# Lincoln Financial Field



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

Has a huge project right now.
Solar, Wind turbines and a bunch of other "Green" technologies.
I believe there is some Tax Payer money attached to this project.
I'm not sure how I feel about the Tax Payers footing the bill for a billion dollar franchise. Eh, at least it's all union labor getting the work.

I like to hear some pro's & con's.


----------



## erics37 (May 7, 2009)

slickvic277 said:


> Has a huge project right now.
> Solar, Wind turbines and a bunch of other "Green" technologies.
> I believe there is some Tax Payer money attached to this project.
> I'm not sure how I feel about the Tax Payers footing the bill for a billion dollar franchise. Eh, at least it's all union labor getting the work.
> ...


Probably a boondoggle.

On those jobs I just call it, "Earning my taxes back."


----------



## electricalwiz (Mar 12, 2011)

The tax payer already paid for the stadium why not some solar and wind


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

erics37 said:


> On those jobs I just call it, "Earning my federal reserve notes which are just worthless paper anyway back."


Fixed it for ya.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

electricalwiz said:


> The tax payer already paid for the stadium why not some solar and wind


I know it's a joke.
You know how many small time outta town contractors lost there shirts there too? GC's just flat out refusing to pay people and there was nothing they could do about it. Crazy.


----------



## electricalwiz (Mar 12, 2011)

slickvic277 said:


> I know it's a joke.
> You know how many small time outta town contractors lost there shirts there too? GC's just flat out refusing to pay people and there was nothing they could do about it. Crazy.


Did one of the stadiums bancrupt Williard?


----------



## electricalwiz (Mar 12, 2011)

Peter D said:


> Fixed it for ya.


 
Pete, I did not know you were anti Fed guy. Glad to hear it. Now we just need to wake up the other 300 milllion americans


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

electricalwiz said:


> Did one of the stadiums bancrupt Williard?


No.
Williard bankrupt Williard.
Trust me on that one.


----------



## electricalwiz (Mar 12, 2011)

slickvic277 said:


> No.
> Williard bankrupt Williard.
> Trust me on that one.


were they one of the bigger 98 companies


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

There leading by example. All major builds like this should be mandated to include these type of renewable energy projects.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

electricalwiz said:


> Pete, I did not know you were anti Fed guy. Glad to hear it. Now we just need to wake up the other 300 milllion americans


http://www.themoneymasters.com/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936

Back to the Solar deal.
Anyone have a clue what a project like this will eventually save a place like a football stadium in power consumption?

Is the initial cost worth the pay off?


----------



## electricalwiz (Mar 12, 2011)

T-Bart said:


> There leading by example. All major builds like this should be mandated to include these type of renewable energy projects.


How are they leading by example IF taxpayer is paying it?
Nothing should be mandated, I believe in the Free Market


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

electricalwiz said:


> were they one of the bigger 98 companies


No.
They were a 98 signatory but I wouldn't have called them one of the bigger ones.
They're fitters.
Honestly, I think by the time the Stadium was built they may have been already out of the local. Not sure. I'd have to ask around.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

T-Bart said:


> There leading by example. All major builds like this should be mandated to include these type of renewable energy projects.


Well, that would certainly move the economy. IF they were to mandate it, I think they should mandate that all the systems and it's components be locally produced.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

electricalwiz said:


> Pete, I did not know you were anti Fed guy. Glad to hear it. Now we just need to wake up the other 300 milllion americans


Yeah, but unlikely people will figure it out until it's too late and that's just the problem. There's 300+ million out there who have no clue about our monetary system and how it invisibly transfers wealth to the upper class.


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

We need to get away from nuke power somehow. I don't want my kids to grow up with glowing green testicles. Especially my daughters ...


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

T-Bart said:


> We need to get away from nuke power somehow. I don't want my kids to grow up with glowing green testicles. Especially my daughters ...


:laughing:

Do you think that's possible?
Moving away from Nukes (not your daughters having testicles)


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

slickvic277 said:


> :laughing:
> 
> Do you think that's possible?
> Moving away from Nukes (not your daughters having testicles)


Sure With the kind of ROI there getting from big projects like this why use such a trashy dirty form of power like nukes, we won't need too and all of our daughters will be testicle free. Hell were better off burning coal.


