-
Welcome to the new SAOCA website. Already a member? Simply click Log In/Sign Up up and to the right and use your same username and password from the old site. If you've forgotten your password, please send an email to membership@sunbeamalpine.org for assistance.
If you're new here, click Log In/Sign Up and enter your information. We'll approve your account as quickly as possible, typically in about 24 hours. If it takes longer, you were probably caught in our spam/scam filter.
Enjoy.
C.R. says hybrids not worth the money
- Thread starter Nickodell
- Start date
RootesRacer
Donation Time
No.
We need better energy storage technologies and not burying our heads in the sand pretending we already have viable solutions for our energy problems.
We don't.
alpine_64
Donation Time
the arguments go both ways.. and for all the lobbyist the green energy companies have working at governments around the world.. you can bet that the oil/gas and coal industry are spending twice as much (if not more) trying to hold the renewable back...
You can debate climate change… you can debate mans involvement in it…. But I dare anyone to go to a city like Beijing or Mumbai.. walk around for a day or so and tell me that the toxic air and pollution is not caused by lots of cars and burning dirty coal…. There should be a better solution for our health… and because something is cheap doesn’t make it better… unlike our cars a bodged fix on the planet cant be undone with a restoration and new parts later.
You can debate climate change… you can debate mans involvement in it…. But I dare anyone to go to a city like Beijing or Mumbai.. walk around for a day or so and tell me that the toxic air and pollution is not caused by lots of cars and burning dirty coal…. There should be a better solution for our health… and because something is cheap doesn’t make it better… unlike our cars a bodged fix on the planet cant be undone with a restoration and new parts later.
John W
Bronze Level Sponsor
We certainly have a long time to get our act together. They're already underway with this in Louisiana. The WSJ says it's one of the largest projects ever - a 3,000 acre oil city.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/21/business/south-african-firm-invests-america/
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/21/business/south-african-firm-invests-america/
John W
Bronze Level Sponsor
Just reading the local news just now, here's a 243,000 panel solar project going online soon. The future is bright!
http://www.blueridgenow.com/article...universities-make-deal-to-buy-NC-solar-power-
http://www.blueridgenow.com/article...universities-make-deal-to-buy-NC-solar-power-
Nickodell
Donation Time
China passed the US as the world's #1 polluter three years ago, and India is on track to make us #3 within five years. Photos from satellites and space shuttles show a brown-yellow smudge, beginning on the west coast of India, progressing eastward and being reinforced by China. Much of this muck, including nitrogen and sulfur oxides makes its way across the Pacific and accounts for a significant proportion of the air pollution of the US west coast.
These countries, plus other emerging future giant polluters like Brazil and Indonesia were exempted from the Kyoto Treaty, one of the main reasons that George W. Bush refused to sign it. To reiterate: India and China are opening a new coal-fired power plant every eight days, and are building or planning to build almost 1,000 by 2035. By that time they will be joined by Brazil, etc. In an Alice-in-Wonderland scenario, if the US closed every fossil-fired power plant and, say, tripled the price of natural gas, gasoline, diesel fuel and home heating oil so as to reduce its use by the same ratio, the net effect on the atmospheric CO2 concentration would be close to zero. On the other hand it would, of course, totally destroy the US economy, sending most jobs overseas and putting the country back to the 19th century.
I ask militant environmentalists a few questions:
First, how do they propose to power airliners, ships, trains and 18-wheelers; with batteries?
Second, if man's activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are causing global warming, how come even anti-carbon climatologists admit that the total temperature increase since the 1870s has been just 0.8 degrees, and if the response is "but it's accelerating now," how come the total rise has been a minuscule 0.2 degrees in the past almost 18 years (as CO2 output has almost doubled)?
Third, the warmest era in history, the century and a half after about 940AD (known to geologists as the Medieval Warming Period), the globe was so warm that Vikings grazed cattle and sheep on an island that they called, for good reason, Greenland, and other Vikings settled on the northeast tip of N. America and grew, among other subtropical plants, wine grapes, for which they called the place Vinland (we know it as Newfoundland.) And yet, ice cores show that atmospheric CO2 was a fraction of what it is today; I guess there wasn't a single power station or SUV. Then it quite quickly got colder, and Greenland and Newfoundland became the frigid, desolate areas we know today. Again, man had zero influence on this radical climatic change, any more than he did on the century of bitter cold in the Middle Ages known as the Maunder Minimum when the globe again plunged into frigidity - European rivers like the Thames, Seine and Rhine froze over for months at a time, and the people lit bonfires and held ox-roasts on them.
