An Energy Question?

[Navy1960]

While the debate rages on both sides about such things as wind,solar, nuclear, nat-gas, oil, and a whole host of other energy sources, it leads me to ask a question. At what point does this debate become harmful to this nation? let me explain, by picking and choosing what technology is good and what is bad are we not then putting our feet at the throat of American innovation and as a by-product of that American Jobs ?

Take the Chevy Volt for instance, while not everyone's cup of tea, and perhaps a little pricey amongst other things, I'm frankly stunned that Americans especially in todays economy and todays global atmosphere that some would be so against this car just on the off chance it is associated with a political figure they dont happen to like.

The same is true for domestic oil and gas production and solar, and wind, if we as a nation intend to stay at or near the top then we have to have the energy sources to do so. To produce, explore, and make the products needed for this here in this nation can serve only one purpose, it makes this nation stronger and less dependant on nations that do not have our best interests at heart.

While it's true that some of these new technologies might take time and even some might fail before it becomes a part of our daily lives , that is the cost we pay to take that path and realize the benefits of those technologies. Take for instance the auto industry, at it's inception there were over a 100 different companies producing cars in this nation, and over the years as the technology grew , companies came and went. In short no matter what the technology, if we STOP innovation then we choose long road to decline.

 

[GHook93]

While the debate rages on both sides about such things as wind,solar, nuclear, nat-gas, oil, and a whole host of other energy sources, it leads me to ask a question. At what point does this debate become harmful to this nation? let me explain, by picking and choosing what technology is good and what is bad are we not then putting our feet at the throat of American innovation and as a by-product of that American Jobs ?

Take the Chevy Volt for instance, while not everyone's cup of tea, and perhaps a little pricey amongst other things, I'm frankly stunned that Americans especially in todays economy and todays global atmosphere that some would be so against this car just on the off chance it is associated with a political figure they dont happen to like.

The same is true for domestic oil and gas production and solar, and wind, if we as a nation intend to stay at or near the top then we have to have the energy sources to do so. To produce, explore, and make the products needed for this here in this nation can serve only one purpose, it makes this nation stronger and less dependant on nations that do not have our best interests at heart.

While it's true that some of these new technologies might take time and even some might fail before it becomes a part of our daily lives , that is the cost we pay to take that path and realize the benefits of those technologies. Take for instance the auto industry, at it's inception there were over a 100 different companies producing cars in this nation, and over the years as the technology grew , companies came and went. In short no matter what the technology, if we STOP innovation then we choose long road to decline.

Well stated! Sooner or later oil as a source of fuel for our mobility machines will end. We can either deal with it at that point, which would be catrophic or we can slowly deal with it now! I see the electric car as the long-term solution. First, stationary sources have a much wider variety, easier to harness, more efficient and are evolting all the time. The mobile sources are virtually just oil. We need to break that.

This first generation of electric car definitely has it flaws: Price, range, availability and variety. However, they show great promise. They show that it can be done. Nonetheless ALL new and civilization changing technology has this cycle in the first generation.

Two examples: The computer and Cell Phone. The computer used to be vastly expensive. It used to take up a full room. The only ones who had them were the government and rich companies. Then they started to shrink them. You had the naysayers fighting it pointing to type-writer and quicker, less bugs and cheaper. Slowly but surely more and more people obtained them. Now they are mainstream and the typewritter is extinct.

The Cell was very similar. The first generation came along with a bag. It cost $5 a minute to use. Only wealthy businessmen used them. Naysayers again said they were too costly and stationary phones were more efficient. Nowadays, most people in the world, even in Afghanistan, have cell phones!

This first generation has it's flaws, but people bought everything that was produced. The next generation will work on SOME of the flaws (I guarantee the Volt drops the gas engine) and get the price down and even more people will buy them. The third generation will perfect the electric car and nearly all new cars will be electric.

The trend starts now and will move in that direction. Critized it yes, but still acknowledge this is the hope for the future!

