The letter below is a letter from NC Senator Kay Hagan justifying her "yea" vote for the Senate health care bill:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 5, 2010
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about health care reform. I greatly appreciate hearing your thoughts on these important issues.
Each year, costs associated with our current health care system increase. North Carolinians are struggling to afford insurance coverage, and the unprecedented economic crisis facing our nation has made it still more difficult for working families to manage medical costs while making ends meet. In North Carolina alone, the number of uninsured has risen to approximately 1.8 million, which represents 22 percent of the state's population.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, H.R. 3590, is a fiscally responsible plan that will reduce the deficit by nearly $132 billion in the next 10 years. I have heard from so many North Carolinians who are cut off from health care because of pre-existing conditions. Under this legislation, insurance companies will no longer be able to use ‘pre-existing conditions' as an excuse to deny coverage. The bill expands coverage and lowers costs by focusing on prevention and cracking down on fraud and abuse in the system. Additionally, the legislation gives states the authority to form compacts to purchase health insurance across state lines and regionally.
As you know, there are various opposing views within the health care reform debate, and I would like to address a few here. When crafting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Senate went to great lengths to ensure that if you have a health insurance plan that you like, you can keep it. Also, the Senate legislation would require Members of Congress and their congressional staff to participate in the Exchange, where the uninsured and other eligible Americans will be able to obtain affordable health coverage.
I recognize that medical liability reform has the potential to reduce medical malpractice insurance premiums for health care providers and decrease defensive medicine practices. Accordingly, I am in favor of President Obama's plan to implement demonstration projects to evaluate medical liability models being used and implemented around the United States.
In addition, concern has been raised about illegal aliens being able to receive medical services under health care reform. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act defines an eligible individual as a citizen or national of the United States who is lawfully present in the United States. Illegal immigrants would be explicitly barred from receiving services under the legislation.
Also, some believe abortion services could be covered under health care reform. This is inaccurate, due to a long-standing federal law that includes a broad prohibition against using federal funds for abortion services. Health care reform would not change that prohibition, which is known as the Hyde Amendment.
Furthermore, it has come to my attention that some believe there would be rationing of health care services under health care reform. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would not do anything to limit the ability of your doctor to pursue the course of care he or she believes is most appropriate for you. While the bill would fund research into the comparative effectiveness of various treatments, that information will simply serve as a tool for practitioners to use as they see fit. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act specifically states that any recommendations made under health care reform shall not be construed as mandates for payment, coverage, or treatment of health services.
I will continue to work with my Senate colleagues and stakeholders throughout North Carolina to help pass pragmatic, comprehensive health care reform. To view the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, I encourage you to visit www.thomas.loc.gov.
Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is truly an honor to represent North Carolina in the United States Senate, and I hope you will not hesitate to contact me in the future should you have any further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Kay R. Hagan
Please do not reply to this email. Instead, if you have further questions, please visit www.hagan.senate.gov and fill out my web form for your inquiry. Thank you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If she really believes this crap, she needs her head examined!
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Steps to Freedom
Step 1 - Re-register as independent or unaffiliated. That's the quickest way to send a clear message to the Congress and the President. Each of the parties keep up with the registration trends in their states, and they are most concerned about what independent voter's will do.
In Glenn Beck's "Common Sense" he says "If you are still brainwashed by a particular party, it's time for a reassessment. DECLARE YOUR INDEPENDENCE!"
Some people worry that they will not be able to vote in their state primary, but in most states changing your party affiliation is pretty simple, and it can be changed before the primaries are held. Check out the requirements in your state. In NC, for example you can change parties via the Internet. So what's your excuse?
Step 2 - Stop donating, if you do, to the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Instead, donate directly to the candidate that you know and trust. Talk about creating politician panic and getting their attention!
Step 3 - Find candidates of either party who will aggressively support term limits, and do whatever you can to support them.
Congress was right when they imposed term limits on the Office of the President with the 22nd Amendment in 1951, and the Congress should be held to the same standard.
There are many arguments for not supporting term limits for Congress, like "Senator 'So and So' is a good conservative, and we need him." Well, the truth is no one is irreplaceable; our Constitution provides for a chain-of-command for new leadership in the event high officials become incapacitated. Here's a link for some Arguments for a Term Limit Constitutional Amendment http://educationdept.blogspot.com/2009/12/argument-for-constitutional-amendment.html
Check out this propose Constitutional Amendment for Term Limits http://educationdept.blogspot.com/2009/12/constitutional-amendment.html
Step 4 - Encourage candidates who support term limits to run as independents; why should DNC &RNC get any credit or say?