Fourth, the fastest increase in atmospheric CO2 was between 1940 and the early 1970s, first as the industrialized nations went on an armament, shipbuilding, etc. frenzy; later the same countries turned their activity to rebuilding infrastructure and manufacturing consumer durables, like cars and refrigerators, in the post-war boom. Almost all the energy for this came from coal-fired power stations, spewing out CO2 ... and global temperatures went down for the whole period. Down enough to scare the predecessors of the current global warming alarmists into predicting a New Ice Age and proposing such things as covering the poles with soot to absorb more sun heat.
I leave you with this thought: “The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot,†according to a Commerce Department report published by the Washington Post. “Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.†More current evidence of human-caused global warming? Hardly. The above report of runaway warming is from a Washington Post story published Nov. 2, 1922 and bears an uncanny resemblance to the alarmist tales of global warming splattered across the front pages of today's newspapers. It is one of many historical accounts published during the past 140 years describing climate changes and often predicting catastrophic cooling or warming.
Here are excerpts from a few of those accounts, appearing as early as 1870:
"The climate of New-York and the contiguous Atlantic seaboard has long been a study of great interest. We have just experienced a remarkable instance of its peculiarity. The Hudson River, by a singular freak of temperature, has thrown off its icy mantle and opened its waters to navigation.†– New York Times, Jan. 2, 1870
“Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate summers and open winters through several years, culminating last winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade.†– New York Times, June 23, 1890
Headline: “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise†– New York Times, March 27, 1933 [1934 is the warmest year to date.]
These countries, plus other emerging future giant polluters like Brazil and Indonesia were exempted from the Kyoto Treaty, one of the main reasons that George W. Bush refused to sign it. To reiterate: India and China are opening a new coal-fired power plant every eight days, and are building or planning to build almost 1,000 by 2035. By that time they will be joined by Brazil, etc. In an Alice-in-Wonderland scenario, if the US closed every fossil-fired power plant and, say, tripled the price of natural gas, gasoline, diesel fuel and home heating oil so as to reduce its use by the same ratio, the net effect on the atmospheric CO2 concentration would be close to zero. On the other hand it would, of course, totally destroy the US economy, sending most jobs overseas and putting the country back to the 19th century.
I ask militant environmentalists a few questions:
First, how do they propose to power airliners, ships, trains and 18-wheelers; with batteries?
Second, if man's activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are causing global warming, how come even anti-carbon climatologists admit that the total temperature increase since the 1870s has been just 0.8 degrees, and if the response is "but it's accelerating now," how come the total rise has been a minuscule 0.2 degrees in the past almost 18 years (as CO2 output has almost doubled)?
Third, the warmest era in history, the century and a half after about 940AD (known to geologists as the Medieval Warming Period), the globe was so warm that Vikings grazed cattle and sheep on an island that they called, for good reason, Greenland, and other Vikings settled on the northeast tip of N. America and grew, among other subtropical plants, wine grapes, for which they called the place Vinland (we know it as Newfoundland.) And yet, ice cores show that atmospheric CO2 was a fraction of what it is today; I guess there wasn't a single power station or SUV. Then it quite quickly got colder, and Greenland and Newfoundland became the frigid, desolate areas we know today. Again, man had zero influence on this radical climatic change, any more than he did on the century of bitter cold in the Middle Ages known as the Maunder Minimum when the globe again plunged into frigidity - European rivers like the Thames, Seine and Rhine froze over for months at a time, and the people lit bonfires and held ox-roasts on them.