 

[Navy1960]

While the debate rages on both sides about such things as wind,solar, nuclear, nat-gas, oil, and a whole host of other energy sources, it leads me to ask a question. At what point does this debate become harmful to this nation? let me explain, by picking and choosing what technology is good and what is bad are we not then putting our feet at the throat of American innovation and as a by-product of that American Jobs ?

Take the Chevy Volt for instance, while not everyone's cup of tea, and perhaps a little pricey amongst other things, I'm frankly stunned that Americans especially in todays economy and todays global atmosphere that some would be so against this car just on the off chance it is associated with a political figure they dont happen to like.

The same is true for domestic oil and gas production and solar, and wind, if we as a nation intend to stay at or near the top then we have to have the energy sources to do so. To produce, explore, and make the products needed for this here in this nation can serve only one purpose, it makes this nation stronger and less dependant on nations that do not have our best interests at heart.

While it's true that some of these new technologies might take time and even some might fail before it becomes a part of our daily lives , that is the cost we pay to take that path and realize the benefits of those technologies. Take for instance the auto industry, at it's inception there were over a 100 different companies producing cars in this nation, and over the years as the technology grew , companies came and went. In short no matter what the technology, if we STOP innovation then we choose long road to decline.

Well stated! Sooner or later oil as a source of fuel for our mobility machines will end. We can either deal with it at that point, which would be catrophic or we can slowly deal with it now! I see the electric car as the long-term solution. First, stationary sources have a much wider variety, easier to harness, more efficient and are evolting all the time. The mobile sources are virtually just oil. We need to break that.

This first generation of electric car definitely has it flaws: Price, range, availability and variety. However, they show great promise. They show that it can be done. Nonetheless ALL new and civilization changing technology has this cycle in the first generation.

Two examples: The computer and Cell Phone. The computer used to be vastly expensive. It used to take up a full room. The only ones who had them were the government and rich companies. Then they started to shrink them. You had the naysayers fighting it pointing to type-writer and quicker, less bugs and cheaper. Slowly but surely more and more people obtained them. Now they are mainstream and the typewritter is extinct.

The Cell was very similar. The first generation came along with a bag. It cost $5 a minute to use. Only wealthy businessmen used them. Naysayers again said they were too costly and stationary phones were more efficient. Nowadays, most people in the world, even in Afghanistan, have cell phones!

This first generation has it's flaws, but people bought everything that was produced. The next generation will work on SOME of the flaws (I guarantee the Volt drops the gas engine) and get the price down and even more people will buy them. The third generation will perfect the electric car and nearly all new cars will be electric.

The trend starts now and will move in that direction. Critized it yes, but still acknowledge this is the hope for the future!

Exactly my point, and thank you, every technology has a starting point and as it matures so to does it become better. The electric car is no different and I would rather imagine so to would technologies like Solar, Wind the newer technologies. I suppose my take on this is why sit around and fight over things as a nation because of a political belief one way or the other when we all benefit from the development of ALL these technologies take your pick.

I can't help but think if the Apollo program were today, we would have never gone to the Moon because on one side you would have people saying, "it costs too much" and on the other "rockets cause the birds not to migrate" and as we did the rest of world would wave as they flew past us. As they are now.

 

[GHook93]

While the debate rages on both sides about such things as wind,solar, nuclear, nat-gas, oil, and a whole host of other energy sources, it leads me to ask a question. At what point does this debate become harmful to this nation? let me explain, by picking and choosing what technology is good and what is bad are we not then putting our feet at the throat of American innovation and as a by-product of that American Jobs ?

Take the Chevy Volt for instance, while not everyone's cup of tea, and perhaps a little pricey amongst other things, I'm frankly stunned that Americans especially in todays economy and todays global atmosphere that some would be so against this car just on the off chance it is associated with a political figure they dont happen to like.

