economics of saturation 1331
I saw a study I while back that claimed if all the buildings in London covered their roof surfaces with solar panels, they could almost completely supply the city's energy needs... and this was before some of the more recent technology improvements. Of course that would be an enormously expensive undertaking and would take years to pay for itself, but there is really no good reason to not invest in more solar. It is just a matter of short term expense versus long term return. Crunch the numbers, and even solar technology of the last decade has a good ROI in the long term, especially when you factor in reduced reliance on foreign oil and reduced greenhouse gas emission.
economics of saturation 1332
BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 13:26:26 +0000, It doesn't...
And why stop at solar. Install more wind farms in location that make sense. Extract propane and alcohol from agricultural waste. Even in cases where it costs more than oil, it makes sense in the longer run if it keeps money in the domestic economy rather than sending it to Saudi Arabia.
Holy poo Does Linux SUCK
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Larry Qualig wrote on Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:41:35 -0400 Not sure about that average. Granted, I for one don't have all that big a dataset but...
A real push to increase alternative energy use will lead to economies of scale that will reduce costs and make them even more compebreastive with imported oil. New local businesses will spring up, helping the domestic economy.
On the conservation side, we can make a serious push for more energy efficient light-bulbs, appliances, and hybrid vehicles. Something as simple as a serious effort to better insulate older homes and buildings would seriously reduce energy consumption. The government could encourage all of these with increased taxes on inefficient technologies. It could use the tax revenues to fund energy research, add solar panels to post office, convert government fleet vehicles to hybrid cars... any number of things.
This is one of the big gripes I have with the Bush administration. There energy policy is basically 'buy more foreign oil, drill in Alaska'. They have done almost nothing on the conservation and alternative energy side of things. There are plenty of things we could be doing now that to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, thus reducing our trade deficit, while reducing global warming as added benefit. Of course that would mean going against the wishes of the big oil industry, which is something Bush is unwilling to do.
economics of saturation 1333
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 10:01 Peter Kšhlmann Thanks Peter. I hate to drift off topic like this, and apologies to anybody that it offends. I wonder if...
Cheers, -- Thad Phetteplace