Fourth, the fastest increase in atmospheric CO2 was between 1940 and the early 1970s, first as the industrialized nations went on an armament, shipbuilding, etc. frenzy; later the same countries turned their activity to rebuilding infrastructure and manufacturing consumer durables, like cars and refrigerators, in the post-war boom. Almost all the energy for this came from coal-fired power stations, spewing out CO2 ... and global temperatures went down for the whole period. Down enough to scare the predecessors of the current global warming alarmists into predicting a New Ice Age and proposing such things as covering the poles with soot to absorb more sun heat.
I leave you with this thought: “The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot,†according to a Commerce Department report published by the Washington Post. “Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.†More current evidence of human-caused global warming? Hardly. The above report of runaway warming is from a Washington Post story published Nov. 2, 1922 and bears an uncanny resemblance to the alarmist tales of global warming splattered across the front pages of today's newspapers. It is one of many historical accounts published during the past 140 years describing climate changes and often predicting catastrophic cooling or warming.
Here are excerpts from a few of those accounts, appearing as early as 1870:
"The climate of New-York and the contiguous Atlantic seaboard has long been a study of great interest. We have just experienced a remarkable instance of its peculiarity. The Hudson River, by a singular freak of temperature, has thrown off its icy mantle and opened its waters to navigation.†– New York Times, Jan. 2, 1870
“Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate summers and open winters through several years, culminating last winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade.†– New York Times, June 23, 1890
Headline: “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise†– New York Times, March 27, 1933 [1934 is the warmest year to date.]
No we do not. And we will not as long as we do not push the technology. We do not push the technology when we set back and let day to day economics define our future.
Bill
Consumer Report : Best over all car.
Nick
As far as Hydrogen storage and transport, the German's have that problem solved by pumping it into their existing gas lines, see earlier link supplied.
Time will reduce costs, but as Bill mentioned, we need to push technology forward.
We have the technology for scrubbing/cleaning coal, but economics(greed) are prohibiting the power companies from implementing them.
May I hyjack this thread back to consumer reports?
Check out this article:
http://www.cnet.com/news/tesla-model-s-wins-best-overall-car-by-consumer-reports/
It was not that long ago where Tesla received a lot of negative press.
The future is now.
http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/car/1301_2013_motor_trend_car_of_the_year_tesla_model_s/
Nick
As far as Hydrogen storage and transport, the German's have that problem solved by pumping it into their existing gas lines, see earlier link supplied.
Time will reduce costs, but as Bill mentioned, we need to push technology forward.
We have the technology for scrubbing/cleaning coal, but economics(greed) are prohibiting the power companies from implementing them.
May I hyjack this thread back to consumer reports?
Check out this article:
http://www.cnet.com/news/tesla-model-s-wins-best-overall-car-by-consumer-reports/
It was not that long ago where Tesla received a lot of negative press.
The future is now.
http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/car/1301_2013_motor_trend_car_of_the_year_tesla_model_s/
Nickodell
Donation Time
The problem with all-electric vehicles, however super and fast and luxurious (or plain utilitarian) is the same old one that existed 110 years ago, when electric cars outnumbered internal combustion powered ones - lack of energy storage. Sure, batteries are infinitely better today than back then - but they still come nowhere near the energy per weight or per volume of gasoline, diesel or CNG. They just can't get you far enough to be practical.
Let's say you have an electric car with the top advertised range; maybe 110 miles. First, that kind of number is even more meaningless than the EPA mileage figures for gas-powered autos. It usually refers to a steady 55 mph. Try that on, for example, the PA Turnpike with 65mph limits and almost everyone going closer to 75. At 55 you could be a hazard. So you go with the flow ... and suddenly your range drops to 90 miles. Not much use to someone needing to travel from my house near Phila. to NYC, or to Baltimore (100 miles each, door-to-door.)
OK, so say your journey is only 80 miles. But turn on the A/C or heat (one or the other is used for around 10 months of the year in most of the US) and the range drops again, now to maybe 80 miles. Add lights, radio and wipers, and you're dicing with not even getting to that destination, especially if you meet a traffic jam. (In steady highway speeds on turnpikes and freeways there is virtually no regenerative braking to return some of the energy to the batteries.)
But you do manage it, on the last gasp of the batteries (some electric cars have an emergency extra 5 or 10 miles on tap, but this shortens battery life), but you finish your business and want to go home. What then, plug it in to recharge? Where? And even if you find a 120v source, you're looking at 12 hours or so to recharge. Lucky you, somehow you find 240v; now you only have to wait 5 hours.
