Solar Power Eliminates Utility Bills in U.S. Home

skyhawker writes "Yahoo! News is running an article about a New Jersey home that uses solar power to provide 100% of its energy needs, including fuel for the owner's hydrogen fuel cell-powered automobile. From the article: 'Strizki runs the 3,000-square-foot house with electricity generated by a 1,000-square-foot roof full of photovoltaic cells on a nearby building, an electrolyzer that uses the solar power to generate hydrogen from water, and a number of hydrogen tanks that store the gas until it is needed by the fuel cell. In the summer, the solar panels generate 60 percent more electricity than the super-insulated house needs. The excess is stored in the form of hydrogen which is used in the winter -- when the solar panels can't meet all the domestic demand -- to make electricity in the fuel cell.'"

At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[Colin Smith]

Hmm?

And this is the reason so few people (including me) are "green".

 

Sounds great...

[ivan256]

Until you learn that the rig cost 5x what he would have spent on energy over his entire lifetime even though it will probably wear out in ten years. Also, now that his insurance company has read the story and knows he has a big ol' tank of hydrogen in his house he id uninsured, and uninsurable. Additionally, if anything ever does go wrong, his neighbors are sure to sue him into financial ruin.

Good job showing everybody how infeasible this kind of thing is though!

Solar

[Anonymous Coward]

Greeat. It only cost a half a million bucks to avoid a
$100/month bill...

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[UbuntuDupe]

Actually, the reason so few people are green is because greens act like you're a terrorist if you suggest that maybe, just maybe, you might be irritated by fluorescent lights, even if you're willing to cut back in a zillion other ways, and even if the FL's would destroy productivity that could be used to research or construct earth saving solutions.

That said, keep in mind that $500,000 is the cost of one person doing it, the first time. Once returns to scale and all kick in, it would be less, and you have to figure in the relative dollar value you'd place on e.g. not depending on the grid or gas prices.

Quit doubting it based on cost.

[Lethyos]

People are whining about how it costs a half-million dollars. It is so expensive because of low volume. We need early adopters like this guy to start the ball rolling. Once more people buy into this form of energy production, the cheaper it will become.

Only expensive for now

[tarlos25]

Of course it will be expensive for the early adopters. But as solar panels mature, and more energy independence options become available, it will be much more economically feasible. The first people to do this don't do it for the monetary savings (or if they do, they're wrong), they do it to make a statement that it can be done.

Bloviating...While Losing Money

[BoRegardless]

It has been possible to do this since solar cells were invented. It was not possible to get a real break even versus standard energy sources "back then" in the 60's, nor is it possible to get to break even now today in the next 25 years, and I submit from the article my evidence:

"Caminiti argues that the cost of the hydrogen/solar setup works out at about $4,000 a year when its $100,000 cost is spread over the anticipated 25-year lifespan of the equipment. That's still a lot higher than the $1,500 a year the average U.S. homeowner spends on energy, according to the federal government. Even if gasoline costs averaging about $1,000 per car annually are included in the energy mix, the renewables option is still more expensive than the grid/gasoline combination."

So what is new here?

I guess the "early adopter" price is $0.5M

[Proteus]

Yeah, at $0.5M US, it's a steep price to pay just to be free of utility bills, or just to be "green". But please don't forget that it still has value.

This early adopter is proving that you *can* be self-sufficient using solar energy. That's a big deal. And, if a people -- and more importantly, organizations -- start seeing solar energy as having potential, more people will fund research into improving the technology and making it cheaper. At least, that's the hope.

Early adopters help drive the price of technology down, so don't be so quick to judge this guy's choice -- he's helping to make solar power more available to the masses, in his own small way.

Besides, in being the first, he'll probably make back his $500K in promotional considerations and/or the lecture circuit. ;-)

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[Itchyeyes]

Once returns to scale and all kick in, it would be less, and you have to figure in the relative dollar value you'd place on e.g. not depending on the grid or gas prices.

This is the line that people have been saying for 20 years now. The fact of the matter is that solar power hasn't yet reached a point where cells are efficient enough to pay back the initial monetary cost in a reasonable time frame. Prices have fallen a lot, and will continue to fall. However, there is still a long ways to go. It will likely be yet another 15-20 years before solar power is a viable option for the average homeowner.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you reject leading an environmentally friendly life because "the greens" annoy you, you're a complete twit.