The same is true for domestic oil and gas production and solar, and wind, if we as a nation intend to stay at or near the top then we have to have the energy sources to do so. To produce, explore, and make the products needed for this here in this nation can serve only one purpose, it makes this nation stronger and less dependant on nations that do not have our best interests at heart.

While it's true that some of these new technologies might take time and even some might fail before it becomes a part of our daily lives , that is the cost we pay to take that path and realize the benefits of those technologies. Take for instance the auto industry, at it's inception there were over a 100 different companies producing cars in this nation, and over the years as the technology grew , companies came and went. In short no matter what the technology, if we STOP innovation then we choose long road to decline.

Well stated! Sooner or later oil as a source of fuel for our mobility machines will end. We can either deal with it at that point, which would be catrophic or we can slowly deal with it now! I see the electric car as the long-term solution. First, stationary sources have a much wider variety, easier to harness, more efficient and are evolting all the time. The mobile sources are virtually just oil. We need to break that.

This first generation of electric car definitely has it flaws: Price, range, availability and variety. However, they show great promise. They show that it can be done. Nonetheless ALL new and civilization changing technology has this cycle in the first generation.

Two examples: The computer and Cell Phone. The computer used to be vastly expensive. It used to take up a full room. The only ones who had them were the government and rich companies. Then they started to shrink them. You had the naysayers fighting it pointing to type-writer and quicker, less bugs and cheaper. Slowly but surely more and more people obtained them. Now they are mainstream and the typewritter is extinct.

The Cell was very similar. The first generation came along with a bag. It cost $5 a minute to use. Only wealthy businessmen used them. Naysayers again said they were too costly and stationary phones were more efficient. Nowadays, most people in the world, even in Afghanistan, have cell phones!

This first generation has it's flaws, but people bought everything that was produced. The next generation will work on SOME of the flaws (I guarantee the Volt drops the gas engine) and get the price down and even more people will buy them. The third generation will perfect the electric car and nearly all new cars will be electric.

The trend starts now and will move in that direction. Critized it yes, but still acknowledge this is the hope for the future!

Exactly my point, and thank you, every technology has a starting point and as it matures so to does it become better. The electric car is no different and I would rather imagine so to would technologies like Solar, Wind the newer technologies. I suppose my take on this is why sit around and fight over things as a nation because of a political belief one way or the other when we all benefit from the development of ALL these technologies take your pick.

I can't help but think if the Apollo program were today, we would have never gone to the Moon because on one side you would have people saying, "it costs too much" and on the other "rockets cause the birds not to migrate" and as we did the rest of world would wave as they flew past us. As they are now.

HOWEVER, also keep in mind there are many MANY wouldbe technologies that were supposed to change the world, but fell flat on their face! However, I don't think the electric car will be one of them!

 

[Navy1960]

Well stated! Sooner or later oil as a source of fuel for our mobility machines will end. We can either deal with it at that point, which would be catrophic or we can slowly deal with it now! I see the electric car as the long-term solution. First, stationary sources have a much wider variety, easier to harness, more efficient and are evolting all the time. The mobile sources are virtually just oil. We need to break that.

This first generation of electric car definitely has it flaws: Price, range, availability and variety. However, they show great promise. They show that it can be done. Nonetheless ALL new and civilization changing technology has this cycle in the first generation.

Two examples: The computer and Cell Phone. The computer used to be vastly expensive. It used to take up a full room. The only ones who had them were the government and rich companies. Then they started to shrink them. You had the naysayers fighting it pointing to type-writer and quicker, less bugs and cheaper. Slowly but surely more and more people obtained them. Now they are mainstream and the typewritter is extinct.

The Cell was very similar. The first generation came along with a bag. It cost $5 a minute to use. Only wealthy businessmen used them. Naysayers again said they were too costly and stationary phones were more efficient. Nowadays, most people in the world, even in Afghanistan, have cell phones!

This first generation has it's flaws, but people bought everything that was produced. The next generation will work on SOME of the flaws (I guarantee the Volt drops the gas engine) and get the price down and even more people will buy them. The third generation will perfect the electric car and nearly all new cars will be electric.

