An ambitious solar project rolling out across Oregon college campuses next week would set one university on a path toward energy independence.
The five megawatts planned for Oregon Institute of Technology, Oregon State University, and Eastern Oregon would create a bigger solar project than any currently operating in Oregon.
"It's really a big deal. It's exciting. It's terrific for the people of Oregon, and it's really going to save us money in the long run," says OIT's President Christopher Maples.
State energy department records list the total estimated cost at more than $26 million. State and federal tax credits could cover much of that.
You know how I know this is a huge money saver: everyone is doing it! Oh wait...
I'm glad that these university presidents get to participate in the latest fad using taxpayer dollars but can they at least acknowledge that it's a money loser and not a money saver? Man up and just tell us that you want to be cooler than those kids in San Fransisco.
Government agencies trying to "out green" each other will be the death of us.
15 comments:
In a previous incarnation, I've written about my alma mater and the shift toward a curriculum based upon social justice rather than the curriculum that extols the virtues of Western Civilization.
There is no rational discussion taking place on the campus, but instead conversations that directs one to adopt the fantasies of Pixie Dust and Unicorns. Examples abound.
Who cares, really, if our university system destroys 26-million dollars? It will be paid for by increases in tuition fed by federal dollars in order to create a product known as degree-holders.
It works because we define it as working.
.
Miglavs: Would you prefer burning coal? More dams? Elaborate please.
Anon 9:20
We ,or at least I would like people like , oh I don't know the pres. of a university to at least speak the truth about the cost. solar at this point is NOT cost effective. ( forgive any spelling errors)
ANON 9:20
Hell yeah! I would rather not destroy dams that are currently in place. That is plain stupid and criminal. If they are already in place, they are the ultimate GREEN form of energy. As far as coal is concerned, I would rather use the coal that Clinton placed out of use by our country in Utah. If I remember correctly, it was low sulfur high BTU coal. Clinton also took money for that one. What a wonderful president he was, sold military secrets to the Chinese, sold out our energy industry which costs Americans more to heat and cool their homes.
He's killed more American babies and grandmas than Bin Laden due to the fact that the young, elderly and poor are more likely in a position where they cannot afford to pay the extra heating and cooling costs to stay alive.
I almost forgot, he bombed that baby food factory in Africa. He hates black babies too.
In case you don't know, burning coal is a good thing. It's saving us from cooling down and putting us into an ice age which would kill more babies and grandmas.
Dave, your ratio of stupidity, hypocrisy and ignorance per word is higher in that post than I think you've ever managed. Congratulations!
Dropping a slab of concrete down in the middle of a river, altering the landscape and destroying fish habitat is green energy? What planet do you live on?
Why would OIT go solar?
They sit on a huge geo-thermal resource. That was how they heated all the buildings on campus when I was an Owl.
Wiki says you can use a heat engine to create electricity with a geothermal source.
And, it would be green.
OTOH Klamaty-Flats gets 350 days of sunshine a year.
Lets see, no more hydroelectric power, it kills the fish. No to coal because it's too dirty and that global warming thing. No to natural gas because well...it's much cleaner than coal but it is still a carbon based fuel. No to nuclear because its messy too. How about wind? No, it kills the birds and it messes up the beach front property. We have no choice but solar.
Daniel, can I please ask what data you've looked at that had you conclude that this project will lose money in the long-term?
Oh, wait. I forgot. You don't actually respond to your own blog posts. You just throw mud, and then in a cowardly fashion high-tail it as fast as you can in the other direction before someone invariably comes along, points out the obvious flaws in your "argument", and then calls "BS" on you.
So predictable. And unimpressive.
(And besides, we all know you're just talking out your ass, and that you haven't actually looked at any data. Ahhh, I sometimes wish I had it in me to be as intellectually dishonest as
the rabid right-wing. But then, unlike that rabid right-wing, I actually have these things called "integrity" and "standards".)
Daniel doesn't look at data. He listens to Lars.
Miglavs, once a solar power system is installed for a home or building and paid for, how much do the residents or occupants of said building pay for electric power, as a percentage of what they used to pay prior to installation of the solar power system?
ANON 9:54 AM
I'm just speaking the truth. Are you saying Clinton didn't put our coal reserves off limits in Utah? Are you saying Clinton didn't bomb a baby food factory or aspirin or what ever it was in Africa?
Are you telling me that restricting the use of our natural resources (coal) won't raise energy prices which has caused the deaths of the old and very young?
Which one was false?
ANON 10:01 AM
I said don't destroy dams that are already there. The concrete slabs are already there. I'm on Earth, which planet are you on? Pay attention.
ANON 2:52 PM I'm not sure about the college solar stuff, but the solar energy for home does not pan out. Last year at the state fair I talked to one of the people selling the solar energy package. I will investigate again this year at the state fair and crunch the number. It would not pay for itself even with all the tax breaks. I would be better off if I put the money in a very low interest investment.
Solar is a good supplement to the existing power supply but it will not replace hydro, nuke or coal unless those become several times more expensive. Then the high cost will kill more young and old people.
I'm just speaking the truth...
Sure you are, Dave. Whatever you say. ;-)
ANON 2:55 PM
WEEEEEEEEELLLLLL. Which one was false?
ANON 2:55 PM
WEEEEEEEEELLLLLL. Which one was false?
Post a Comment