Proof of concept - cost is a side issue

[AJWM]

Sure it's not cost effective. Prototypes and one-offs rarely are.

As a proof-of-concept, though, it's highly successful. This guy is demonstrating, not just hand-waving, that one can be entirely energy self-sufficient through solar power, even with the crappy efficiency of current mass produced photovoltaic panels.

Find a way to increase the efficiency and/or drop the price of the panels (and H2 storage system, fuel cells, etc) and it starts to look really attractive. More so if you want to build somewhere way off-grid. And without some of the attendant problems of a windmill.

The next time somebody argues that you can't live off-grid just on solar power, you can point to this guy. Then the argument comes down to cost-effectiveness, which depends on a lot of other factors.

Re:If I were a New Jersey Taxpayer...

[Aladrin]

"But had the same money been used to, say, help elderly people on fixed incomes heat their houses?"

Then 90% of it would have been misappropriated and used for personal projects of the administrators, and the other 10% would have gone to people who didn't really need it, but felt they were entitled to it.

Consider this an investment in science. It's expensive, and rarely pays out immediately. They probably learned quite a bit about how to manufacture and install these items through the mistakes found in the process. You won't see the improvements immediately, but you will within your lifetime. And no, I don't know what they'll be yet. I'm not psychic enough. Some research doesn't have a specific goal.

Re:huge savings

[AmericanInKiev]

I think you should include Oil-War Casualties in your calculations:

Perhaps like

It will only take 415 years and 12,000 US dead and maimed soldiers to pay for the oil-related energy.

I'm not sure, you do the math.

AIK

Re:Okay, good idea, but this sucks

[eln]

Move to a neighborhood without a draconian HOA.

Seriously, I hate those things. A bunch of busybody housewives with nothing better to do than to stick their noses in other people's business. I'd rather deal with having a neighbor with a rusted-out trans am in his yard than have to deal with some harpy telling me my grass is 1/4" too long. I own the damn property, I don't need some jackass telling me it has to look exactly like everyone else's.

Agreed, less is simply more with energy

[tentimestwenty]

Generating electricity in cleaner ways is nice but not nearly as efficient or green as simply using less. Production is a very small part of the problem. Consumption is what we have to deal with.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[CohibaVancouver]

>the reason so few people are green

I think the reason is the one you suggest lower down in your post - The cost.

I should really improve my insulation, but don't. Why? Because there's no payback in natural gas savings.

I could install solar heat, but I don't. Why? No payback.

I could buy a hybrid car. I don't. Why? No payback

...so I do the things I can afford: Recycle, fix dripping taps, take the bus when I can. I realize there are often higher-purpose reasons than cost savings, but many people simply can't *afford* to be green.

Not very envoronmentally friendly

[viking80]

From TFA: the cost of the installation was about $500,000, including about $50,000 of lead acid batteries.

I would suggest that the environmental impact of building this house, and recycling the consumables far outweighs the lowered energy consumption.

Just recycling an estimated 1 ton of toxic, heavy metal, lead a year (assuming 10 ton installation with life expectancy of 10 years), has a big environmental impact.

Solar panel manufacturing also consumes a lot of resources, and end up not beeing so clean overall.

A $500,000 investment would probably give a thousand times better ROI if it was spent on pollution reduction in india or china, or to save rainforest.

Re:Proof of concept - cost is a side issue

[Stewie241]

But what really needs to be looked at is the OVERALL cost. What I mean by this, is: What are the environmental costs of producing the panels? What byproducts does this produce (i.e. another poster mentioned product of hydrogen vehicle... H20 - on a small scale this has negligible effect, on a large scale, what would this do?)? What happens to the panels when they eventually degrade? Is this safe waste? I don't know the answers... just raising the questions. Ian

Re:I wonder...

[hey!]

I'd want to shake your hand.

I have an eight year old son. When he reaches draft age, I don't want him over in the Middle East fighting for "our way of life" -- at least if "our way of life" is just code for "unrestrained consumption of petroleum".

Re:Quit doubting it based on cost.

[mabu]

The overall environmental impact of solar cells is still worse than the equivalent traditional electrical generation would be.

The experts (IDontAgreeWithYou (829067)) have spoken. Case closed I guess.

I'm really sick of this bogus astroturfing. Just because you or your family work at/for some oil company isn't a reason to spread unsubstantiated FUD. This issue affects everybody, including mercinary, narrow-minded, right-wing-types who want to piss on any change to the energy status quo.