----------



## erics37 (May 7, 2009)

Peter D said:


> Fixed it for ya.


:laughing: Thanks, you're right.

That's okay, I try to convert my federal reserve notes into tangible objects like my mini non-GMO seed vault, food, clothes, and shotgun shells while I still can :laughing:


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

T-Bart said:


> Sure With the kind of ROI there getting from big projects like this why use such a trashy dirty form of power like nukes, we won't need too and all of our daughters will be testicle free. Hell were better off burning coal.


You can't be serious?? You obviously know nothing about power generation.


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

Sure I'm serious, why would we use something as dangerous as nuke power when we have cheap safe renewable alternatives? Coal is much cleaner then it was in the past and it supports an american economy so it is also a better option then nuke power.


----------



## erics37 (May 7, 2009)

T-Bart said:


> Sure I'm serious, why would we use something as dangerous as nuke power when we have cheap safe renewable alternatives? Coal is much cleaner then it was in the past and it supports an american economy so it is also a better option then nuke power.


Coal? :blink:

And if you knock nuke power around Zog, beware. You'll incur the wrath of Godzilla rising from the sea


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

electricalwiz said:


> How are they leading by example IF taxpayer is paying it?
> Nothing should be mandated, I believe in the Free Market


How much money will a paved road save us? Should we let free market companies bill us for the work?


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

T-Bart said:


> Sure I'm serious, why would we use something as dangerous as nuke power when we have cheap safe renewable alternatives? Coal is much cleaner then it was in the past and it supports an american economy so it is also a better option then nuke power.


Cleaner Coal.:laughing:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> Eh, at least it's all union labor getting the work.
> 
> I like to hear some pro's & con's.


Seeing as you asked. :thumbsup:

*Cons* 

Taxpayer money used for private development.

Taxpayer money being directed to only a selected group of craftsmen

Union loafers dragging the job out to force OT to be used and bilking the taxpayer for even more money.

*Pros*

There are none.


----------



## electricalwiz (Mar 12, 2011)

jrannis said:


> How much money will a paved road save us? Should we let free market companies bill us for the work?


What does a paved road have to do with, with madating companines install solar or wind


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

T-Bart said:


> Sure I'm serious, why would we use something as dangerous as nuke power when we have cheap safe renewable alternatives? Coal is much cleaner then it was in the past and it supports an american economy so it is also a better option then nuke power.


Cheap renewables??? Really, and what would that be?

Coal plants safe?? You need to do some fact checking. 

Don't get me wrong, plenty of issues with nuclear as well but today it is the cleanest, safest, and most efficient method we have for base loads.


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

*Pros*
cleaner environment
cheap energy
less non recyclable hazardous waste
lower decommissioning cost
you cant make dirty bombs out of spent wind mills
jobs

*Cons*
Unbrainwashing the nuke Zombies


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

T-Bart said:


> *Pros*
> cleaner environment
> cheap energy
> less non recyclable hazardous waste
> ...


So I assume you are fine with the power going out on calm cloudy days ........


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

BBQ said:


> So I assume you are fine with the power going out on calm cloudy days ........


Beats nuking Asians every time the tide comes in but I bet if we can split an atom we can figure a way to store energy.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

T-Bart said:


> Beats nuking Asians every time the tide comes in but I bet if we can split an atom we can figure a way to store energy.


And I bet at some point we may well find better ways to store energy, but we are not there yet.

Do you realize that coal plants have killed tens of thousands more than Nuke plants? 

I will be honest, I would not be happy if a nuke plant was built near my home but at the same time I think it is a forgone conclusion nukes are the only real answer at this point in time while we are still researching other clean ways.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Zog said:


> Cheap renewables??? Really, and what would that be?
> 
> Coal plants safe?? You need to do some fact checking.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, plenty of issues with nuclear as well but today it is the cleanest, safest, and most efficient method we have for base loads.


