48,000 good jobs and a housing shortage. Judeye, do you read anything besides the green drivel ? Texas is the 15th biggest opec producer in the world, due to fracking.Do yu se any great lakes in Texas ? Gravity different ? The mentally ill people would rather have NY poor and dependent on the govt. Judeye where are you ? we need that liberal granny input ? Judeye, you have never answered the question . what are we going to do without hydrocarbons ? What will power our cars and make the chemicals we need to live. JUDEYE, THE WORLD NEEDS AN ANSWER FROM YOU.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Localone

Jul-11-13 9:15 PM

To add one final comment, if the anti fracking groups gain traction and gas prices rise as a result, guess what suddenly becomes competitive again?? Yup, good ole fashioned coal. Theres no reason this plant in dunkirk cant sit idle for a few years only to retart when economic conditions favor it. BUT if any of you have read the reports on the PSC website, NRG has stated that the construction of a new combined cycle gas plant would assure the coal plant is retired, as critical infastructure for the coal generators wuld need to be used for the new gas plant. Moral of this story is, the greenies need to be careful what they figh against!!

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Localone

Jul-11-13 9:05 PM

Judeye, you mention genon as one of the nations largest polluters. If you search their profile, you'll also learn they are also primarily located in PA, focused around Pittsburg. So guess what polluters up wind of western NY will be ramping up production to send their electricity in our direction? Ahhh I knew you'd figure that out sooner or later.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Nathan

Jul-11-13 8:23 PM

BTW - When corporations are going "green" they are really being pressured and made promises by the administration to implement them, not because they save that much money on the energy costs. That is a hard fact.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Nathan

Jul-11-13 7:40 PM

Fracking is a great resource for energy. Conversion of the plant is feasible, and would be desirable. But letting NRG fall, is not. All this coming from an environmental scientist.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Nathan

Jul-11-13 7:38 PM

People need energy from something and you have it right there. Green technologies are nice, but in dealing with business people, property owners, regulators, and banks every day, they say it isn't feasible. The large institutions continue to invest and one day it will break, but why shut down what you already have without something to replace it?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Nathan

Jul-11-13 7:36 PM

Facts are facts people, you let NRG go, you let another business walk away from the area. The immediate impacts are there, loss of jobs, loss of spending, loss of taxes. Sure Dcrack is right, the State won't let you fall to far to begin with, but it creates another vacuum in the area.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Nathan

Jul-11-13 7:35 PM

I don't even trust the weather channel to tell me the weather outside, let alone on climate change.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

Jul-11-13 3:03 PM

Hey judeye, see observer, 7/8/13 p A7. Fervent foe of fracking, all the candidates against fracking were defeated , defeated judeye, by the will of the people . Something you always trumpet, the will of the people !so judeye, is the will of the people to be ignored because it is one of your moral issues? The end of the world ! You dont think you have mental issues like a luddite do you ? Technology keeps us alive judeye. Try and understand the 21st century.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

Jul-11-13 11:14 AM

judeye, the latest theory is that natural gas is renewable ! Yes , renewable. The carbonates or co2 in ocean is turned into natural gas.Fossil fuel is from fossilized thinking, a democratic darwinian trademark. besides, if my hydrocarbon grower prep really does work and the field tests show it does, everything the libs know and say is in error. Judeye, please look at the track record of women in science. It is abyssmal. men rule, its the boys club. Activist women only show again and again they know nothing of science. They only have various levels of conversion disorder . This is shown by their ranting about end of fresh water, ban fracking, planet doomed. Its a religion of nutty people. It warms my heart as activist women just dont understand science. gals, leave it to the men like steiner and others OK?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

Jul-11-13 11:08 AM

Judeye, for the UMPTEENTH time, green energy gets plenty of subsidy. Wind and solar could not exist without it. Green energy is not 24/7, not reliable. Any good chemical process running does not tolerate a disrupted power supply. You will get explosions or runaway heat. judeye, you know no physics or chemistry. You merely repeat what you read as drivel . what part of 24/7 dont you understand ? What part of thousands of windmills and dead birds dont you understand ? What part of thousands of acres of solar panels dont you understand ? judeye, please sanswer , other than saying moral issues, what we would do without hydrocarbons? Judeye say something factual, not feel goodstuff. What gives you the right to cram your morals down our throats based on junk liberal science. judye, give us the wisdom of your liberal granny answer.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

Jul-11-13 10:59 AM

To all the learned liberals here. This is from other chemists, not just me. These chemists, like me make the products you buy and they troubleshoot problems. For the UMPTEENTH time judeye, CO2 does not absorb heat. Water does and methane too. But if methane were like water in air, we would be asphyxiating and there would be fires and explosions.warming due to CO2 is a complete fabrication , a lie from the liberals. Thats one good debunk of junk science. Another judeye, is that from physics we know this world is derived from an unobservable world. This was the topic of great discussion between Bohr and einstein. It never was resolved, but the weather is made and influenced by heisenberg forces, which give the appearance of heat based, but are not. Watch PBS and the weather yourself and you will see something other than heat drives the weather.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PR24601

Jul-11-13 9:05 AM

judeye - weather-related property damage estimates mean nothing. They're inflated to begin with, especially by "hype everything" Weather Channel/NBC and they aren't inflation-adjusted.

