Interesting Weather Record Set Today

[jeb]

Installation costs are high, but ,IMO, that would be a better place to put what the feds consider their money. Not only does the home owner gets involved, he adds value to his property, saves on his electric bill, and recoups some of his taxes in a positive way. The savings in transmission losses would in itself be worthy.

That has to be a better option than the roughly 750 billion wasted on 2 companies.

Oh, totally agree with you there! I was talking about if a home owner had to buy it themselves, with no incentives or govt candy being handed out.

I don't follow what you mean about the net gain of solar panels? As far as the environment goes the only negative would seem to be in the placement of them on solar farms.

That's one of them. But there are more. Mining the material is going to be a huge impact, if it really takes off. Here's one article, but I've seen much harsher anaylsis done, too:

http://www.ehow.com/info_8428047_negative-impacts-solar-energy-environment.html

[Justin Spencer]

If the govt. slowly required all to phase in a solar roof array, or require them on all new construction then we might see things moving in the right direction.

Good thinking

[jeb]

If, like a couple on here, you think that there's nothing to be alarmed about with continuing to use fossil fuels, then I can understand the mindset of letting the alternatives prove themselves in the marketplace without any help. But geez, get real. There is a HECK of a lot wrong with using fossil fuels. They are cleaner than they used to be, but still polluting,

Show me any of the alternatives to date that are even looking at the words "might be viable someday" that are will not impact the environment. I say better the devil we know until we get something real to look at.

And even if you don't care about that stuff, look at the economics. Get it through your head, gas is never gonna be cheap anymore. The easy oil is gone. What's left, even though there's a lot more of it than what we thought, is either in countries that don't like us or is very expensive to get out of the ground. Right now oil is trading at about $80 a barrel, as cheap as it's been in a while and the last time I filled up gas was $3.20 a gallon. I don't expect it to get much cheaper than that and I don't expect it to stay that cheap for very long.

I don't understand your point. Is someone claiming the price of gas is going to go down?

And like I said before, as soon as it goes up, the economy drops. That would not happen with energy sources that are renewable and self sustaining, because we wouldn't be competing with other countries to get the energy like we are and will continue to be with oil, and because a viable energy source will be consistently available at a consistent price.

I don't understand how you can make such claims when we don't even have a clue yet on what may be "the" answer. For all you know, whatever the new source(s) are could be far worse in those regards. Wind and solar are far from being viable alternatives AT THIS POINT. And even if they were, they have big environmental impacts, too. And they can be very sproadic based on the weather.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Good thinking

Your place is a good example of what could be accomplished, with some help. I can't tell exactly how much electrical energy is lost getting power to you, but it would add up. With plenty of room and buildings you could probably approach 90% or better in clean renewable energy. The downside is the cost and the fact that you obviously can't likely do it fast enough on your own. If the government just concentrated on the easy installations like yours, that require erratic usage and are long way from the source of generation I think the tax payer would actually get a bang for the buck.

[Al Agnew]

Show me any of the alternatives to date that are even looking at the words "might be viable someday" that are will not impact the environment. I say better the devil we know until we get something real to look at.

I don't understand your point. Is someone claiming the price of gas is going to go down?

I don't understand how you can make such claims when we don't even have a clue yet on what may be "the" answer. For all you know, whatever the new source(s) are could be far worse in those regards. Wind and solar are far from being viable alternatives AT THIS POINT. And even if they were, they have big environmental impacts, too. And they can be very sproadic based on the weather.

Point that you don't seem to agree with is that we just can't keep using oil and other fossil fuels to the extent we are now, because if we do, as I have repeatedly pointed out, we simply cannot have a stable and thriving economy, never mind the environmental costs. Right now one of the things that is keeping the economy from taking off is the price of gas and diesel. When gas was less than $2 a gallon, people spent about half what they do now on fuel, and the extra money went into other parts of the economy. You and I might be able to afford $3.50-$4,00 a gallon gas and still go fishing and buy stuff we don't absolutely need, but a whole lot of people can't, and won't be able to afford it in the foreseeable future, especially when you consider the extra they are paying for their necessities due to the price of the fuel to transport them. I'll say it again...this country's economy has been based upon cheap and abundant energy. It simply won't keep working so well with expensive energy, which means we either change the economic paradigm or we figure out a cheaper source of energy. As for the Chinese...they aren't stupid. They have been in a huge push to develop their economy the "proven" way, with coal and oil, but the air pollution in China is already terrible and getting worse, and they know they will have to change eventually. They pretty much have to know they are playing a game of environmental chicken, racing to get their economy running on all cylinders before they HAVE to switch over to non-fossil-fuel energy systems. If they end up going much farther than they are now with their pollution problems while we switch over to a better way first, we eat their lunch.

And that's the thing I keep trying to say...we will never get there unless we put in the effort to get there. The market alone will never favor alternative energy sources until oil is so expensive that just about anything will be more desirable. The closest analogies I can come up with the the development of nuclear energy and the space race. Neither were market driven, they were driven by national interest and national security. It wasn't until they were developed by government sponsored science that the market came into play. It's not that the market doesn't have a role to play; it does. But this is a national security issue.