 I work for a utility that specializes in renewable generation and I still agree with this.

Coal is about as unhealthy a generation means as you're going to find.

I truly believe solar and wind have a viable future, but I also know that a lot of solar projects are nothing but PR stunts and do very little to alleviate usage.

Nuclear has problems, but some of the problems are the types of plant designs we've restricted ourselves to. There are ways to do it that are inherently safer than what we've done. And as far as cranking out base-load generation plants by the dozen, you simply can't beat it: There are only so many places you can put hydro or geothermal. Nuclear doesn't have those obstacles.

-John


----------



## electricalwiz (Mar 12, 2011)

T-Bart said:


> *Pros*
> cleaner environment
> cheap energy
> less non recyclable hazardous waste
> ...


So it is safe to assume you have solar/wind at your house and shop


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

The EPA shuts down coal plants left and right, exept for GE ones . The GE ones get a pass. We do all know who is the presidents buddy now don't we? Thats right, the chairman of GE. 

And now , on to the rolling blackouts........



Tbart is on it, the new coal plants are pollution free, and I can't eat any fish I catch when I go out trolling anymore cause it glows in the dark, and that is proven fact so I don't care how Zog is going to try showing me some charts and industry generated power points now.


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

How big is the risk that a coal generation plant will "melt down"

How big is the risk a solar or wind farm will "melt down"

and a nuke plant?

What is the risk of WW3 being a wind turbine war or a solar panel war?

Do wind turbines kill thousands when they overheat?


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

electricalwiz said:


> So it is safe to assume you have solar/wind at your house and shop


Is it safe to assume you have a reactor at yours?


----------



## electricalwiz (Mar 12, 2011)

T-Bart said:


> Is it safe to assume you have a reactor at yours?


 
I am not arguing for Nuclear. I do not mind coal at all. You said is should be mandated for wind/solar, I am asking if you have wind/solar.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

T-Bart said:


> How big is the risk that a coal generation plant will "melt down"


 There isn't one. But have you ever looked at the medical statistics for people who've spent a long time living near coal-fired plants? Rates of respiratory illnesses go up. Lead and mercury exposure go up. Cancers go up. There are still very serious health risks, they're just more insidious and less acute.


> ...How big is the risk a solar or wind farm will "melt down"


 There isn't one. But wind and solar cannot carry our base load right now. And without massive investment in transmission and distributed generation they won't even be close to carrying our baseload 30 years from now. This is coming from a man who is paid by a company that builds wind and solar farms.


> ...What is the risk of WW3 being a wind turbine war or a solar panel war?


 Irrelevant.

-John


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

electricalwiz said:


> I am not arguing for Nuclear. I do not mind coal at all. You said is should be mandated for wind/solar, I am asking if you have wind/solar.


No I do not, nor do I own a football stadium.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

T-Bart said:


> How big is the risk that a coal generation plant will "melt down"


Zero, but over the course of a year coal kills more than a meltdown would. 



> How big is the risk a solar or wind farm will "melt down"


Very low. 



> and a nuke plant?


How many have and how many are in operation across the globe?





> What is the risk of WW3 being a wind turbine war or a solar panel war?


How do you figure a nuke plant will trigger WWIII? :blink:



> Do wind turbines kill thousands when they overheat?


Thousands? seems unlikely but they do fail in ways that could kill many depending on the placement.







Now if this was in a populated area as many are that could have been bad.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

France has almost 50% nuclear power, maybe more by now. How many stories about French reactors melting down or having problems do you hear about? None.


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

Big John said:


> There isn't one. But have you ever looked at the medical statistics for people who've spent a long time living near coal-fired plants? Rates of respiratory illnesses go up. Lead and mercury exposure go up. Cancers go up. There are still very serious health risks, they're just more insidious and less acute. There isn't one. But wind and solar cannot carry our base load right now. And without massive investment in transmission and distributed generation they won't even be close to carrying our baseload 30 years from now. This is coming from a man who is paid by a company that builds wind and solar farms. Irrelevant.
> 
> -John


Coal today isn't what it was 50 years ago or 10 years ago for that matter.