And as far as weather goes - it's just hyped more. A "major" storm today - even if it IS major - can be tracked in all remote areas with modern weather instruments. Back in the 60s, if a small town in MN got buried with 2' of snow it was called .. WINTER.

Look, I want a clean planet. I've never said I want to see Industrial Revolution era smoke stack plumes of grey on every street corner. I don't. But reality is - the arguments against NG/fracking are weak, same for any argument against nuclear. Coal? Well - it's definitely dirtier, but can be cleaned up. Instead of gov't subsidy to prop up ineffcient do nothing sources of power, how about gov't money to upgrade coal plants? If they're going to waste our $ anyway.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Jul-11-13 7:55 AM

"What is a fossil fuel subsidy? A fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers.....In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually" price of oil

Wonder what would happen if we gave just a fraction of that money to green energy?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

Jul-11-13 7:50 AM

deye and cronig , our local liberals bar none chime in. hey cronig, you always say taxpayers dont pay the full bill, some one else does. does it ever occur to you that some tax payer somewhere is ? Can you even grasp simple things ?judeye and her moral issue of climate change. the planet is in jeopardy ! Judeye , quit cramming your beliefs down our throats. You libs dont understand science at all.See observer,pA7, 7/8/13. Local activists against fracking . judeye there were grannies doing the anti fracking. hey grannies, where will we get gas and oil if not from a well ?Judeye, explain this, no amount of green energy can ever replace coal, gas or oil. What part of that dont ya get ?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Jul-11-13 7:50 AM

Localone..thanks for the answer re geonoenery...which is one of the largest producers of air pollution in our country.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Jul-11-13 7:48 AM

PR24601..."2011 was a year of unparalleled extremes: 14 disastrous weather events in the US each resulted in over a billion dollars in property damage. This was an all-time record breaking number -- and their estimated $53 billion price tag did not include health costs."

No weather and climate change are not the same thing. However, most experts agree that our changing atmosphere..ie more carbon warming our planet....is directly linked to the changes in weather and the rises in the sea levels.

Gosh I would have thought you would have seen the connection.

Sorry I did not spell it out for you before.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

Jul-11-13 6:51 AM

Globally, most of the developing countries are buying all the coal we'll send them, and growing almost exclusively with coal supplied power, like it or not. Most so-called "green Power" sources are inefficient and wouldn't exist without huge government subsidies. Anyone with any sense supports the concept, but the reality is much different. At this time, the government could do more good by paying for the same upgrades at every coal plant in the country that NRG has already done themselves.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PR24601

Jul-10-13 11:18 PM

judeye, seriously thanks for the laugh.. I go to bed with a smile on my face tonight. The Weather Channel as a reliable source on climate.. let alone anything. Wow. Maybe they should do another special about how a hurricane is going to put Manhattan under 20' of water. Although - it is nice to dream once in a while.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PR24601

Jul-10-13 11:16 PM

Localone.. good to hear someone else with some sense. Wind and solar are highly inefficient and very costly when compared to Coal/NG, and as you mention - nuclear. Another source of energy that the "sky is falling" libs will keep shuttered.

@judeye - The Weather Channel?? Hahahahaha. Sorry, excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor. There. Whew. I laughed so hard I almost passed out. The Weather Channel.. you mean - the "Create Weather News Paranoia Channel". Every day there is some catastrophe on that station. 3" of snow in WNY and red warning banners everywhere. Oh God. Seriously, I can't stop laughing. TWC has no, zip, zero, nada, nil credibility when it comes to anything other than getting a forecast correct 5 minutes in advance - even then they can't bat 1.000.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Localone

Jul-10-13 10:53 PM

You never see the whole story from the sierra club types, only half truths to support their cause. These are some little published facts: Windmills generate electricty at approx 33-35% capacity, or just 1/3 the time. What's going to supply the power the other 2/3 of the time? Solar requires approx 7 acres of land to generate 1 Megawatt of electricity. To put that in perspective, the Dunkirk sites original coal capacity was close to 600MW and the proposed gas is over 400MW. What many do know is the true costs of both of these "green" resources is falsely hidden to the electric ratepayer under government subsidies and in reality, over time are much more costly than coal, gas or nuclear.

No company would ever invest in wind or solar without subsidies.. its a money losing business. So while I hear people going on about the oil and gas industry throwing money at campaigns and political interests, I have to ask, How do you think the green energy companies get their subsidies?

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Localone

Jul-10-13 10:34 PM

Judeye, GenOn energy does not own NRG however NRG merged with(purchased) GenOn about 6 months ago in an all stock transaction making NRG the largest independent power producer in the US. They are also the largest Solar electric generation operator in the US.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Dcronlg

Jul-10-13 9:16 PM

PR -- you starting to sound and behave as ignorant as the rest of the commentors here.

The hard solid truth is the overall market has been turning green for quite sometime and is gaining ground as a corporate cost-cutting policy.

To focus solely on coal, poke ignorant fun at Obama, blah-blah-blah nonsense against green energy while major global corporations are going green all over the globe for years shows how much you don't read, or care to read or are the least bit curious of markets or green policy.

Money follows brains and when corporate brains are going green as strategic policy to save money -- and you're taking ignorant pockshots about going green -- clearly shows you have neither money nor brains.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Jul-10-13 9:10 PM

PR notice how judeye steers the subject in a different direction when proven wrong on her facts!

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 39 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web