[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]That would depend where you live. I'm in Arizona, so we have a good 340 or so days of sun a year. But look- the average American household spends 100$ a month on electrical bills- so if pannels cost $20000, (I'm assuming you left out a zero in your estimate) then it will take under 16 years for them to pay for themselves. Not to mention that there are various government incentives. But this is just residential- actual power companies could make great use out of useless but sunny land.airshocker

New York is much different. For one, we don't have the desert like you guys do, and we also have lots, and lots of trees that obstruct sunlight. Nuclear power is really the only cost-effective kind of power we have.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

Would you consider Hiyao Miyazaki as anime? That's about the only anime I like. Watchedt hem all as a kid but upon viewing them again recently I have gained a new appreciation for them. Castle in the Sky is my favorite.

dercoo

Why wouldn't you?

:?

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Why does it seem that every year something like this gets said by a different source only for another source to come along and say something different? This has been going on since I was a kid in the 90s.

Really there isn't anything we can do about it short of nuking China, India, and any other southeast Asian country that industry is being built up in. So you can throw around all of the "solutions" across this board all you want, until you can convince China and the rest of those industrial countries to adapt some environmental laws, nothing is changing.

Taking cars and SUVs off the road because they cause to many greenhouse gasses is just silly. How about build new nuclear power plants? Oh wait, the hippies also have a problem with that. Well let's keep burning coal because you green energy solutions are extremely expensive and don't output nearly enough power.

Mac8457

The people that come along and say different are usually funded by petrol companies, or, are politicians with no knowledge of science also funded by big business.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

But you won't have to pay more. I for one have solar pannels and within ten years they have more than paid for themselves. If actual energy providers used them as well, the prices will also be lower because they do not actually have to pay to purchase and import actual fuel- not to mention that a feild of solar pannels takes a lot less maintenence than a coal or nuclear power plant.

airshocker

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty skeptical at that.

See, me and my Dad are contractors and we've actually been looking into solar panels and they are very, very expensive. About $2000 to do the entire section of our roof. Not to mention you have to have a roof that faces a certain direction(for us it's south). Secondly, they can't power the entire house, so we'd have to use electricity from the power company at some point.

So basically, even if we did drop the money to put them on our roof(well, his roof), we'd still have to use the power company. Solar panels, at this point in their existence, will never provide the kind of electricity you're thinking of.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

I never was great at spelling :P

In any case, revamping our energy infrastructure to depend more upon clean fuel sources can have only beneficial effects. We cut out dependence upon foreign oil, we of course vastly reduce carbon emissions, and create more sustainable jobs, all at the cost of an initial high price tag, but within a decade or so (just speculation by the way, I don't really have the time to look up exact statistics) it will more than pay off. Now, if teh US leads the way, then otehr nations will be more inclined to follow

airshocker

And I'm absolutely fine with using more clean energy sources. What I'm NOT fine with is having to pay more to use them.

My other major problem is, I'm not willing to spend more money just to reduce carbon emissions. When the rest of the world follows suit I'll be happy to play along. But not before then. I simply do not see what our country can do when others will continue to do what they've always done and prosper.

But you won't have to pay more. I for one have solar pannels and within ten years they have more than paid for themselves. If actual energy providers used them as well, the prices will also be lower because they do not actually have to pay to purchase and import actual fuel- not to mention that a feild of solar pannels takes a lot less maintenence than a coal or nuclear power plant.

Is this even a question? Gandalf

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

They're developing nations. Naturally, they will bawk at any motion to limit their industries when established first world nations refuse to do the same.

airshocker

China and India can hardly be considered developing nations. And the word you're looking for is balk, btw.

I balk at the idea of doing myself and my country harm just to pander to environmentalists. What we do won't change anything. Either the entire world does something together, or nothing. Of course I'm talking about carbon taxing.

I never was great at spelling :P

In any case, revamping our energy infrastructure to depend more upon clean fuel sources can have only beneficial effects. We cut out dependence upon foreign oil, we of course vastly reduce carbon emissions, and create more sustainable jobs, all at the cost of an initial high price tag, but within a decade or so (just speculation by the way, I don't really have the time to look up exact statistics) it will more than pay off. Now, if teh US leads the way, then otehr nations will be more inclined to follow

I think it's great that the government can't officially endorse one religion or another. What saddens me a bit is when people take an extreme stance on issues like this (and, unfortunately too many people appease them).

Example: I learned not too long ago that the elementary school I attended as a kid no longer allows kids to exchange Holiday/Christmas/Hannukah/Kwanza/etc cards. I could understand not allowing it during class. But not during lunch and not even during recess. NOWHERE on school grounds. While it's not the end of the world, I think it's silly. I thought we want kids to learn about the beliefs and cultures of other, no?

Planet_Pluto

That's kinda rediculous. Christmas is more of a western holiday now, not a christian one. Coming from a secular family (I myself am an atheist) we always celebrated Christmans.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

The US has the highest per capita emissions rates in the world, not to mention we are the largest producer of garbage, not to mention we've always shied away from international environmental agreements. If we expect developing countries to cut back on their emissions, we have to lead the way and set an example.

Yes, taking crappy cars off the road will help somewhat with emissions. I am all in favor of taxing the **** out of people whose cars get under 20 MPG. I am a strong proponent of nuclear power, and of solar energy. And we will be in a hell of a lot more trouble when we burn off allthe fossil fuel and have no infrastructure of clean energy sources. Here in Arizona, we have thousands of square miles of useless, barren land that gets the most sun of any area in teh country, yet there are absolutely no solar powere plants. It is absolutely apalling. Not to mention that it will create more jobs, so there.

airshocker

When China and India do something about their emissions, maybe then we'll talk.

They're developing nations. Naturally, they will bawk at any motion to limit their industries when established first world nations refuse to do the same.

Why does it seem that every year something like this gets said by a different source only for another source to come along and say something different? This has been going on since I was a kid in the 90s.

Really there isn't anything we can do about it short of nuking China, India, and any other southeast Asian country that industry is being built up in. So you can throw around all of the "solutions" across this board all you want, until you can convince China and the rest of those industrial countries to adapt some environmental laws, nothing is changing.

Taking cars and SUVs off the road because they cause to many greenhouse gasses is just silly. How about build new nuclear power plants? Oh wait, the hippies also have a problem with that. Well let's keep burning coal because you green energy solutions are extremely expensive and don't output nearly enough power.

Wasdie

The US has the highest per capita emissions rates in the world, not to mention we are the largest producer of garbage, not to mention we've always shied away from international environmental agreements. If we expect developing countries to cut back on their emissions, we have to lead the way and set an example.

Yes, taking crappy cars off the road will help somewhat with emissions. I am all in favor of taxing the **** out of people whose cars get under 20 MPG. I am a strong proponent of nuclear power, and of solar energy. And we will be in a hell of a lot more trouble when we burn off allthe fossil fuel and have no infrastructure of clean energy sources. Here in Arizona, we have thousands of square miles of useless, barren land that gets the most sun of any area in teh country, yet there are absolutely no solar powere plants. It is absolutely apalling. Not to mention that it will create more jobs, so there.