Solar/Wind isn't a magic bullet but its a bigger part of a long term solution then nuclear power. 

It is very relevant. Iran. North Korea.


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

BBQ said:


> Sure thats comparable.:no:


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

Peter D said:


> France has almost 50% nuclear power, maybe more by now. How many stories about French reactors melting down or having problems do you hear about? None.


Well it hasn't happened so it never will.










How many American solar panel melt downs do you hear about?


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

T-Bart said:


> Well it hasn't happened so it never will.


My point is that the French lead the world in nuclear reactor technology and safety. Do you really think that the nuclear industry, no matter where they are in the world, _want_ a bad reputation?


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

T-Bart said:


> ...Sure thats comparable.


 And show me the megawatt-hour breakdown for each form of generation.

With increased production comes increased risk. That is the nature of the beast right now.

If not this, then what? (I think that's gonna have to be my new signature because it keeps coming up.) I'm open to solutions, but you've gotta show me a solution that works. Simply saying "We need more solar" doesn't address the fact that we're decades away from that capacity, and billions away from that infrastructure.

-John


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

T-Bart said:


> Sure thats comparable.:no:


I did not say they were did I?

My point was quite simple, wind turbines are not the benign source of power you are trying to paint them as.

If you want to discuss this issue please be honest with yourself.


For your info I am actually for clean power but the technology is not there yet, I certainly want us to keep researching it but in the interim Nukes will be the way.

Do you understand that with today's technology that the standard power plants have to stay online all the time to take care of the fluctuating power produced by wind farms and solar?


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

Peter D said:


> My point is that the French lead the world in nuclear reactor technology and safety. Do you really think that the nuclear industry, no matter where they are in the world, _want_ a bad reputation?


They also have great fries and a big tower good for them.



Big John said:


> And show me the megawatt-hour breakdown for each form of generation.
> 
> *With increased production comes increased risk*. That is the nature of the beast right now.
> 
> ...


My point exactly. 

We need more SAFE renewable energy. 



BBQ said:


> I did not say they were did I?
> 
> My point was quite simple, wind turbines are not the benign source of power you are trying to paint them as.
> 
> ...


Did you actually read my post? I'm not saying solar/wind energy IS the magic bullet I'm saying nuclear power ISN'T.


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

BBQ said:


> If you want to discuss this issue please be honest with yourself.


What exactly does this mean? Is this some attempt to discredit my opinion or just a random half assed personal attack?


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

T-Bart said:


> ...We need more SAFE renewable energy....


 And what's your solution that will get us to that point?

-John


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

Darn, I didn't realize we were being duped by a green energy troll. :laughing:


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Peter D said:


> Darn, I didn't realize we were being duped by a green energy troll.


 Depending on if/how my last question gets answered, I'm starting to think so.

-John


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Tuesday 7/10/12 Tesla / Energy on Coast to Coast AM radio with George Noory.


Be there or be square.......


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

Peter D said:


> Darn, I didn't realize we were being duped by a green energy troll. :laughing:


You got me. I'm only here to amuse myself at your expense. Its a big conspiracy planned for years to trap you into debating green power vs nuke power.

There are only two people on this forum YOU and one other guy pretending to be everyone else.


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

Big John said:


> Depending on if/how my last question gets answered, I'm starting to think so.
> 
> -John


Let me get this straight

I don't agree with you and don't acknowledge you appropriately I'm a troll?

Sounds like someone may have a case of unwarranted self importance.


----------



## erics37 (May 7, 2009)

I'm gonna stick it out for Fusion power.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

T-Bart said:


> Let me get this straight
> 
> I don't agree with you and don't acknowledge you appropriately I'm a troll...?


Nah, the fact that you're so shy about offering a supporting argument for your position, but so quick to go on the defensive, is what makes me suspect you're a troll.


erics37 said:


> I'm gonna stick it out for Fusion power.


 I have a really naive hope that is actually on the horizon.

-John


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

T-Bart said:


> BBQ said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to discuss this issue please be honest with yourself.
> ...