One thing I can be thankful of is that people throughout history didn't have your dumbass mindset. Otherwise every time we tried to solve a problem, some dork like you would go, "Oh it's too expensive. It's too destructive. It's not practical.." and go back to hitting small animals over the heads with a club and waiting for the gods to strike the ground in fury to create fire.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[Deagol]

And this is the reason so few people (including me) are "green".

Then you, like this guy (and so many others), sadly miss the point of "being green".

I used to subscribe to Home Power Magazine [homepower.com], and while they have some great technical and inspiring articles, I got fed up with what some call "greenie weenies". All too often each magazine showcases some 3000+ square foot home built buy some lawyer or retired electrical engineer in 20+ remote acres in northern California, the array itself often costing way more than a typical house for the average American. While technologically cool, these monster systems defeat the purpose of actually giving a shit about one's footprint upon this tiny planet of ours.

These well-to-do yuppies invariably pat themselves on the back for installing huge solar/wind arrays, so they can heat/cool their huge houses, power a full suite of modern electrical conveniences, and live "normal" lives while thinking they've actually made a difference. I argue that houses that large, with all the materials included in their construction, negate *any* good the lifetime of alternative energy produced will provide to the global system.

Sure, not all folks who install these systems do it for altruistic reasons -- why not take advantage of tax write-offs/credits and state/federal subsidies, or that $100k system may be cheaper than running the grid 5 miles to their big new homes. But it really chaps my hide when these types are actually lauded for a contribution to society that they, in fact, haven't made.

Until technology advances to a near-limitless source of non-polluting power such as fusion, conservation means making a real sacrifice in your lives for the greater good. It *should* be a painful, daily reminder to the practitioners -- like how some religious fasting is supposed to remind its practitioners of humility, etc.. And even beyond the power aspect, resources of *all* types should be conserved. What the hell does a yuppie DINK (double-income-no-kids) couple *need* a house with a square footage over 1000? They don't. I covet libertarian ideals enough, and I loathe the idea of telling people how to enjoy their lives. However, the tragedy of the commons is alive and well on this planet, and it saddens me when even well-to-do folks, who often *can* make a real impact, choose not to out of some sort of entitlement.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[hey!]

Suppose you had this revolutionary idea called "drywall". You want to show the world the advantages of drywall by building your house with it.

The problem is that it doesn't exist yet. So you pay a manufacturing company to create your drywall sheets for you. When you're done, you're looking at $500,000 in costs. You didn't even save much if anything on the installation over using plasterers, because you had to train the guys on how to do the installation, and they probably need a bunch of specialized tools that don't exist yet.

Obviously, then, drywall is a bad idea.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[SatanicPuppy]

There is a world of difference between putting a half million dollars into personal energy independence, and putting two thousand dollars into getting your home re-insulated, or buying some five dollar florescent light bulbs. That's what being "green" is about: Not using more energy than you have to. You can do that, and save yourself money at the same time.

People like you who willfully miss the point of intelligent environmentalism make me crazy. It's not about a bunch of damn hippies and their incoherent agenda, it's about being a better consumer. But noooo, as soon as you say the word "environment" you're just some whackjob liberal out to save the baby harp seals, and make everyone ride a bike to work.

Re:Very nice, but solar power isn't all clean...

[Your Pal Dave]

If your going to include production for solar panels you need to remember that fossil fuels don't exactly jump out of the ground and into your furnace. Strip mines, refineries, natural gas production [newwest.net] all have a significant environmental cost.

Re:Cost savings still a long ways away

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

The cost is actually much higher, you should calculate what the value of that 100,000 dollars would be after it was in a solid investment for 25 years.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[CokeBear]

How can all you people be so short-sighted? Yes, the first one was $500,000, and the second one will cost about $100,000. The next batch will cost $50,000, and then you open it up to free market forces and the price plummets. Get with the program here, this will be the way we go in the future. This guy is way ahead of the game, and we should be doing everything we can to encourage it. Distributed power is the answer. No more centralized points of failure, targets for terrorism, or sources of pollution.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[Waffle Iron]

However, much of that cost difference is because the current fossil fuel infrastructure is set up at a huge industrial scale, and this solar power stuff are produced in a boutique fashion. There may not be any intrinsic reason for solar power to be more expensive if production were scaled up.