In Glenn Beck's "Common Sense" he says "Both [parties] have been infected with progressivism-the belief that your individual rights are subservient to government power and that no personal liberty is above sacrificing for the greater good . . ."
Step 5 - Support candidates who will work for the Fair Tax; the tax code is how politicians keep you in line. That's where their power lies.
Step 6 - Support candidates that believe in States Rights; states running their own business, & who oppose laws requiring state compliance.
And remember “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Margaret Thatcher
In Glenn Beck's "Common Sense" he says "If you are still brainwashed by a particular party, it's time for a reassessment. DECLARE YOUR INDEPENDENCE!"
Some people worry that they will not be able to vote in their state primary, but in most states changing your party affiliation is pretty simple, and it can be changed before the primaries are held. Check out the requirements in your state. In NC, for example you can change parties via the Internet. So what's your excuse?
Step 2 - Stop donating, if you do, to the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Instead, donate directly to the candidate that you know and trust. Talk about creating politician panic and getting their attention!
Step 3 - Find candidates of either party who will aggressively support term limits, and do whatever you can to support them.
Congress was right when they imposed term limits on the Office of the President with the 22nd Amendment in 1951, and the Congress should be held to the same standard.
There are many arguments for not supporting term limits for Congress, like "Senator 'So and So' is a good conservative, and we need him." Well, the truth is no one is irreplaceable; our Constitution provides for a chain-of-command for new leadership in the event high officials become incapacitated. Here's a link for some Arguments for a Term Limit Constitutional Amendment http://educationdept.blogspot.com/2009/12/argument-for-constitutional-amendment.html
Check out this propose Constitutional Amendment for Term Limits http://educationdept.blogspot.com/2009/12/constitutional-amendment.html
Step 4 - Encourage candidates who support term limits to run as independents; why should DNC &RNC get any credit or say?
In Glenn Beck's "Common Sense" he says "Both [parties] have been infected with progressivism-the belief that your individual rights are subservient to government power and that no personal liberty is above sacrificing for the greater good . . ."
Step 5 - Support candidates who will work for the Fair Tax; the tax code is how politicians keep you in line. That's where their power lies.
Step 6 - Support candidates that believe in States Rights; states running their own business, & who oppose laws requiring state compliance.
And remember “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Margaret Thatcher
Friday, December 25, 2009
Argument for a Constitutional Amendment for Term Limits
I've been surprised at the lack of interest for Congressional Term Limits so I thought I'd offer some thoughts as to why we need term limits.
The argument I've heard most often against term limits for Congress is that there are some good congressmen and women that we would lose if term limits were imposed. Well yeah, but there are a lot more bad ones that we would get rid of in the process. For every good politician you can name, someone else can easily name three or four corrupt ones. Besides, history should tell you that even the goods ones that stay long enough most often forget from whence they come.
Also, in my post laying out what a Constitutional Amendment on term limits might include, an elected representative could remain in office for 24 years if re-elected to the Senate for two terms and then to the House for six terms. That sure seems like a sufficient political career to me. And, if they are good enough they might get elected to President for two more terms totalling eight years. I think that is a recipe for keeping the best, and losing the rest.
By allowing someone to serve in both Houses, but limiting terms in each we should be able to significantly reduce the power accumulated by any one person or group of persons. The way the Senate and House leaders have recently pushed through bills on government health care should be reason enough to implement term limits to limit that kind of abuse of power.
Others might argue that it will take too long to pass a Constitutional Amendment, and I agree; but that is the process we have available to us, and this is too important to cast it aside because it's too hard. Anything worth having is worth working for, and our Freedom is worth whatever it takes to keep powerful, corrupt politicians from taking it away from us, our children, and our grandchildren.
Your thoughts would be much appreciated.
The argument I've heard most often against term limits for Congress is that there are some good congressmen and women that we would lose if term limits were imposed. Well yeah, but there are a lot more bad ones that we would get rid of in the process. For every good politician you can name, someone else can easily name three or four corrupt ones. Besides, history should tell you that even the goods ones that stay long enough most often forget from whence they come.
Also, in my post laying out what a Constitutional Amendment on term limits might include, an elected representative could remain in office for 24 years if re-elected to the Senate for two terms and then to the House for six terms. That sure seems like a sufficient political career to me. And, if they are good enough they might get elected to President for two more terms totalling eight years. I think that is a recipe for keeping the best, and losing the rest.