The trend starts now and will move in that direction. Critized it yes, but still acknowledge this is the hope for the future!

Exactly my point, and thank you, every technology has a starting point and as it matures so to does it become better. The electric car is no different and I would rather imagine so to would technologies like Solar, Wind the newer technologies. I suppose my take on this is why sit around and fight over things as a nation because of a political belief one way or the other when we all benefit from the development of ALL these technologies take your pick.

I can't help but think if the Apollo program were today, we would have never gone to the Moon because on one side you would have people saying, "it costs too much" and on the other "rockets cause the birds not to migrate" and as we did the rest of world would wave as they flew past us. As they are now.

HOWEVER, also keep in mind there are many MANY wouldbe technologies that were supposed to change the world, but fell flat on their face! However, I don't think the electric car will be one of them!

Agreed, I see some technologies to as a bridge to others. Take for example the way in which we watch movies. Went from going to the movies on film, to Beta, to VHS, to DVD, and on to Digital media and it still is moving forward. So who is to say that todays electric car wont be something we cannot even think of at the moment. The point is its a good first step in the right direction. My feeling is that EV opens all sorts of possibilites for this nation to use massive resources that this nation has at its disposal and ends our need to bend our knee's to mid eastern oil and perhaps get this nation into conflicts in that region in a never ending attempt to protect that asset not to mention the sheer number of jobs that rebuilding on such a technology could mean in terms of domestic jobs, and the economy. That is why, I could care less who is politically associated with this technology as long as it helps this nation.

 

[Old Rocks]

I see the EV as another means of independence for the home owner. The combination of solar, grid tied, and an EV gives you not only energy for your home and vehicle, but also a good backup in case of a grid failure. It also puts power on the grid at the time of greatest need, and takes power off in the slack period.

And I agree as to it also being a bridge technology. The ability that will be developed in storing high density electrical energy will lead to developments we cannot even imagine now. One could hardly have predicted the internet from the invention of the transistor in the late 1940's.

 

[messki678]

what you guys says about to run electricity of home with solar? is it cheaper?

 

[Intense]

Exactly my point, and thank you, every technology has a starting point and as it matures so to does it become better. The electric car is no different and I would rather imagine so to would technologies like Solar, Wind the newer technologies. I suppose my take on this is why sit around and fight over things as a nation because of a political belief one way or the other when we all benefit from the development of ALL these technologies take your pick.

I can't help but think if the Apollo program were today, we would have never gone to the Moon because on one side you would have people saying, "it costs too much" and on the other "rockets cause the birds not to migrate" and as we did the rest of world would wave as they flew past us. As they are now.

HOWEVER, also keep in mind there are many MANY wouldbe technologies that were supposed to change the world, but fell flat on their face! However, I don't think the electric car will be one of them!

Agreed, I see some technologies to as a bridge to others. Take for example the way in which we watch movies. Went from going to the movies on film, to Beta, to VHS, to DVD, and on to Digital media and it still is moving forward. So who is to say that todays electric car wont be something we cannot even think of at the moment. The point is its a good first step in the right direction. My feeling is that EV opens all sorts of possibilites for this nation to use massive resources that this nation has at its disposal and ends our need to bend our knee's to mid eastern oil and perhaps get this nation into conflicts in that region in a never ending attempt to protect that asset not to mention the sheer number of jobs that rebuilding on such a technology could mean in terms of domestic jobs, and the economy. That is why, I could care less who is politically associated with this technology as long as it helps this nation.

Still, there is only so far one should be trying to jump ahead on Someone Else's dime. Especially when there are much more abundant Resources and Technologies available. Not to mention the scams and schemes making certain people rich, through fraud, incompetence, and embezzlement. We should be looking towards Natural Gas to Power our vehicles. Also, something to consider, is that which steers away from Centralized control, which seems to always lead to dictatorial ends. Let's not confuse that with Patriotism. Poorly managed Green Policies are bankrupting us, that is not healthy for anyone. Yes we need to address the problems caused by the competing technologies, yet, we should not be abandoning reason along the way.