Much of this parable is based on other tests by CR on such cars as the Leaf and Volt.
Electric cars are fun, entertaining machines (although some now have loudspeakers to broadcast simulated engine noises to alert pedestrians to their oncoming, which somehow seems to blunt much of the novelty) and may well be fine for short commuting and overnight charging, but other than this we are a long, long way from their being able to compete on a practical level with hydrocarbon-powered vehicles. IMHO.
Let's say you have an electric car with the top advertised range; maybe 110 miles. First, that kind of number is even more meaningless than the EPA mileage figures for gas-powered autos. It usually refers to a steady 55 mph. Try that on, for example, the PA Turnpike with 65mph limits and almost everyone going closer to 75. At 55 you could be a hazard. So you go with the flow ... and suddenly your range drops to 90 miles. Not much use to someone needing to travel from my house near Phila. to NYC, or to Baltimore (100 miles each, door-to-door.)
OK, so say your journey is only 80 miles. But turn on the A/C or heat (one or the other is used for around 10 months of the year in most of the US) and the range drops again, now to maybe 80 miles. Add lights, radio and wipers, and you're dicing with not even getting to that destination, especially if you meet a traffic jam. (In steady highway speeds on turnpikes and freeways there is virtually no regenerative braking to return some of the energy to the batteries.)
But you do manage it, on the last gasp of the batteries (some electric cars have an emergency extra 5 or 10 miles on tap, but this shortens battery life), but you finish your business and want to go home. What then, plug it in to recharge? Where? And even if you find a 120v source, you're looking at 12 hours or so to recharge. Lucky you, somehow you find 240v; now you only have to wait 5 hours.
Much of this parable is based on other tests by CR on such cars as the Leaf and Volt.
Electric cars are fun, entertaining machines (although some now have loudspeakers to broadcast simulated engine noises to alert pedestrians to their oncoming, which somehow seems to blunt much of the novelty) and may well be fine for short commuting and overnight charging, but other than this we are a long, long way from their being able to compete on a practical level with hydrocarbon-powered vehicles. IMHO.
alpine_64
Donation Time
This topic should probably go to rants section.. it is headed that way...
Nick.. You seem to be blaming all the pollution on the developing world? whose fault is that?
All the cheap merchandise that 1st world countries make in those countries to sell to you and maximise their profits is what generates the pollution. Then they try to pump the markets dry in the developing countries to mitigate the flat nature of 1st world spending.... 1st world selling the stuff to them.
As an Australian i am aware that so much of the polution is thanks to us mercilessly selling cheap and dirty coal to "fund development" in the 3rd world... same goes for what canada does.... we are just passing the blame.
It's a global issue.. it effects everyone.. the people who seem to not care about it, be it their own vested interest in their hip pocket or just lack of care, seem to be at an age that means they wont be aroud to see the changes when they really start to hurt our way of life.... perhaps that’s the upside?
I guess we can chalk up the restoration of the planet to the DPO's as with the cars.... just hope it’s not a project to far gone...
I always shake my head at the guys who leave the sunbeams in the yard roof down and let it all go to heck.... so maybe i shouldn’t be surprised they don’t care about the larger issues?
Nick.. You seem to be blaming all the pollution on the developing world? whose fault is that?
All the cheap merchandise that 1st world countries make in those countries to sell to you and maximise their profits is what generates the pollution. Then they try to pump the markets dry in the developing countries to mitigate the flat nature of 1st world spending.... 1st world selling the stuff to them.
As an Australian i am aware that so much of the polution is thanks to us mercilessly selling cheap and dirty coal to "fund development" in the 3rd world... same goes for what canada does.... we are just passing the blame.
It's a global issue.. it effects everyone.. the people who seem to not care about it, be it their own vested interest in their hip pocket or just lack of care, seem to be at an age that means they wont be aroud to see the changes when they really start to hurt our way of life.... perhaps that’s the upside?
I guess we can chalk up the restoration of the planet to the DPO's as with the cars.... just hope it’s not a project to far gone...