By allowing someone to serve in both Houses, but limiting terms in each we should be able to significantly reduce the power accumulated by any one person or group of persons. The way the Senate and House leaders have recently pushed through bills on government health care should be reason enough to implement term limits to limit that kind of abuse of power.
Others might argue that it will take too long to pass a Constitutional Amendment, and I agree; but that is the process we have available to us, and this is too important to cast it aside because it's too hard. Anything worth having is worth working for, and our Freedom is worth whatever it takes to keep powerful, corrupt politicians from taking it away from us, our children, and our grandchildren.
Your thoughts would be much appreciated.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Energy 105, Thoughts on Wind Power
Wind power, like solar, is touted as the solution to the world's energy crisis (in itself a lie used by the Progressives to enslave the world's masses). As with solar power, and other green energies, wind power has been slow to catch on because without massive government subsidies wind power cannot compete on the economic level with fossil and nuclear power.
But, there are other problems with the use of wind power as a replacement for conventional power. These include:
But, there are other problems with the use of wind power as a replacement for conventional power. These include:
- Like solar power, wind is unreliable. The wind does not blow equally or consistently throughout the world. Wind sometimes blows, and sometimes doesn't. When it doesn't blow electricity is not produced; the fall back is always alternatives that are reliable - fossil or nuclear power. So neither wind, solar, or any other renewable source of energy can or will completely replace fossil and nuclear power in the near future (~50 years to 100 years). Common sense tells us that these alternatives are pipe dreams designed to slow down or stop progress.
- Wind power is also not acceptable to the elites, like Senator John Kerry and former Senator Ted Kennedy who only support wind turbines NIMBY (not in my backyard). In fact, almost everyone who is in favor of wind turbines are in favor only if they are located where they can't see them; even the most ardent environmentalist or socialist are only okay with wind turbines if they can't see them.
- Just as with solar power, no one really knows what impacts wind turbines (or massive solar farms) have on the environment and weather patterns. It is known that wind turbines kill birds (reference http://www.moorsydeactiongroup.org.uk/birds.html), sometimes in massive numbers. But how might wind turbines affect weather patterns? No one knows, but we do know that wind is created by heating and cooling of the sun. We also know that the Law of Conservation of Energy "energy cannot be created or destroyed." (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy) So solar energy is converted (partially) to wind energy which through the wind turbine is converted to electrical energy. That means energy is "extracted" from the wind to create electricity. Since, "energy is not created or destroyed" and energy is taken out of the wind by the wind turbine, the wind energy (or speed) will be reduced by the energy removed by the turbine. Might that lower wind energy affect low-pressure and high-pressure winds that also affect where rain is deposited? Since weather is such a chaotic system, the construction of massive wind farms is completely unknown. Many will argue one way, and many will argue the other, but the fact remains that the impact of wind, or solar energy generation is unknown and will certainly have unknown consequences.
The point is, the movement to so-called green or renewable energies is not as simple as the proponents want you to believe. Their agenda is not about what they want you to believe. If they were concerned about the environment, they would want to thoroughly study the potential impacts on the environment (plants, animals and meteorological). But, they don't because that is not their concern.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Constitutional Amendment for Congressional Term Limits
Given the recent events in Congress to pass a health care bill in the House of Representatives and the Senate, it is clear that Congress no longer represents the majority of "The People" so The People now must take their country back. The People can take back the country in a variety of peaceful ways. Some of these include:
"The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd)." Although this method is the only one that has been used to amend the Constitution, it seems unlikely that we could get both houses to craft a bill limiting their terms, much less pass each house by two-thirds majority.
"The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about." This method never having been tried will require some smart people to figure out how to get this done, but I believe is the only way to be successful in passing term limits.
"Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority."
"The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)"
It will take years to amend the Constitution, but amend we must. Congress is completely out-of-control; both Parties, Democrats and Republicans. This country was founded by people who were afraid of "big government" and who had personal experience with out-of-control government. They tried very hard to design a system where "The People" would be protected from big government. The Progressives (a misnomer designed to lull the less astute into believing they are what they are not) have been nibbling away at the Constitution for over 80 years. They have been and are being successful while the majority has been asleep at the wheel. It's time to wake up America!
I propose starting by soliciting ideas for the "Congressional Amendment." The following is a straw man:
- Kicking them out in an election; however, only half of them are up for re-election in the Senate, while all of the seats are up for grabs in the House. Not only that, we have to wait until 2010 for the election.
