The director of the green cars project at University of California at Davis has calculated the current equivalent of 70 cents a gallon for plug in electrical vehicles. If you are generating that yourself from solar panels, that probably costs less than half of that. And, at least here in California, people with home solar energy can sell excess electricity back to the grid. This has already been established in a pilot program with the old style solar panels with homeowners barely having electric bills at all when averaged out throughout he year.

__________________
National Debt =

That's fine.. Not too worried about California. I avoid that state as much as possible. Its the left coast, where even a Republican Gov has socialist tendencies.

__________________
Pioneers are walking all around singing songs about Lenin and they should be shot for it.

Handlebars

"If you are looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror"- V

It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.
H. L. Mencken

come on you know you wanna play football..

Beagán agus a rá go maith.

Economic Left/Right: 3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87

Solar fields are not going to be largely effected by earthquakes and even if it is, where the energy is stored will still be able to release that energy for a long time before running dry, time enough to get the solar fields back up and running.

The maintenence for solar is easy and rare. We still have panels from the 60s that are still working fine today.

The cost came out to $16,667 per home, so the average over 15 years is about $1,111 per home per year, that is about what energy currently costs the average home. And seeing as solar panels can easily last 40 plus years, this would seem like one good investment. The final payout could be in upwards of about $800 million profit for somthing that requires almost no work.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

Yes, as you will by now have seen I have admitted this already, I was referring to the wider human benefits from using renweable energy.

That's a new experience for me, I've never been accused of sounding like George W but never mind, regardless of whether or not the great joke agrees with me there is a wealth of scientific evidence to back up the "scare tactics".

This is going way off topic, I'm happy to debate the principles behind taxation elsewhere but at the moment I'd rather concentrat on renewable energy with this project in mind.

I won't defend the people who seek to gain from global warming but recognising that there are people like that does not detract from the scientific evidence, which overwhelmingly states that it is happening, we are at least making it worse if not causing it directly and that we need to change our habits soon. The truth of global warming is evident to most and arguments about money and taxation only serve as a distraction.

__________________
Trust me, I'm a socialist!

There's power in a factory,power in the land, power in the hand of the worker. But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand, there is power in a union.
The union forever defending our rights, down with the blackleg, workers unite. To our brothers and our sisters in many far off lands, there is power in a union.
Money speaks for money, the devil for his own. - Billy Bragg

THere is more money to be made in the big corporate polluter sector than in pushing global warming. Many of these scientists have no incentive to lie anyway, it's quite exaggerated. They are not raking in or going to rake in massive profits from change. Maintaining the status quo does benefit SuperGlobalMegaCorp.

__________________

Uh, we are talking about California.. You are assuming that the storage system isn't effected either.

It's like the Chinese. They build huge dams to control the Yellow River.. but built them in an Earthquake zone. What happen? They came pretty close to failing, and might even still.

You still have to hire a good few people to check ever panel each day to make sure there is no damage.

That pays off the loan but not interest gained. You have to raise the prices move $1,111 to do that.. then add in employee costs. Now remove the Government Subsidizes for it. It's not that profitable for a company, let alone the consumer to switch.

__________________
Pioneers are walking all around singing songs about Lenin and they should be shot for it.

Handlebars

"If you are looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror"- V

It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.
H. L. Mencken

come on you know you wanna play football..

Beagán agus a rá go maith.

Economic Left/Right: 3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87

Yeah.. doesn't matter. If it costs more, it doesn't benefit the whole of society. As it costs more for the poor and middle class.



It is scare tactics and its the same thing President Bush does. You are saying we can't discuss the "evidence". News flash.. All science is fallible.



How is this off topic? You said:

I think it's very key to know how this will be done. You want to Nationalize it all and most of the Climate Change gang agrees with you.

I would rather suffer in 150 degree heat then deal with that. Hell, I might go and buy a whole bunch of oil and start a huge bonfire just to help it along a little bit.

As human needs are a humans needs. A population in Africa won't be able to afford paying for this hype. They will have to borrow from the IMF and just enslave themselves longer to the IMF and the UN.

You don't realize that 3rd World Countries will have millions die due to the use of Bio Fuels. That Massive Deforestation will have to happen just to feed them. That Cap and Trade idea kills industrial growth in the 3rd world. That they will be peasants for the rest of their lives and future generations included. That's not fixing the issue nor is it helping humanity.