 

[Navy1960]

HOWEVER, also keep in mind there are many MANY wouldbe technologies that were supposed to change the world, but fell flat on their face! However, I don't think the electric car will be one of them!

Agreed, I see some technologies to as a bridge to others. Take for example the way in which we watch movies. Went from going to the movies on film, to Beta, to VHS, to DVD, and on to Digital media and it still is moving forward. So who is to say that todays electric car wont be something we cannot even think of at the moment. The point is its a good first step in the right direction. My feeling is that EV opens all sorts of possibilites for this nation to use massive resources that this nation has at its disposal and ends our need to bend our knee's to mid eastern oil and perhaps get this nation into conflicts in that region in a never ending attempt to protect that asset not to mention the sheer number of jobs that rebuilding on such a technology could mean in terms of domestic jobs, and the economy. That is why, I could care less who is politically associated with this technology as long as it helps this nation.

Still, there is only so far one should be trying to jump ahead on Someone Else's dime. Especially when there are much more abundant Resources and Technologies available. Not to mention the scams and schemes making certain people rich, through fraud, incompetence, and embezzlement. We should be looking towards Natural Gas to Power our vehicles. Also, something to consider, is that which steers away from Centralized control, which seems to always lead to dictatorial ends. Let's not confuse that with Patriotism. Poorly managed Green Policies are bankrupting us, that is not healthy for anyone. Yes we need to address the problems caused by the competing technologies, yet, we should not be abandoning reason along the way.

I am in full agreement that NG is a huge resource that needs to be paid attention to when it comes to transportation. Here is the issue with tax payer funded technology research and such things as the Volt, Boeing etc. While I tend to want our industries in a pure sense to stand on their own two feet, the sad fact remains that in todays world every nation takes use of subsidies to its major industries in order to give it a leg up. There is no bigger example of this than with Airbus and and Boeing. Take the A-380 for instance, which is the largest commercial airliner at the moment, virtually ALL of its R&D was financed by EU Govts. and by that I mean the citizens of the Airbus partner nations. Now this is a personal opinion here, I tend to think that any technology that produces jobs here in this nation regardless of what label it has "Green" or otherwise, is a good thing. These newer industries like solar, wind, etc. are no different than any industry when it comes to how they mature. Take your pick, go back a little ways in time and look at the sheer number of companies in the PC Busniess that have come and gone, the high cost of those devices, some good some not so good, and yes even some Govt. purchased. The fact is by promoting technologies that not only move this nation away from depending on foreing sources of energy as well as employ Americans is an investment into this nation that American taxpayers should be willing to take a chance on rather than say perhaps, investing in rebuilding the other 180 plus nations we happen to be in at the moment.

 

[Navy1960]

Oh one more than too, if you have not guessed, I'm sort of the ALL in type as long as it benefits the Good Ol USA and our people!!.

 

[chenchenPeter]

Yes,I also want to know the answer....

 

[Old Rocks]

HOWEVER, also keep in mind there are many MANY wouldbe technologies that were supposed to change the world, but fell flat on their face! However, I don't think the electric car will be one of them!

Agreed, I see some technologies to as a bridge to others. Take for example the way in which we watch movies. Went from going to the movies on film, to Beta, to VHS, to DVD, and on to Digital media and it still is moving forward. So who is to say that todays electric car wont be something we cannot even think of at the moment. The point is its a good first step in the right direction. My feeling is that EV opens all sorts of possibilites for this nation to use massive resources that this nation has at its disposal and ends our need to bend our knee's to mid eastern oil and perhaps get this nation into conflicts in that region in a never ending attempt to protect that asset not to mention the sheer number of jobs that rebuilding on such a technology could mean in terms of domestic jobs, and the economy. That is why, I could care less who is politically associated with this technology as long as it helps this nation.

Still, there is only so far one should be trying to jump ahead on Someone Else's dime. Especially when there are much more abundant Resources and Technologies available. Not to mention the scams and schemes making certain people rich, through fraud, incompetence, and embezzlement. We should be looking towards Natural Gas to Power our vehicles. Also, something to consider, is that which steers away from Centralized control, which seems to always lead to dictatorial ends. Let's not confuse that with Patriotism. Poorly managed Green Policies are bankrupting us, that is not healthy for anyone. Yes we need to address the problems caused by the competing technologies, yet, we should not be abandoning reason along the way.

Your evidence for that is?

 

[Trakar]

While the debate rages on both sides about such things as wind,solar, nuclear, nat-gas, oil, and a whole host of other energy sources, it leads me to ask a question. At what point does this debate become harmful to this nation? let me explain, by picking and choosing what technology is good and what is bad are we not then putting our feet at the throat of American innovation and as a by-product of that American Jobs ?

Take the Chevy Volt for instance, while not everyone's cup of tea, and perhaps a little pricey amongst other things, I'm frankly stunned that Americans especially in todays economy and todays global atmosphere that some would be so against this car just on the off chance it is associated with a political figure they dont happen to like.

The same is true for domestic oil and gas production and solar, and wind, if we as a nation intend to stay at or near the top then we have to have the energy sources to do so. To produce, explore, and make the products needed for this here in this nation can serve only one purpose, it makes this nation stronger and less dependant on nations that do not have our best interests at heart.

While it's true that some of these new technologies might take time and even some might fail before it becomes a part of our daily lives , that is the cost we pay to take that path and realize the benefits of those technologies. Take for instance the auto industry, at it's inception there were over a 100 different companies producing cars in this nation, and over the years as the technology grew , companies came and went. In short no matter what the technology, if we STOP innovation then we choose long road to decline.

I see nothing in your statement that I would disagree with, with the caveat that actions and inactions are always accompanied by consequences. The failure to acknowledge and account for those consequences is never in the best interests of our nation.

On the basis of this, I would certainly acknowledge that any advocacy for rapid and dramatic change is always to be a choice of last resort due to the disruption and uncertainty that the broad scale and scope of such change engenders.

Given these there is still a great deal of discussion/debate to be held over a great many areas of concern, but with this set of base agreements that discussion can progress in a reasoned and productive manner to find directions and goals that are understandable and acceptable to all (or at least a majority of the) participants in a public policy discussion.

At a personal level - I've no objection to carbon-fuel industries expending their own funding in the search for more exploitable resources and the technologies to recover, process/refine and transport/distribute those resources in a market where costs (both internal and external) are fully accounted for. I would be even more supportive of these technologies if they demonstrated a means of extracting the fuel's energy in a carbon neutral fashion. These are just personal perspectives, but your post, taken at face value, seems a good starting for a serious discussion.

 

[Trakar]

Well stated! Sooner or later oil as a source of fuel for our mobility machines will end. We can either deal with it at that point, which would be catrophic or we can slowly deal with it now! I see the electric car as the long-term solution. First, stationary sources have a much wider variety, easier to harness, more efficient and are evolting all the time. The mobile sources are virtually just oil. We need to break that.

This first generation of electric car definitely has it flaws: Price, range, availability and variety. However, they show great promise. They show that it can be done. Nonetheless ALL new and civilization changing technology has this cycle in the first generation.

Two examples: The computer and Cell Phone. The computer used to be vastly expensive. It used to take up a full room. The only ones who had them were the government and rich companies. Then they started to shrink them. You had the naysayers fighting it pointing to type-writer and quicker, less bugs and cheaper. Slowly but surely more and more people obtained them. Now they are mainstream and the typewritter is extinct.

The Cell was very similar. The first generation came along with a bag. It cost $5 a minute to use. Only wealthy businessmen used them. Naysayers again said they were too costly and stationary phones were more efficient. Nowadays, most people in the world, even in Afghanistan, have cell phones!

This first generation has it's flaws, but people bought everything that was produced. The next generation will work on SOME of the flaws (I guarantee the Volt drops the gas engine) and get the price down and even more people will buy them. The third generation will perfect the electric car and nearly all new cars will be electric.

The trend starts now and will move in that direction. Critized it yes, but still acknowledge this is the hope for the future!

I'm not sure that I see the EV as "The" answer, but it certainly may be an important piece of the puzzle going forward. I think there may be many such pieces and it probably isn't a good idea to focus as much on finding 1 over-arching solution, as it is to look at and explore the different options at our disposal.

One of the downsides of EV right now, is that in many cases we are replacing the carbon from burning refined petroleum in the car for the carbon from burning coal in a power plant (and neither of those options is very efficient or effective). There are consequences to all decisions and the drawbacks that have to be considered at each step of the way or all we are doing is fooling ourselves.

 

[Trakar]

I can't help but think if the Apollo program were today, we would have never gone to the Moon because on one side you would have people saying, "it costs too much" and on the other "rockets cause the birds not to migrate" and as we did the rest of world would wave as they flew past us. As they are now.

Eer, ...that's largely the way it was!

NASA was under constant reproach and attack by environmentalist extremests, and was a big target for fiscal conservatives (most infamously for the amount of "Golden Fleece" awards it received) "a Kennedy project" that deserved diminishment and swipes wherever possible (and I was a Nixon Republican who often nodded my head at such comments, even as many of my classmates were headed toward eventual aerospace engineering jobs in the field) The political vitriole of the past may have been more private and less mainstream in the past, but I can vouch for its existence in the '50s and '60s.

 

[Trakar]

what you guys says about to run electricity of home with solar? is it cheaper?

Right now, for people whose primary concern is cost per kWh, solar probably isn't going to be your first choice.

Depending upon your requirements, your location, and local costs for installation and maintenance it's generally going to require a significant investment ($10-30k) to offset most of the average utility bill if you live in a state where the utilities are required to purchase your production. If not, and you are looking to live totally off the grid, the extra capacity and a battery room to handle all your needs is going to (again varies according to local conditions and costs) tack on at least another $8-10k in costs -more if you are using advanced batteries instead of lead-acid.

as a personal preference, I would like to see a minimal self-generation system requirement added into building codes across the nation, it would provide a backbone for later enhancement and provide a back-up emergency power system (minimal lights, charging for battery devices, and other minor needs at least during the day) in times of outage.

 

[Indofred]

I find it really hard to understand why people don't save energy in whatever ways they can.
All my light bulbs are energy savers except two.
The last two are because I'm upgrading to even lower power consumption LED units.
Exactly the same light but even less energy use.

My two cars are a mountain bike and a 110cc Yamaha scooter.
The first sails past petrol stations without the slightest thought of filling up, the second uses about a gallon every week or two.

It's true my carbon footprint is small but the cash leaving my wallet is even smaller.
I'm on about 16 times minimum wage so I could do when the hell I liked but I chose to save energy and save cash for more useful things.

 

[Trakar]

I find it really hard to understand why people don't save energy in whatever ways they can.
All my light bulbs are energy savers except two.
The last two are because I'm upgrading to even lower power consumption LED units.
Exactly the same light but even less energy use.

My two cars are a mountain bike and a 110cc Yamaha scooter.
The first sails past petrol stations without the slightest thought of filling up, the second uses about a gallon every week or two.

It's true my carbon footprint is small but the cash leaving my wallet is even smaller.
I'm on about 16 times minimum wage so I could do when the hell I liked but I chose to save energy and save cash for more useful things.

Sounds like a personal set of fiscally conservative lifestyle choices I can respect.

 

[Moonglow]

The military is not waiting for the private sector to choose. It has formulated that biofuels will replace how the military moves.

The military uses more oil than all the citizens in the USA.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A very well thought out and important thread. To bad such discourse can't be had in the halls of Congress.