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




Jul-10-13 7:38 AM

Vicki, we cant blame National grid for planning to make by with line upgrades. After all, the teachers union fights all choice, for the children. Environmental laws an issue ? Who cares, we are breathing at times PA air. after all the sky is falling scenarios from the mentally ill enviromentalists,fresh water gone, CO2 causing climate change, fracking causes death, etc etc. I am weary of them.Taxes would increase ? thats not bad to a liberal. they dont think taxes have any issue on business decisions. A tax increase is just the road to more prosperity they believe. The wackos want to bring fracking into this issue ? will they ever stifle themselves ? fracking is the best thing as it has greatly increased hydrocarbon production, the reason coal is having problems . well, not quite, the democrats hate coal as it is domestic. better to import stuff.those loony ,wacky enviropeople . wont they just go away ?

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 8:00 AM

hey liberal posters, dont disappoint me ! lets hear the need for green, clean, renewable energy with transparency and accountability in govt and business . You can do it libs. tell us how something that does not work 24/7 will replace an energy that does .Witness that train derailment in Canada due to a shortage of pipelines to carry the huge increase in hydrocarbon production and train transport due to fracking to the world markets. Use liberal science. When is the end of the world any ways ? I read where about 100 billion tons of CO2 added to air and temps flat since 98.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 8:11 AM

Check out the poll in the observer on whether you will be attending the meeting. Last I check 74% would not. It goes to show you people could care less which is sad. This area is hurting and the residents just complain and do nothing.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 8:30 AM

Agree with bulldog10. The questions raised in the article should be asked during the hearing by Dunkirk taxpayers.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 8:36 AM

Agree as well - DK will need to explain what taxes will increase, by how much, and how soon. The increases presented by Ms. Westlund are catastrophic. There would have to be a taxpayer revolt, people aren't going to pay those kind of taxes on properties in DK.

To touch on the Sierra Club and Greenpeace - they need to stay the F away. This meeting is about the economic impact on Chautauqua County, and they'd be doing an incredible disservice to the residents to focus on other topics.

Not to mention, we SHOULD be fracking in NYS and reap the economic boon that would follow. But not here in lib-land NYS, where the envrio-whacks want to pay $400/mo electric bills if it means a "clean planet".

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 8:55 AM

These "facts" which Young gave you and ones you present, aren't facts at all -- they are one-sided talking points intended to push the agenda of upgrading NPG.

Both NPG and NatGrid will have to make huge investments for their respective businesses in electricity; both companies have different economics involved with their business cases. Both companies are for-profit, so both companies will pass on ANY additional costs on to the consumer -- that's what for profits do. And just because one company lops 3 yrs off their business case means nothing to the public.

The strategic question is; what are the long term economics with power generation and distribution. NatGrid doesnt see NPG and its business in the long term picture. If a distributor doesnt see a producer as a long term player, then its all but over for the producer. NPG can't make NatGrid distribute its power if NatGrid doesnt want to.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 9:02 AM

As far as the tax-pocalypse, what you are spreading is purposefully developed absolute-worse-case to scare folks -- because to do so is on the pro-NPG agenda's best interests.

What Young doesnt say, and what you don't bother to uncover, is there are state statues which mandate exactly what tax burden amount a community can handle based on that community economic ability to handle. In short, as there is no way county consumers can handle at 48% in taxes, the state will not allow local taxes to go up that high. And whatever gaps there are, the state will fund (as in the downstaters will pay for it...)

Don't believe me? Well, have you ever wondered why school districts never ever pay 100% of a school's budget? Because they can't afford to do so, so the state doesn't make them do so...which is why the state pays for almost 3/4ths.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 9:08 AM

And if environmental groups want to show up and participate, they have a right to do so. There are some folks in our communities which believe in green power, and these organizations represent them.

Its the wonderful part of our political process.

NPG has had plenty of years of opportunity to change to NG from coal, to make other sound business decisions which provide long term viability and their management didn't lift a finger to change and adapt -- they didn't care about the city of Dunkirk.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 9:11 AM

"To touch on the Sierra Club and Greenpeace - they need to stay the F away. "

Excuse me..many of us are residents taxes here..and have just as much investment in this area as those who do not belong to either of these organizations.

ALL VOICES should be heard at the hearing. Including those of us who have questions and concerns re the environmental impact.

Have you seen CC grade of F by the Am lung association. Living in a rural community and we get an F for our air quality! We need to ask questions on how this change may impact on our surrounding environment..and I wonder why they are not choosing to change to an alternative energy source for power, with all the financial incentives to do so available. Just some of the questions and concerns that I a taxpayer and consumer in this area...the right to ask at the hearing.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 9:25 AM

I care deeply about our environment and the planet we are leaving for our children and grandchildren. To me it is a MORAL ISSUE.

Is NRG owned by Geonenergy?

Have they investigated alternative energy sources that would not have such negative impact on the environment?

Where will they get the gas if not from "fracking"?

How will this impact on our air quality and the overall methane emissions?

Many questions to ask..and YES I am also deeply concerned about the possible negative financial and worker impact this may have on our community.

I am furious that we are put into a situation where it is economics vs environment. If only we had learned lessons along the way to implement more 'green energy' solutions. Guess which industry spent millions making sure we did not invest in green energy long ago. Now we all are paying the price.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 10:42 AM

The NRG proposal would result in a tremendous reduction in greenhouse gases and other pollutants. But if the proposed highly-efficient NRG natural gas plant is not built, National Grid will acquire the power from other sources, most likely coal plants in PA or Ohio that do not meet the environmental standards for New York. The air we breath today was in PA or Ohio yesterday, which is why our pollution levels are so high. The last thing we need is for more pollutants to be produced upwind from us in PA or Ohio to replace NRG power.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 11:17 AM

correct..would you cite where you got that information so I could read more?

does anyone know if genonenergy owns nrg?

Could they convert to alternative energy plant?

the air pollution is caused by plants right here in our area...check the map on their site..they give details.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 12:44 PM

judeye, when will you libs get it that there's a reason "green energy" didn't take off.. it's not cost effective. Why do you think no private venture has really succeeded in wind or solar? If there was money to be made, they'd be all over it. The only companies that even stood a chance got there because of Obama-bucks and false government propping.

Wind and solar are not as efficient, and cost more than NG or Coal. Well there's a recipe for success right?

And your "F" grade for air quality is pure bunk. That's ozone measurement only. We got an "A" for particle pollution. I'll continue to breathe in nice and deep without worry.

The idiocy displayed by the left is mind-numbing.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 7:58 PM

PR24601..and some of us think that there are some things...many things in fact..that are worth more than money and profits. A planet to live on is one.

Do you really think that climate change is a made up Lib thing?

Have you turned on the weather channel lately?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


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 »


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 »


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 »


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 »


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 »


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 »


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 »


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 more carbon warming our 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 »


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 »


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 »


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 »

Showing 25 of 39 comments Show More 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