Subscribe
Shop Local
Magazine
Gas Prices
Today's Poll!Ameren eyes solar, wind power in Callaway
Generation of electricity by solar cells and possibly by wind turbines is under consideration for land surrounding the Ameren Missouri nuclear plant south of Fulton.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Generation of electricity by solar cells and possibly by wind turbines is under consideration for land surrounding the Ameren Missouri nuclear plant south of Fulton.
For this reason, the Callaway Energy Center is the new name for the nuclear plant operated by Ameren Missouri south of Fulton. The plant had been known as the Callaway Nuclear Power Plant.
Trina Muniz, an Ameren Missouri spokesperson, said Monday the new name is part of a general corporate policy of continuous reassessment of its overall operations and to more accurately reflect the possible expansion of types of energy generated at its various power plants.
“In October of 2010,” Muniz said, “we changed our name from AmerenUE to Ameren Missouri. Since then we have looked at our overall structure. We are committed to expanding our renewable energy power generation. For this reason we are examining now the possibility of adding more solar and wind generation.”
Marry Me
Comments
evenkeel 1 year, 7 months ago
To Don Norfleet, Are there any federal subsidies coming Amerens way if they choose solar or wind power? How much?
JCLifer 1 year, 7 months ago
Wouldn't it make sense to build the solar and wind generation in western states instead of sinking all the customers' and taxpayers' money into something worthless and inefficient in central Missouri river valley just to put on a political show for the legislature? I would rather Ameren invest in land out west and pump power back into the grid to make money to lower generation costs which will save us money.
asb 1 year, 7 months ago
Transmission costs are too high from out-west to here, and the connectivity from good solar/wind locations out west to Mo are few and fragile. However, you are right, central Mo is too good for farming to give up enough land to make solar/wind viable. North Mo, and a good part of the Ozarks would be a better use, closer, and cheaper to transmit.
JCLifer 1 year, 7 months ago
Don't transmit the power to here. Sell it to Kalifornia and use the proceeds to lower our electric bills.
evenkeel 1 year, 7 months ago
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You cannot see what is right under your noses! It is happening again. It is crony capitalism. Wind energy is a scam, solar energy is a scam. How do I know? If it wasn't, it would not have to be subsidized! This is a just another taxpayer swindle. They all are. Like Solyndra, like the stimulus, like the Washington-caused housing bubble that led to the financial crisis that lead to too big to fail, like ethanol subsidies, like the GM bailout, like the stimulus, like the cash for clunkers, like the cash for caulkers. See a pattern? Spot a trend? Crony capitalism. The behemoth federal government expanding everywhere and influencing every aspect of life in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Dangling the carrot of subsidies and using the whip of regulation to move the markets to places that markets will not go on their own. All the while, the taxpayer pays.
When big wind and big sun inevitably collapse, the politicians who caused it all and got greased in the process will attack BIG POWER for EXCESS GREED. This is so predictable. And the weirdest thing is: we are broke. By any objective measure, we are broke. We do not have the money anymore for this foolishness.
JCLifer 1 year, 7 months ago
AGREE: Let the free market work.
End corporate welfare.
asb 1 year, 7 months ago
Carbon energy is the most subsidized. There is no such thing as a Free Market, anywhere, ever. If you end corporate welfare, our economy collapses. You could reduce it significantly to everyone's benefit.
asb 1 year, 7 months ago
Not suddenly. Tax breaks amount to corporate welfare. TIFFS, etc. are corporate welfare. You will not get the business community to go along with your sudden enlightenment regarding our largesse toward corporations. End it all overnight and we're all eating stray dogs. REDUCE, don't kill. YOU may wish for anarchy but I'd rather see adjustments rather than chaos.
asb 1 year, 7 months ago
Are tax credits and deductions only welfare then if they eliminate the tax liability? Why a line Grace? Our horrific tax rates are never paid, they're greatly reduced by breaks, credits, deductions, etc. Why is it only called welfare if the net bill is $0 or less? And the idea that tax costs get passed on to customers and shareholders goes both ways; if all corporations are taxed equally, and they pass that cost on, why do they fight so hard to avoid paying them? Out of the same love for customers they have for their employees no doubt . . .
asb 1 year, 7 months ago
Starting and ending a post with insults isn't particularly persuasive Grace. Being taxed isn't coercion when you elect the folks who do it. A $0 tax bill is welfare no matter what you call it. Corporations don't want to pay taxes because . . . because nobody does. The complexity works in their favor and is how they get a $0 or low tax bill. Taxes on corporations are as essential as taxes on people. Yes, Corporations are people by tax law, but as the bumper sticker says, I'll believe that when Texas executes one.