I always shake my head at the guys who leave the sunbeams in the yard roof down and let it all go to heck.... so maybe i shouldn’t be surprised they don’t care about the larger issues?
Nickodell
Donation Time
My last word on the subject.
I'm all for cleaning the air - for health reasons, not for some mythical global warming/climate disruption etc. When I was a kid in England, cities were characterized by factories with smokestacks belching soot, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, heavy metals etc. It had been that way since the start of the Industrial Revolution. In the north of England where I spent the first 10 years of my life, and where the I.R. started, there was a saying "where there's muck there's money." In other words, so long as the smoke came up the chimneys some people were making millions. Of course it also meant that millions who would have toiled on farms from dawn to dusk - and beyond - were employed in the factories and making good money.
Adding to this; almost all the electric power was from coal-burning plants, and gas (there was no natural gas) was made at huge coking plants in the cities - the gas supplied to houses and factories was a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, great for gassing yourself if life was too much for you, and for filling balloons. And houses were heated by burning soft coal. The rivers running through cities and/or past factories were also so polluted that no life could exist; all the effluent was simply dumped into them.
The result was that a huge proportion of people, especially working men, had chronic bronchitis and emphysema, which was known in Europe as "the English disease." Smog (smoke+fog) was so bad some times that I remember bus conductors leading their drivers by walking ahead and using a burning torch, like out of the Middle Ages. One time I got so tired of crawling along with a spotlight shining on the curb (kerb) at 5 mph that I left the car and walked home. And the next day couldn't remember where I'd parked it.
The positive side of this was that Britain - no bigger than Illinois - led the world in ship building, automobile exporting, etc., and could gear up in WWII to produce armaments second only to the US and Germany. She was also able to quickly rebuild houses (10% of all had been destroyed) and infrastructure after the war, and export consumer durables, steel, etc. More than 90% of all autos were exported, and many other things people would have liked back home were also unavailable. The word on everyone's lips was "Export or Die."
The government started a huge and expensive project in the late 50s that, inside of 25 years, had reduced air pollution by over 90%, and 10 years later by a further 5%. Coal fires were banned, and with the discovery of the North Sea oil and natural gas deposits, the coking plants disappeared. Nuclear power stations and oil/gas-fired ones replaced all the coal-fired ones. Government technicians came to your house and replaced the burner jets on your appliances to burn the new natural gas, methane (eliminating gas ovens as a way to end it all.)
Finally, all dumping into rivers was banned. Today, you can swim or catch salmon in the Thames in London. But to your topic:
At present, China releases 27% of the world’s carbon, the US 16%, the European Union 13% and India 6%. While the US and EU are reducing their carbon output every year, each year China alone increases its carbon emissions by the total emitted by Japan. Every four years it increases its emissions by the total emitted by the US. And this is just the start. With another 1,000 coal-fired power plants under construction or planned in China and India alone, never mind Brazil, Indonesia etc., the constant breast-beating in this country of how we're the big polluter, evil, should be punished, etc. is mindless babbling. I'll quit now before I get into politics.
I'm all for cleaning the air - for health reasons, not for some mythical global warming/climate disruption etc. When I was a kid in England, cities were characterized by factories with smokestacks belching soot, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, heavy metals etc. It had been that way since the start of the Industrial Revolution. In the north of England where I spent the first 10 years of my life, and where the I.R. started, there was a saying "where there's muck there's money." In other words, so long as the smoke came up the chimneys some people were making millions. Of course it also meant that millions who would have toiled on farms from dawn to dusk - and beyond - were employed in the factories and making good money.
Adding to this; almost all the electric power was from coal-burning plants, and gas (there was no natural gas) was made at huge coking plants in the cities - the gas supplied to houses and factories was a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, great for gassing yourself if life was too much for you, and for filling balloons. And houses were heated by burning soft coal. The rivers running through cities and/or past factories were also so polluted that no life could exist; all the effluent was simply dumped into them.
The result was that a huge proportion of people, especially working men, had chronic bronchitis and emphysema, which was known in Europe as "the English disease." Smog (smoke+fog) was so bad some times that I remember bus conductors leading their drivers by walking ahead and using a burning torch, like out of the Middle Ages. One time I got so tired of crawling along with a spotlight shining on the curb (kerb) at 5 mph that I left the car and walked home. And the next day couldn't remember where I'd parked it.