On the other hand, solar and wind aren't that far away from being "mainstream" viable, not as huge regional power plants, but as home and industrial systems. Return on investment for installing a solar system on an existing home has been shown to pay off the cost of the system in energy cost savings in as little as 8 years and no more than 12 years. Problem is the initial investment, not the economic viability of the system. As long as you can tie into the existing grid and get credits for when you are furnishing electricity to the grid instead of taking it, solar is economically viable and it doesn't matter that it's sporadic. And IF we can develop better battery/storage systems, the "sporadic" won't matter.

Bottom line is, if we're still dependent upon fossil fuels 30 years from now, we're screwed. Nothing is certain, but our best chance is to work our butts off to come up with something better.

[jeb]

Point that you don't seem to agree with is that we just can't keep using oil and other fossil fuels to the extent we are now, because if we do, as I have repeatedly pointed out, we simply cannot have a stable and thriving economy, never mind the environmental costs. Right now one of the things that is keeping the economy from taking off is the price of gas and diesel. When gas was less than $2 a gallon, people spent about half what they do now on fuel, and the extra money went into other parts of the economy. You and I might be able to afford $3.50-$4,00 a gallon gas and still go fishing and buy stuff we don't absolutely need, but a whole lot of people can't, and won't be able to afford it in the foreseeable future, especially when you consider the extra they are paying for their necessities due to the price of the fuel to transport them. I'll say it again...this country's economy has been based upon cheap and abundant energy. It simply won't keep working so well with expensive energy, which means we either change the economic paradigm or we figure out a cheaper source of energy.

Wow, you don't really think that some alternative energy source is going to be cheaper than our current sources, do you? Really? I'd consider that extremely naive. The only that brings some of these even close to looking over the fence of viability is higher oil costs making them look affordable. And then only with massive taxpayer "incentives".

As for the Chinese...they aren't stupid. They have been in a huge push to develop their economy the "proven" way, with coal and oil, but the air pollution in China is already terrible and getting worse, and they know they will have to change eventually. They pretty much have to know they are playing a game of environmental chicken, racing to get their economy running on all cylinders before they HAVE to switch over to non-fossil-fuel energy systems. If they end up going much farther than they are now with their pollution problems while we switch over to a better way first, we eat their lunch.

How exactly do you figure that? What is going to drive them to cleaner power sources? I don't see it. And even if they do, it'll certainly not be any of the "green" alternatives. It'll be hydro and nuclear.

And that's the thing I keep trying to say...we will never get there unless we put in the effort to get there. The market alone will never favor alternative energy sources until oil is so expensive that just about anything will be more desirable. The closest analogies I can come up with the the development of nuclear energy and the space race. Neither were market driven, they were driven by national interest and national security. It wasn't until they were developed by government sponsored science that the market came into play. It's not that the market doesn't have a role to play; it does. But this is a national security issue.

Nuclear power was easy for the power companies to see were profitable. And when we get an alternative that clearly shows that again, it will be a winner. Until then, throwing money at them will not make it work. The economics have to be there.

On the other hand, solar and wind aren't that far away from being "mainstream" viable, not as huge regional power plants, but as home and industrial systems. Return on investment for installing a solar system on an existing home has been shown to pay off the cost of the system in energy cost savings in as little as 8 years and no more than 12 years. Problem is the initial investment, not the economic viability of the system. As long as you can tie into the existing grid and get credits for when you are furnishing electricity to the grid instead of taking it, solar is economically viable and it doesn't matter that it's sporadic. And IF we can develop better battery/storage systems, the "sporadic" won't matter.

Way too many if's and maybes in there for it to be realistic. We're talking about something that needs to replace the power grid, not help someone out in the open spaces stay off the grid a little bit.

Bottom line is, if we're still dependent upon fossil fuels 30 years from now, we're screwed.

Why is that?

Nothing is certain, but our best chance is to work our butts off to come up with something better.

Again, I'm not against research on a modest basis. But it's just plain foolish to start throwing massive amounts of money around that WE DO NOT HAVE just hoping it will stick somewhere.

[Chief Grey Bear]

It has become blatantly clear to me from some of these post just as to why the US is where it is today.

[jeb]

It has become blatantly clear to me from some of these post just as to why the US is where it is today.

You're right. Increasing onerous govt regulations, spending money we don't have and trying to force solutions on us that have not been well thought out will continue to drive our once great nation into the ditch. Sad to watch, really.

[eric1978]

You listen to too much right wing talk radio, jeb. Talking points, word for word...written by the oil industry propaganda machine and distributed by FOX and Rush. Your arguments are so old...and totally transparent...and frankly the biggest obstacle we face to reach a solution. Yep, you're probably right...with an attitude like yours, we likely won't ever fix the problem.

[Justin Spencer]

I think if gas prices were at $5 a gallon like was predicted earlier this year, attitudes would be much different. I will say it once more, it is better to be proactive than reactive. We know that an oil shortage is eventually coming so why not have viable alternatives in place when this happens. I also hope that people understand that cutting govt. spending cuts jobs, then increases people on unemployment which costs the govt. money without any results. During a down time in our economy I would rather see govt. spending used to fix things that already need to be fixed, than to continue to extend unemployment benefits to those who refuse to settle for a job that is "below" them. None of us wants to see higher taxes, or high unemployment rates, but it is becoming pretty obvious that to fix the deficit we either cut govt. spending (resulting in a loss of jobs in both the private and public sector), or increase taxes (boo).