- Laws passed by Congress can be challenged in the courts to determine Constutionality. The problem with that is whose going to file the law suit? Whose going to pay for it? Any challenge would be only for the legislation challenged, so there would have to be multiple lawsuits for each piece of legislation. And with politics infused in the Supreme Court, the outcome(s) are uncertain. Law suits maybe the only immediate alternative to health care legislation should it pass, and for other laws and regulations such as EPA's proposed "Greenhouse Gas" blackmail.
- The only long-term solution as I see it is to amend the US Constitution to prevent any Congress EVER trying something like this again.
So, just how is the US Constitution Amended?
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used. Reference: http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html">>>
"The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd)." Although this method is the only one that has been used to amend the Constitution, it seems unlikely that we could get both houses to craft a bill limiting their terms, much less pass each house by two-thirds majority.
"The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about." This method never having been tried will require some smart people to figure out how to get this done, but I believe is the only way to be successful in passing term limits.
"Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority."
"The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)"
It will take years to amend the Constitution, but amend we must. Congress is completely out-of-control; both Parties, Democrats and Republicans. This country was founded by people who were afraid of "big government" and who had personal experience with out-of-control government. They tried very hard to design a system where "The People" would be protected from big government. The Progressives (a misnomer designed to lull the less astute into believing they are what they are not) have been nibbling away at the Constitution for over 80 years. They have been and are being successful while the majority has been asleep at the wheel. It's time to wake up America!
I propose starting by soliciting ideas for the "Congressional Amendment." The following is a straw man:
- Congressional terms are limited to Six two-year terms (12 years total) for the House of Representatives, and Two six-year terms (12 years total) for the Senate.
- Upon completing the maximum number of terms set by this amendment, House and Senate members may run for election in either house in which they have not previously served for the term prescribed for that house.
- House and Senate members may run for the Office of President at any time for the term prescribed by the 22nd Amendment, two four-year terms.
- Former or present Congressional members may serve in any position in the Executive Branch for which they are confirmed by the Senate.
- Former Congressional members are prohibited from being lobbyist at any time
- Any active member of Congress from any state can be recalled in a national election by all eligible voters nationwide. Any member recalled forfeits all congressional retirement and benefits.
- End gerrymandering throughout the United States by which electoral district or constituency boundaries (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering)
- All congressional pay increases and benefits must be approved by the electorate every two years. Congress shall not enact any law that circumvents this requiretment.
- Congress shall not enact any law that does not apply to the Congress and the President, and their staffs. All such laws enacted in the past are null and void.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action" - George Washington
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Energy 104-O'Reilly on Nuclear Power
O'Reilly said on his show, Tuesday, December 8, 2009 that "we [USA] have not advanced nuclear power in this country."
I'm not sure if he meant "politically" or "technically" or something else.
Politically O'Reilly is correct. President Carter halted research and development on new nuclear technology when he was in office. We are still in the Carter "dark-ages." We have not built a new nuclear power plant in the US in decades. We have no nuclear reprocessing capability in the US, and we have no active safe nuclear waste storage facility in the US. We have a cumbersome, slow, and expensive permitting process which adds years to the construction of nuclear facilities.
To President Bush's credit, he tried to open the nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, NV. But President Obama has indicated his intention to close the Yucca Mountain facility, http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=f2cbe309-802a-23ad-4925-643845f220b5. President Bush began to streamline the permit process at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but President Obama put all the roadblocks back into place upon taking office.
Technically, O'Reilly is dead wrong. The US is on par with the rest of the world. We have the capability to build new nuclear power plants, although the number of trained nuclear professionals in the US is dwindling. And the longer we delay in restarting a comprehensive nuclear program, the fewer technical resources we will have in this country.
The US taxpayer has been "taxed" for this facility for many years, and even thought President Obama has decided not to open Yucca Mountain, the tax is still being levied.
By changing some political decisions, nuclear power could represent nearly all of the US energy needs in less than 20 years (see France for proof). Every year of political delay moves that possibility out years.
Nuclear power is a zero carbon energy source, and we would never run out of nuclear energy. Nuclear plants work when the wind isn't blowing, and when the sun isn't shinning. The latter energy sources will always be secondary or backup energy; never our primary source of energy. Using nuclear power in the US combined with developing our on fossil fuel resources (natural gas, and off-shore and Alaskan oil) would make us independent of foreign oil.
I'm not sure if he meant "politically" or "technically" or something else.
Politically O'Reilly is correct. President Carter halted research and development on new nuclear technology when he was in office. We are still in the Carter "dark-ages." We have not built a new nuclear power plant in the US in decades. We have no nuclear reprocessing capability in the US, and we have no active safe nuclear waste storage facility in the US. We have a cumbersome, slow, and expensive permitting process which adds years to the construction of nuclear facilities.