One comparable example is aluminum beverage cans. If you look at them closely, they're a marvel of precision engineering. Still, they currently don't cost much more than 5 cents per piece to make, mostly because they are cranked out by the billions every month. Now imagine that you didn't have the huge existing food industry to drive that market and only a few thousand cans were produced monthly worldwide. Because of the overhead for the elaborate process that it takes to form the cans, I'd be surprised if you could purchase aluminum pop cans for less than $20 each. However, that wouldn't mean that aluminum cans are intrinsically expensive to make with current technology; it just would mean that production rates aren't big enough to create economies of scale.

Re:Total energy cost

[CreatureComfort]

Not only that, but if you compare how much pollution was created in the manufacture, and eventual disposal of the equipment, especially some of the toxins that may be in the solar cells and batteries, vs how much actual pollution could be accredited to production of the "grid" electricity from a modern, clean coal or even nuclear plant, he probably is significantly harming the environment as well. FTA it says that the $500k cost includes certain donations including $50,000 worth of batteries from Exide . They estimate the lifespan of the house and technologies at 25 years, but those batteries are only going to last 5-8 years before needing replacement, and they have very nasty stuff in them, whatever technology they are based on (probably gelcell). Talk about pollution intensive and not totaling all costs.

Also from the article, even if they could get the installation cost down to $100k, and if all the equipment lasts 25 years with no additional costs for maintenance, that is $4k per year in costs vs $1.5 per year in savings, which is the average family's annual energy cost in the U.S.

Re:Very nice, but solar power isn't all clean...

[hey!]

Over what timespan?

Assuming a lifespan of 40 years, I'd guess that it is less polluting to use solar cells than to use fossil fuels. Furthermore, if solar cells were leased instead of sold (providing a long term revenue stream for solar energy companies), old cells could be remanufactured by the suppliers at a fraction of the original environmental and energy costs.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[caseydk]

I was very excited to read that prices are dropping 7% per year however. That would imply the production cost would be roughly $50,000 in 6 years. $50,000 in six years is very unlikely to generate enough interest income to cover gasoline and electricity (my electric runs about $1800 a year and gas about $1200 a year).

Even at 25 years - the expected lifetime of the system - this brings the cost down to $2k/year. The article also says that the "average" US household spends about $1500 on electric/year. So it's getting close, but it's not quite there. Personally, I'm looking forward to buildings who have huge roofs (think Walmart, etc) install solar cells.... they're likely to be the first to do it just to cut costs.

Unfortunately, they're still going to get hammered by the Greens, because:
1) having a huge areas of dark material are going to increase the air temperature in the immediate area; and
2) once they're off the grid, the demand goes down, so the price goes down which slows people's motivation to convert or conserve.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[microTodd]

So you're saying the ONLY reason to switch is to save money? What about other reasons? Saving the environment? Being a good steward to the Earth? Being an ubergeek?

There's more to life than money...

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

When he reaches draft age,

Um.. considering that there is no draft now, and no draft for the foreseeable future, I'd say you have your panties in a bunch over nothing.

If he wants to sign up when he is old enough, that is his choice. You are just another overbearing, overprotective parent who is letting your hatred of Bush blind you to reality.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[Matt Perry]

I pay an average of $150/month for electricity, $50/month for natural gas, and $200/month for gasoline.

Today you pay that rate. Don't assume that energy costs won't continue to rise over the next 10-20 years.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[cayenne8]

"What the hell does a yuppie DINK (double-income-no-kids) couple *need* a house with a square footage over 1000? They don't."

Geez..you must not have much stuff, eh?

I'm a single guy, and my stuff easily takes up and fills 1400-1700 sqft. I usually go for 3 bedroom places...one for bedroom, one for office (and several servers that stay on 24/7), and one for my hobby storage area (and spare bedroom too if needed) for all my beer making stuff, burners, propane tanks, etc.

That was when I was renting...I'm looking to buy a house now, and I really want one more room for a game room...to put a couple pinball machines in, MAME cabinet, and maybe even a real, old fashioned large air hockey table.

Some people have a lot of stuff....and takes up room my man. Not everyone is a minimalist when it comes to living. I work for one reason and one reason only, to make enough money to buy the things that please me and allow me to travel, and go and do as I please.

Life is too short to do without and be a drudgery...

Re:Fiscal advantages ?

[aegl]

The USA federal government offers up to a $2000 tax credit (and for any meaningful solar PV system you are likely to qualify for the full amount).

