I applaud the Frederick County Board of Supervisors for standing their ground against this proposed facility. What environmental impact has the existing facility had in this county? Is there a new waste stream from all the cleaning and maintenance of the panels? Has there been any stormwater runoff laden with harmful chemicals after all the ground disturbance to build it? How many jobs has it provided for local residents? Is there taxable income from the property or what it produces or is it just a big blight on the landscape that decrease property values around it and provides a guaranteed return to its investors plus plenty of asset write-off because its renewable energy? How much wildlife was disturbed, disrupted and discarded because of the current installation? How much wildlife will be ousted and forced out of area with the second installation? Is there chemical laden dirt in the current or previous orchards just waiting to be released into our lakes, streams and aquifers once disturbed by the bulldozers, earth movers and tree clearing workforce? Many a locality in Virginia as well as other states has just said no to these massive installations, and here should be no different. If it doesn’t provide jobs for local residents, cheaper electricity prices for our local users, threatens our environment, and little or no taxable assets or property, we don’t need it here!

Rich Sankovich

Frederick County

(7) comments


Our future without renewable energy will find a starkly less hospitable Virginia. Within just a few generations, Richmond's summers will resemble San Antonio today. Corn will wither in the fields and chickens will die in the heat. When that day comes it will seem incredible to citizens that we argued over bringing solar power into our once beautiful valley.


Your such a tree hugger! You must be chicken little's brother.


In the March issue of Atlantic magazine, Peter Brannen sets out in clear and alarming detail the expected results of creating an atmosphere with the highest concentration of greenhouse gases in 3 million years. The rationale for empiricism is based on evidence, and the evidence for impending climate disaster is far more serious than dismissive critics of us "tree huggers" will admit. In the words of the late climate expert Wally Broecker, "The climate system is an angry beast ... and we are poking it with sticks."

Doc Samson

" The rationale for empiricism is based on evidence" Indeed, it is. Too bad you cultishly believe the climate models (how many are there now?) that are consistently wrong and need to have the input data manipulated to get the desired results. How about the growing number of real scientists who are backing away from your level of fanaticism and taking a much more realistic approach, i.e. recognizing that we can be good stewards of the environment without going back to horse and buggy transportation. And maybe, just maybe, admit that "renewable" doesn't mean what you think it does. Takes a lot of heavy metals, petroleum products, and Chinese slave labor to build and fuel those batteries, solar panels, and windmills, my friend...


Direct your search engine to "carbon dioxide spectrogram". Right there on the spectrogram, right in the middle at a reciprocal 2300 cm, there's an enormous band of absorbancy, absorbancy that's not evident in other atmospheric gases. THAT is what makes carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas. THAT is why the levels of CO2, now the highest in 3 million years, are such a concern for environmentalists and future generations. Climate awareness is not a cult, and the evidence is both overwhelming and indisputable.

Modern science is the most successful predictive discipline in the history of man. Nineteen of the twenty warmest years globally have been in the new century (the outlier was the El Nino year of 1998). Our planet is heating up and will continue to warm for generations. The contrarian protests that we see, particularly in right wing media, are more a reflection of human nature and the psychology of denial than any uncertainty regarding what the future will bring. Any high school chemistry student can confirm that each ton of carbon burns to over 2 1/2 tons of carbon dioxide. We simply cannot go on burning fossil fuels. The choice is to go nuclear, or to develop alternative renewable energy sources.

Or to succumb to a world so surreal, so hostile that the last climate deniers will be brought to their knees begging for salvation.



john brown

[thumbup][thumbup][thumbup] SMH

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.