Replies

Yes, I'm a Republican (and we DO recycle) , and I have NEVER been able to understand:

~ Why aren't using nearly 100% solar power in places like Florida, California, and Hawaii?

~ Why aren't we putting EZ Turf (or another such real-looking grass product) in all public areas? (i.e. islands in intersections, neighborhood parks, parkways along roadsides, etc.) --no water, no maintenance!

We could ALWAYS be/act "smarter" toward conservation.

Conservation is fine as far as it goes. Nobody is advocating deliberately wasteful energy use. But it is important to remember that conservation in and of itself does not produce a single watt of new capacity. You are always going to need an energy source to conserve. From the numbers I’ve seen, growth in demand alone, not even including retirement of older generating assets because of age, reliability, or GHG emissions, will dwarf whatever savings we might gain from conservation, and also dwarf whatever we might reasonably expect from development of so-called “renewable” energy sources. So where do we go to meet the additional demand? It means either sticking with carbon-based combustion, like coal or expensive, depletable natural gas, or, ta da, nuclear.

I live in CT and drive 20 miles down I-84 to work. I drive passed what's eaily a couple of thousand of acres of frequently mowed grassy median -- the media is 30-40 yards wide for stretches of miles. Why not let trees grow there? For the liberal global warming crew, of which CT is infested, wouldn't this mean less gas used in lawnmowers, millions of dollars of maintenance costs saved, and more trees to absorb CO2, not to mention a prettier drive?

NordP said: "Yes, I'm a Republican (and we DO recycle) , and I have NEVER been able to understand: ~ Why aren't using nearly 100% solar power in places like Florida, California, and Hawaii? "

Do you buy a new car every month? Why not?

For most of us, the reason would be that the expense would not be justified.

The answer to YOUR question is the same. The expense is not justified. Such "solutions" may have become MORE attractive over time, but there are no true savings to be had.

You mustn't base your decisions on highly biased reports of how damaging CO2 is going to be or how limited the world supply of crude oil is.

I worked in a business environment in which a one year payback on investment was considered quite attractive. Two years was also pretty much a no-brainer. But when you calculate a ten year payback, then you are dealing with a situation where circumstances might quickly change and cause the investment to have no payback or possibly even a long term cost that was not anticipated.

When solar energy installations have payback periods close to two years, without the uncertainty of continued government subsidy, then you will see significant activity.