The positive side of this was that Britain - no bigger than Illinois - led the world in ship building, automobile exporting, etc., and could gear up in WWII to produce armaments second only to the US and Germany. She was also able to quickly rebuild houses (10% of all had been destroyed) and infrastructure after the war, and export consumer durables, steel, etc. More than 90% of all autos were exported, and many other things people would have liked back home were also unavailable. The word on everyone's lips was "Export or Die."
The government started a huge and expensive project in the late 50s that, inside of 25 years, had reduced air pollution by over 90%, and 10 years later by a further 5%. Coal fires were banned, and with the discovery of the North Sea oil and natural gas deposits, the coking plants disappeared. Nuclear power stations and oil/gas-fired ones replaced all the coal-fired ones. Government technicians came to your house and replaced the burner jets on your appliances to burn the new natural gas, methane (eliminating gas ovens as a way to end it all.)
Finally, all dumping into rivers was banned. Today, you can swim or catch salmon in the Thames in London. But to your topic:
At present, China releases 27% of the world’s carbon, the US 16%, the European Union 13% and India 6%. While the US and EU are reducing their carbon output every year, each year China alone increases its carbon emissions by the total emitted by Japan. Every four years it increases its emissions by the total emitted by the US. And this is just the start. With another 1,000 coal-fired power plants under construction or planned in China and India alone, never mind Brazil, Indonesia etc., the constant breast-beating in this country of how we're the big polluter, evil, should be punished, etc. is mindless babbling. I'll quit now before I get into politics.
Last edited:
alpine_64
Donation Time
No surprise you don't believe in climate change science... no point in trying to make you believe in all the evidence.. i would gather you are a big supporter of Christopher Monckton.. that would say it all those who deny that science will never believe in it...
On the upside at least you acknowledge the roll of industrialization and fossil fuels on destroying a habitable environment.
As to your comments on China and India etc.... they are making all that pollution on behalf of you and your countries (and all 1 st world) companies. Who are the producing the pollution for.. Apple, Nike, GAP, Wallmart, IBM, BMW, Audi the list goes on... Man up and at least acknowledge you have moved the problem from your doorstep to someone else.. and it damages us all. Saying you are reducing pollution in your country by making it in another is just ill informed and denialist rubbish..
RootesRacer
Donation Time
OK if it wasn't political before it is for sure now.
I move to halt this thread, nothing good can come of it now.
I move to halt this thread, nothing good can come of it now.
China is targeting major expenditures to halt pollution. Air pollution in major cities is becoming unbearable and the population is bitching.
Bill
TulsaAlpine
Donation Time
Doing my part!
I got a tax break, Federal tax's a one time one year break on my solar panels. It's working we pay the Line usage fee of $30.00 dollars a month $5 bucks more then my neighbor since I have solar panels. If 80% of my neighbors invested in the same solar panels then only 20% would come from coal which is a HUGE issue here since the EPA is trying to SHUT it down. I don't care if they buy back my electric or not I just ENJOY not paying that .12 cents a kilowatt for my electric. How long will my panels last time will tell, How long will my solar hot water panel last, don't know but right now it will scald you skin it's so hot. If those in other climates went with Geothermal and used 75% less electric then they do now would that not help the environment. Lets all complain and find fault with the cost etc. Glad to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.
Donna
I got a tax break, Federal tax's a one time one year break on my solar panels. It's working we pay the Line usage fee of $30.00 dollars a month $5 bucks more then my neighbor since I have solar panels. If 80% of my neighbors invested in the same solar panels then only 20% would come from coal which is a HUGE issue here since the EPA is trying to SHUT it down. I don't care if they buy back my electric or not I just ENJOY not paying that .12 cents a kilowatt for my electric. How long will my panels last time will tell, How long will my solar hot water panel last, don't know but right now it will scald you skin it's so hot. If those in other climates went with Geothermal and used 75% less electric then they do now would that not help the environment. Lets all complain and find fault with the cost etc. Glad to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.
Donna