Mike Rosen and Hick

[roberth]

So I completely agree, I am looking for an argument, qualify that, an argument based on reason, that explains what the other 51% think. How could it possibly be good to subsidize bad business. Is there something else you've heard besides, "If it saves only one tree, isn't it worth it"?

Reason? You're not going to get reason from a bunch of morons.

[roberth]

Nail, meet hammer! Pretty much. From everything I've learned in coming up with "let's see if these libs are onto something or completely full of shit" research, the efficiency percentages for wind and solar is absurdly low, the scale needed to produce much of anything is astronomical- look at it this way, the average home uses 14,000 kwh of electricity per year. Narrow that down to an average of 40 kwh per day. 8 sq ft of solar panel produces approx 1/3 kwh per day (with 4 hours of sunlight producing at roughly 12% efficiency). You would need about 67 panels (at 8 square feet that's 536 sq ft) just to produce one day's worth of power, and that's if it's a sunny day for the entirety of the day. Yeah, come back to me when it's as effective and cheap as coal/oil/natural gas/nuclear.

Holy cow!! How much does that cost and when do the savings equal the costs?

[Caithford]

Sadly the technology just isn't there yet. I should have stated that earlier. I'm hoping that it will, one day, replace non-renewable energy sources, but I doubt it will be in my lifetime.

[Ronin13]

Holy cow!! How much does that cost and when do the savings equal the costs?

Estimates put it at about $53,000 initial investment... not sure, I don't have the numbers for savings...

[spqrzilla]

At present, everything I've seen in numbers show that solar panels don't pay back their investment within the expected lifespan of their components.

[roberth]

At present, everything I've seen in numbers show that solar panels don't pay back their investment within the expected lifespan of their components.

Even with our money the government uses to subsidize it?

[MarkCO]

Sadly the technology just isn't there yet. I should have stated that earlier. I'm hoping that it will, one day, replace non-renewable energy sources, but I doubt it will be in my lifetime.

Oil and coal are technically "renewing", there just is just a longer time delay.

Actually, there is a LOT of technology that is "there". We are just not willing to use it. Synthetic diesel from coal and sewage have great ROI. We bury trash instead of burn it, we waste substantial amounts of "efficiency" in our power plants when we burn coal. less with natural gas.

In addition, IF we wanted to, we could cut our fuel demand in half by building smaller houses, more efficient signal light timing, altering speed limits, reducing the amount of stop signs. Elimination of PED cross whenever crosswalks, etc.

Fact is, we don't want to!

[Jamnanc]

Yes, more efficient coal. Instead of shipping overseas to a dirtier plant, I agree. Smaller homes, enjoy yourself, I like mine the way it is. Lower speed limits??? No. I agree with the crosswalks, watching cars idle while somebody waddles across the street is painful. Traffic design, cool.

[MarkCO]

Yes, more efficient coal. Instead of shipping overseas to a dirtier plant, I agree. Smaller homes, enjoy yourself, I like mine the way it is. Lower speed limits??? No. I agree with the crosswalks, watching cars idle while somebody waddles across the street is painful. Traffic design, cool.

Your home is probably fine. Do you realize that about 5% of the homes in the US use 30% of the electricity?

Lower Speed limits...not what I said. On main roads, if we increased the speeds 10mph on road the fuel savings is close to 7%. If coupled with properly timed lights, tickets for not using merge and acceleration lanes, etc. the realized savings could be close to 15%.

It is not the idle, it is the start and stop that burns the fuel.

[Jamnanc]

I misunderstood, I thought you were proposing max in the 60 mph range. I'm sure my house is fine, any smaller and the kids would have to sleep with me.