JCLifer 1 year, 7 months ago
Corporations don't pay taxes. The customer pays for everything.
asb 1 year, 7 months ago
Paying taxes because it's legally required isn't coercion, or robbery. We all know we should, but we'd pay little or nothing but for the law. Complex tax laws gain the government $0, but the tax industry $trillions. And corporations DO pay taxes, and they should. And, you close with more insults. Very convincing style, in the 7th grade . . .
evenkeel 1 year, 7 months ago
Accept this fact: the federal government is too big. It is not refuteable by reasonable people. The federal government is 1/3 larger than it was just 4 years ago. While we bicker about this or that, topic after topic, one day after another, the federal government borrows $4 billion each day, thereby piling up a remorseless mountain of debt. There is no end in sight.
So a news story about solar energy is really, from my perspective, a story about federal government subsidies. Because without the federal subsidy, solar energy probably wouldn't exist and if it did, it would take 20 years to pay off the initial cost. I would look elsewhere for a reasonable return on investment, but hey, to each their own.
The thing is, once you wake up and smell the coffee you will realize that a federal government that borrows $4 billion each day cannot be subsidizing solar energy. Or any energy. Or corn, or mohair, or milk, or windmills, or peanuts or old used cars or banks or grants to college students so they can pursue a degree in Ethnic Studies or ... you name it. Stop the madness. Let's all become adults. It is not funny money. Not yet. When the collapse comes, our money will be worthless, but it won't be funny.
Look on the bright side, when the federal government shrinks, either because we, the people, made it shrink by demanding it at the ballot box, or because our childish society collapses, can we hope that the bribery, cronyism, favoritism, graft, influence peddling, patronage, kickbacks and corruption will also shrink?
asb 1 year, 7 months ago
Sorry Even, the only fact I accept is that the debt is too big, and that's mostly the result of greed and neutered regulations. The size of government is a different topic and the primary basis of politics, not irrefutable but debatable. The idea behind ANY subsidy is to save money in the long run or boost the economy. Try and take subsidies for corn, milk, mohair, beans, wheat and cows away and you'll have republicans with teeth in your shorts. Try and take away the subsidies for carbon energy away and you'll have to go to war; they will kill you. Is some portion of our over large debt needed? Yes. Is some wasted on the poor, yes. Is some wasted on industries refusing to invest in the future to protect us from endless American and foriegn bloodshed for a few more years of extra profit of guvmunt funded energy infrastructure at the expense of our present climate? Yes. The size of government is not the issue, it's how you pay for it that's the issue. We need to ALL pay for it, and I'm willing to see it smaller, but not the way some would have it.
JCLifer 1 year, 7 months ago
Greed of the citizens. 47% pay no taxes, but the liberals get upset if you suggest they pay a small portion to be fair.
evenkeel 1 year, 7 months ago
asb, I fear you are an unserious person. Tell me, how is the subsidy for peanuts saving money in the long run or boosting the economy? Or alternatively, go ahead and sell that idea that this nation is suffering economically because of a dearth of regulation. Take a walk around the block and clear your head and you'll see that you got caught up in emotion. I hope that is the case. Otherwise I am bantering with someone who is or should be wearing a tin foil hat and I don't want to use my time that way.
I think I will give you the benefit of much doubt and say that you got wrapped up in democrat vs republican and you want your side to win so much that you throw away logic. It is similar to a ballgame to some people. They have invested themselves too deeply into rooting for a team. Yeah for your team, boo for the other team. The players change, the issues change, you end up rooting for the team name. Your allegiance to the team can cause you to lose touch with your core values and the ability to make sound decisions.
If you really do have the ability to be analytical, let me know somehow. By tomorrow, there will be another topic to bat around and whatever it is, it will generate some posts, but keep in mind, that background hum, if you listen to it, is this: inexorably, we will, as a nation, be another 4 billion dollars deeper in debt. Pay attention to that hum.
asb 1 year, 7 months ago
Evenkeel, I didn't say subsidies are inherently good, I said they are INTENDED for good. Their rationales all point to a good. Some are, some aren't. Similarly, regulations are a burden to be born by those impacting the environment we live in, the health and economics of consumers, and their competitors; but when done correctly, with all parties impacted having a proportional say to reach a consensus, regulations do protect and defend. Some are good, some aren't. It's a constant fidgit and when polar statements that they're evil and destructive to America get used at the highest levels, then somebody's PR firm is having more influence than they should. Fox News had an energy industry consultant and one of their own yappers go on about how EPA's entire focus now is skimming energy and other industry money with their regulations for the agency's benefit. Millions of Americans saw this slick barfy lie and many will be convinced by it. And of course I'm putting this in right/left terms, they're right/left issues.
hudson 1 year, 7 months ago
WE have the best goverment ! And the best justice system !MONEY CAN BUY !
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID