Bill Nye the science guy said that if every home in America had solar panels we would provide 7 times the electricity that we have now.GE has said that if Arizona was covered in their solar panels we would double the amount of electricity in America. Many of my other ideas for “change” depend on the use of electricity. So getting a clean source of electricity is important. By requiring solar panels on every new home the solar panel industry can be jump started, prices will come down and soon every home will have them. If you can afford the price of a new home then $20,000 for a solar panel installation can be afforded.
No new Nuke plants, no new coal fired plants, no new oil fired plants to generate electricity. This is one step on the way to energy self reliance.
Here again, the government has to make some people do what they do not want to do. For those who do not want government regulation, those people need to have a nuclear power plant/coal plant in their back yard. Of course, no complaints on your green-colored skin will be accepted.
15 comments:
Great idea! (Hopefully we'll still be building homes...)
It makes excellent CLEAN sense. I haven't heard of them producing smog or acid rain. Or causing asthma.
Robert F Kennedy, Jr., suggested we take a small portion of the millions of desert acres in the Southwest and cover them with solar collectors. (This was in an article in Rolling Stone Magazine, which is not in their frigging archives!) He maintains that it would produce all the electricity we need...and then some.
So, yeah, let's put those photo-voltaic cells out. We need all the help we can get. Fast!
Unlimited low cost electricity. How can we use it wisely and start a revolution of industrial innovation?
My main man Jerry Taylor has an excellent article on this topic.
"Here again, the government has to make some people do what they do not want to do."
This sounds all super and happy when we agree with the government. But what if we don't?
For example, there are a lot of PETA members who hate the idea of meat, and want to stop rampant obesity in America. Under the principle above, it would be okay for the federal government to ban meat for the Common Good^tm.
Or consider entertainment. People from Tipper Gore to Mike Huckabee have been complaining about sex and violence in our culture, claiming it leads to crime. Under the principle above, it would be okay for the nanny state to start implementing bans on sex and violence in entertainment to protect society.
Me personally? If I want to eat buckets of cheese and watch ultraviolence, it is of no business of the federal government.
Fortunately, our Republic was founded on the idea that you don't have to go along with everyone else, even if everyone else is a majority. We have limited government, the separation of powers, and strict constitutional law-making to prevent us from being exploited by the despotic, the covetous, and the corrupt. Unfortunately, progressives have been telling us for 80 years that the law is whatever judges want it to be.
Jason:
It may be best for all if we got rid of meat. Besides you do eat buckets of cheese balls and watch ultraviolence.
Responsible government provides for the general welfare, insures domestic tranquility and should do what is best for all of us.
Seat belts save lives.
Speed limits save lives.
Home building laws save lives.
If it can be determined that being energy independent is what is necessary, and the way to accomplish that is with solar panels, then the government should make it manditory or provide incentives to accomplish it.
I can see the government making traffic laws and home building laws and guidelines, but I draw the line with them telling me what I can and cannot eat, what I can read, what I can watch on television or at the movies.
independent is what is necessary, and the way to accomplish that is with solar panels,
I am confused between this and your other post about drilling for oil. You say we need to drill off shore here, and then say we need to use solar panels.
I was reading an article on the subject of solar panels and nuclear energy, etc the other day and there were totals provided of how much fuel is used to truck in materials to factories, operation of machinery to make the solar panels, fuel to transport the solar panels...and maintenance. Nuclear power plants are quite expensive to use and require massive transportation of materials to build them, then to maintain it. Using solar panels might cut down on our electricity bills for the individuals or businesses, but as far as eliminating the need for oil, I don't see it happening.
jason, your points about eating as much as you like parallels having as many children as you want. Both are selfish acts that point a glaring spotlight on the question of ethics in America.
And will you still be eating meat when the only ones who can afford it are oligarchic (and miniscule) BigWealth-owners?
And will you still be eating meat when the only ones who can afford it are oligarchic (and miniscule) BigWealth-owners?
As someone at GifS mentioned in a comment thread, I think our bigger concern is water shortage. The Colorado is nearly a dribble and it's source is disappearing with decreasing snowfall/melts every year. Will there eventually be an increasing fight for water than there is oil?
I am trying to think of another idea for water conservation. Can't think of anything to help those who live in the stinkin' desert all watering away their lawns of grass that shouldn't even be there.
"I think our bigger concern is water shortage. The Colorado is nearly a dribble and it's source is disappearing with decreasing snowfall/melts every year. Will there eventually be an increasing fight for water than there is oil?"
Academics and journalists have given your friends a false impression. The world has no water shortage; it is covered with water. Over 70% of the drinking water in Saudi Arabia comes from desalination plants; in Kuwait, the number is 90%+. Desalination could cover the world’s municipal water use with 0.5% of the world’s GDP. Israel and Singapore also do a lot of desalination.
Lack of economic development is what causes water shortages.
"jason, your points about eating as much as you like parallels having as many children as you want."
I suspect you're willing to have the state pay for as many children as people are willing to have. I am not. Think incentives, not intentions. The size of other families is none of my business. If a person owns a successful landscaping business, has seven kids, and sends them all to college, who am I to complain?
What is to my benefit is not necessarily to the detriment of others. If I spend my income to enjoy food, to take an example, it does not harm others. At worst I could be harming myself through bad health, which is the *opposite* of self-interest. Liberals are for the freedom of drug use -- I'm astonished they're not for freedom of food use.
:)
I live near lake Michigan and we have good water. Desalination comes at an energy price. If we have 7 times more electricity than we have now we can power desalination plants and water every inch of America and produce much more food than we do now.
Stardust:
putting solar panels is a change, drilling in Alaska and off the coast of Florida is a change, what needs to be debated is " are these good changes?"
"Desalination comes at an energy price."
As long as we live in a world with scarce resources which have alternative uses, everything will have a price. Market prices let us know the opportunity cost of a given transaction. In other words, prices allow consumers to rationally compare on the spot what is being given up with one course of action versus another.
With the government in charge in a distant capital city, like in the days of the USSR, there is no way for officials to do rational accounting, which always resulted ridiculous surpluses and shortages. Government intervention creates the same effects in the USA, from education to healthcare. When distant officials try to play "pin the tail on the donkey" with production decisions, there is no way to tell what supply is needed where, by whom, and at what time. Consumers, with first-hand knowledge, dictate what gets produced in a market by voting with their dollars.
Progressives tend to interpret prices as obstacles to get what we want. Economists in contrast see prices as little thermometers indicating an underlying reality, that is, the relative scarcity and demand for a commodity or service.
It follows that a good change is one individuals can profit from. That's old-fashioned and not very sexy, but it is change we can believe in.
A friend of mine from England who is concerned about conserving energy and saving money says that she and her husband seriously considered solar panels for their home. After meeting with a sales rep, and going over the figures, and long term return, it would take 15 years to get most of your money back on it, and the solar panels are only warranties 15 years. So....is it really worth it in the long run?
The thing with solar panels is that the technology will be improving over the years, so if you splurge to buy panels now, you are basically locking yourself into technology that might be obsolete in a few years. Last week's issue of The Economist has an article about solar that might interest you.
Start to create a market for solar panels and the technology will improve. Jason is against that idea but is for McCains 300 million dollar prize for a better battery. Creating a market to spur new ideas and lower prices or offer a reward. Two ends to the same means.
Post a Comment