No, not at all.

I am not shy, if I wanted to discredit you or attack you it would be very straight forward and obvious.


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

So How many nuclear accidents are too many? 

5?
7?
10?

How many accidents does there have to be before nuclear power isn't safe?

12?

Whats a reasonable threshold? If 3 civilian accidents isnt enough can we say 5 is or should we keep going to 10 or 20? What about 30 should we stop before we get to 30?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

t-bart said:


> so how many nuclear accidents are too many?


32.563


----------



## erics37 (May 7, 2009)

Big John said:


> Nah, the fact that you're so shy about offering a supporting argument for your position, but so quick to go on the defensive, is what makes me suspect you're a troll. I have a really naive hope that is actually on the horizon.
> 
> -John


I don't know if it's such a good idea. Last time someone successfully created a fusion reaction he went ape s**t.


----------



## keepdry (Jul 24, 2012)

*Right On*



T-Bart said:


> We need to get away from nuke power somehow. I don't want my kids to grow up with glowing green testicles. Especially my daughters ...


I could not agree with you any more. We need to continue to support local renewable energy projects.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

T-Fart said:


> Sure With the kind of ROI there getting from big projects like this why use such a trashy dirty form of power like nukes, we won't need too and all of our daughters will be testicle free. Hell were better off burning coal.


That stupidity bought Long island one of the highest electric rates in the nation after the panic tards made sure Shoreham never opened and became decomissioned.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Shockdoc said:


> That stupidity bought Long island one of the highest electric rates in the nation after the panic tards made sure Shoreham never opened and became decomissioned.


Remember they don't care about the rate payers.:no:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

keepdry said:


> I could not agree with you any more. We need to continue to support local renewable energy projects.


No we don't...:laughing:


----------



## cgd68 (May 29, 2012)

Coal fired power plants produce most of the electric in WV. Many of them are old, but they fight new air quality mandates, at the expense of public health.Can't really eat any fish caught in WV if one wants to avoid unhealthy mercury accumulations in one's body. Not to mention the fine particulates that go into one's lungs that never come out. Ask folks who live by a mountain top removal mine how their water and air quality is. And good luck selling your property. On to fracking. Good luck selling your property after your water is flammable. Oil and Coal have all been subsidized by taxpayers either throught tax cuts or giveaways, http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/ and the cost of peoples health and extensive damage to the land where we live is never added into the cost of fossil fuels. When Nuclear goes bad, it really goes bad. Cherynobl and Fukishima are great examples of that. Good luck farming the land around those areas. So, how can we improve renewables? Flywheels? Conservation? Hydro? The sun just keeps on burning.Adapt or die.


----------



## T-Bart (Jun 24, 2011)

cgd68 said:


> Coal fired power plants produce most of the electric in WV. Many of them are old, but they fight new air quality mandates, at the expense of public health.Can't really eat any fish caught in WV if one wants to avoid unhealthy mercury accumulations in one's body. Not to mention the fine particulates that go into one's lungs that never come out. Ask folks who live by a mountain top removal mine how their water and air quality is. And good luck selling your property. On to fracking. Good luck selling your property after your water is flammable. *Oil and Coal have all been subsidized by taxpayers either throught tax cuts or giveaways,* http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/ and the cost of peoples health and extensive damage to the land where we live is never added into the cost of fossil fuels. When Nuclear goes bad, it really goes bad. Cherynobl and Fukishima are great examples of that. Good luck farming the land around those areas. So, how can we improve renewables? Flywheels? Conservation? Hydro? The sun just keeps on burning.Adapt or die.


All energy is subsidized in some form or another.


----------



## BIGRED (Jan 22, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> Has a huge project right now.
> Solar, Wind turbines and a bunch of other "Green" technologies.
> I believe there is some Tax Payer money attached to this project.
> I'm not sure how I feel about the Tax Payers footing the bill for a billion dollar franchise. Eh, at least it's all union labor getting the work.
> ...


All I know is Andy Reid is a big wind turbine and the Eagles and Vick suck. I hope they lose every game!!


----------