It detracts from their "scientific evidence" by 100xs. Just as it did with the Oil Companies who come up with their own numbers. The Oil companies evidence was thrown out so why not the Greedy Green Fvckers?



Its not a distraction. Its the facts. You have 45 trillion to pay for it? Do Governments have 45 trillion to pay for it? No.. So who pays for it.. EVERYBODY. Some poor sap in Africa is going to have pay taxes just for farting or even breathing (Carbon Tax).

You are serving the distraction here. You don't want to talk about who is going to pay for it, because you know if folks realized they would lose half of their incomes over this, revolts would be happening overnight.

__________________
Pioneers are walking all around singing songs about Lenin and they should be shot for it.

Handlebars

"If you are looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror"- V

It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.
H. L. Mencken

come on you know you wanna play football..

Beagán agus a rá go maith.

Economic Left/Right: 3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87

Batteries are very simple devices and can easily be made to withstand shaking. because the panels aren't super tall, they have a very minimal risk of falling down.

Or, to save a lot of money, you could put in a simple computer system to do that. Like just about every single industry on earth does.

Or, like most companies, you have investors which are making a gamble, not going through a bank, so no interest is required. I can't see this power plant needing more than 15 employees, maybe 20, that will only come to about $1 million a year in saleries (at $50,000 a year), and only $60 million after 40 years (adding in minor inflation), that's very little next to the $500 million price tag.

Actually, when it comes down to it, the company can break even by charging about 1/2 the price that people are currently paying for electricity (that would generate $540 million in 30 years, that would cover starting costs and saleries). So they could charge 75% (making for a 33% profit margin, very nice in any industry) and bring in $27 million a year, which at first will make minimal profits (as it pays back the investors), then once the investors are paid off, you're looking at $27 million in profits, with only $1.4 million in employee costs, thats a pretty good profit margin, and leaves tons of room for growth and investing in yourself.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

Not with socialism it doesn't because it ends up being the rich who pay for it, those who are able to, and as OE has demonstrated the increasing cost is not all that great.

You can feel free to discuss the evidence but i will admit I'm not scientifically very strong, but it is true to say that general scientific thought is relatively clear. Science may be fallible but it's the best judge we've got, you can't ignore what we're doing to the earth because there's a tiny chance it's not us.

You want to discuss nationalisation in relation to this issue? That's fine, but let's get this straight first, whether or not you were being facetious climate change will cause much more than hotter weather. We will have an increasing number of natural disasters, many species of plants and animals will die throwing ecosystems out of balance, the sea level will rise drastically causing increased flooding and entire population centres to sink underwater, an increase in tropical diseases world-wide, changes in agriculture causing/increasing food shortages. All of which would cause far more significant economic impact than using renewable energy, and if your rebuttal is to still ignore climate change then I can't debate sensibly with you any further.

Bio-fuel is just one, clearly flawed, method to reduce our effect on the environment there are many more that don't result in cutting down forests. You paint a bleak view but it's simply not true unless we persist with agressive capitalism, hell I don't even know if a seriously moderated capitalism would help. But regardless all the problems are caused by capitalism's inability to recognise that some things are mor important than money in reality, and in fact nastionalisation will only help the recourse-rich poorer countries that have had their recourses taken, stolen, off them by foreign businesses in the supposedly noble name of globalisation.

Because a lot of the scientists don't have the same economic ambitions, and I also highly doubt any evidence was thrown out without first being examined for technical flaws.

Again this is all based on capitalist principles but even within capitalism it makes little sense as lowering carbon emissions does not mean higher costs, certainly not long-term and I see no reason why "some poor sap in Africa" will have to pay for it.

__________________
Trust me, I'm a socialist!

There's power in a factory,power in the land, power in the hand of the worker. But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand, there is power in a union.
The union forever defending our rights, down with the blackleg, workers unite. To our brothers and our sisters in many far off lands, there is power in a union.
Money speaks for money, the devil for his own. - Billy Bragg

Great news for Portugal and the world. Germany is also a leader in solar energy.

When we will we begin here? Obviously not this year. Surely next year under president Obama.