To President Bush's credit, he tried to open the nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, NV. But President Obama has indicated his intention to close the Yucca Mountain facility, http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=f2cbe309-802a-23ad-4925-643845f220b5. President Bush began to streamline the permit process at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but President Obama put all the roadblocks back into place upon taking office.
Technically, O'Reilly is dead wrong. The US is on par with the rest of the world. We have the capability to build new nuclear power plants, although the number of trained nuclear professionals in the US is dwindling. And the longer we delay in restarting a comprehensive nuclear program, the fewer technical resources we will have in this country.
The US taxpayer has been "taxed" for this facility for many years, and even thought President Obama has decided not to open Yucca Mountain, the tax is still being levied.
By changing some political decisions, nuclear power could represent nearly all of the US energy needs in less than 20 years (see France for proof). Every year of political delay moves that possibility out years.
Nuclear power is a zero carbon energy source, and we would never run out of nuclear energy. Nuclear plants work when the wind isn't blowing, and when the sun isn't shinning. The latter energy sources will always be secondary or backup energy; never our primary source of energy. Using nuclear power in the US combined with developing our on fossil fuel resources (natural gas, and off-shore and Alaskan oil) would make us independent of foreign oil.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Energy 103-Solar vs Nuclear
In Energy 102, I talked about Solar Energy. Since that post "the nation's largest solar farm was opened for business in FL http://bit.ly/2VyrHX.
Muskegon's Newkirk Electric solar farm generates 27 MegaWatts electric (MWe); it is located on 180 acres of treeless land so the solar panels can receive and convert the suns energy to electricity during the cloudless, daylight hours. During the night or on days that are overcast, the solar farm does not generate electricity. At times like those, customers must be provided with electricity generated from the B. C. Cobb coal-fired power plant. The 27 MWe is estimated to provide electricity to 3,000 homes when it is actually producing electricity. The B. C. Cobb coal-fired plant generates 500 MWe.
In comparison, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in MD http://www.constellation.com/portal/site/constellation/menuitem.0275303d670d51908d84ff10025166a0/ generates 1,135 MWe. I estimated that Calvert Cliffs NPP is located on ~260 acres using Google Earth and observed that much of the power plants land is wooded. The actual area of the facility might be larger, but that would simply mean that the total wooded area of the facility is even bigger. Calvert Cliffs NPP generates power 24-hrs/day, 7 days/week. Every few years one of the two units is shut-down for maintenance, but the other unit continues to produce electricity. This is typical of nuclear power plants throughout the world.
The bottom-line is that solar farms are typically smaller than conventional power plants, they do not generate electricity at night or when it is cloudy so must be supplemented by conventional power, they occupy a lot of land mass from which trees and structures are removed so as not to block the sun, they shade the ground around the solar panels and prevent the sun from providing normal light exposure to plants and animals that inhabit solar farm's ecosystem, and the cost to the consumer is generally higher per unit than for conventional power plants.
Muskegon's Newkirk Electric solar farm generates 27 MegaWatts electric (MWe); it is located on 180 acres of treeless land so the solar panels can receive and convert the suns energy to electricity during the cloudless, daylight hours. During the night or on days that are overcast, the solar farm does not generate electricity. At times like those, customers must be provided with electricity generated from the B. C. Cobb coal-fired power plant. The 27 MWe is estimated to provide electricity to 3,000 homes when it is actually producing electricity. The B. C. Cobb coal-fired plant generates 500 MWe.
In comparison, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in MD http://www.constellation.com/portal/site/constellation/menuitem.0275303d670d51908d84ff10025166a0/ generates 1,135 MWe. I estimated that Calvert Cliffs NPP is located on ~260 acres using Google Earth and observed that much of the power plants land is wooded. The actual area of the facility might be larger, but that would simply mean that the total wooded area of the facility is even bigger. Calvert Cliffs NPP generates power 24-hrs/day, 7 days/week. Every few years one of the two units is shut-down for maintenance, but the other unit continues to produce electricity. This is typical of nuclear power plants throughout the world.
The bottom-line is that solar farms are typically smaller than conventional power plants, they do not generate electricity at night or when it is cloudy so must be supplemented by conventional power, they occupy a lot of land mass from which trees and structures are removed so as not to block the sun, they shade the ground around the solar panels and prevent the sun from providing normal light exposure to plants and animals that inhabit solar farm's ecosystem, and the cost to the consumer is generally higher per unit than for conventional power plants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)