Some states also offer incentives. I live in California where the rebate was at $2.60 per installed watt (which is enough to cover roughly a third of the total installed price) last year. They've messed with the rules this year to base it on actual power generated, rather than expected energy output ... but it is still a pretty hefty chunk of change.

While some might think that this goes against the usual USA plan of tax breaks for Hummers, it still fits in with the Republican philosophy of tax breaks for the rich ... only home owners with enough spare cash (or borrowing capacity) can take advantage.

Re:I wonder...

[wolff000]

Last I checked pretty much all parents want to keep kids out of any situation they could be killed in. I don't know a single parent that wants their child fighting in any war. How does this make the guy blinded by hatred for Bush? He just wants his kid to grow old and instead of getting shot. I seriously doubt that anyone saw the last draft coming 10 years in advance which is when his 8 year old would be eligible. If the "war on terror" continues for 10 years a draft would be more likely than today. Especially since the armies numbers for registration are still dropping below what they need. He didn't say there was a draft or there was going to be one. You could argue it was implied but that would be making an assumption and we all know what assuming does. He didn't mention Bush or even the government so how do you know that he hates Busch? You could assume but again not a good choice. I am not opposed to bashing someone but if you do it at least make some sense. It seems to me the only one blinded here is you. I won't make any ASSumptions why though. I'll leave that to people like you.

Back on topic. This is great I hope this gets other people in projects like this. Imagine a whole city powered by the sun and hydrogen! We could leave pretty green in a short amount of time if the government would support projects like this. Not necessarily with dollars but tax breaks on the people that use it and tax breaks on the equipment to make it happen. Say no sales tax on solar panels and other stuff needed for things like this. I for one can't wait for the day I can install a setup like this and tell the local power company to bug off. I currently leave in an apartment so it is not possible right now.

Re:Quit doubting it based on cost.

[Reziac]

What it really needs is to be adopted by small local and rural co-ops, the same way phone and electric service was brought to farm country in the first place. Also, maybe having real local people responsible for it would encourage better service.

It may not be practical to adapt an existing metro area, but would certainly be feasible as part of new housing developments.

(Crap, I just said something to encourage housing developments. I think I'll go wash my brain out with soap.)

Slave to the Grid

[camperdave]

That is an interesting project you've got going there, and if significant numbers of people start installing your system then the country will see a decrease in the amount of fuel used for power generation. However, it does not get you off the grid, and if more and more people start using your system it will drive the cost of power up.

You claim that the transmission and distribution of that electricity must rely on accurate operation and proper maintenance of its lines. But what happens when demand exceeds delivery capacity, or when lines fail. Your system does nothing to remedy this. Indeed your system relies on that infrastructure being there. There is no local storage of the power generated: the utility - in effect - stored the power that was produced by your REnU. You're selling power to the utility during the day, and buying it back at night (and in cloudy weather). So, instead of being a paying customer, they are a money hole. Not only does the power company still have to spend the same amount of money maintaining the infrastructure, they also have to pay their former customer. Costs go up, revenue goes down. Solution: raise the price of power.

Not only that, but you're still vulnerable to power outages. Sure, you'll have power during the day, when it's sunny, but you'll have no power at night when you need it.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll find me a nice little waterfall to live by, and stick a water wheel in it.

Re:I wonder...

[AmericanInKiev]

I wonder if its that simple.

I think shale will be harvested in the future.

But the problem perhaps - may be that as long as "Cheap Oil (tm)" exists, then it is very important to have access to cheap oil in order to globally competitive. or example, if China were to be getting "Cheap Oil tm" and the US were to try to compete economically or militarily with an economy powered by "uncheap oil (cl)" it would place the US at a long term disadvantage.

So in a sense, regardless of the cost, it is a competitive problem if cheap oil exists and a county is excluded from using it.

(my pinion is that we should use more renew ables to improve our economy and solve this problem - but I doubt that is the position of the administration. clearly the dems are in favor of more renewables. We'll see)

AIK

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[ivan256]

Modern solar panels have a much longer life expectancy these days and enough bang for the buck to make the conversion worthwhile in expensive energy markets like New Jersey.

You didn't RTFA.

First of all, there is much, much, more to this system than the panels.

Second, even the article concedes that this solution is significantly more expensive than the costs of energy consumption it is replacing in a worst case comparison. Learn, think, and then speak. Not the other way around please.

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[Deagol]

Geez..you must not have much stuff, eh?

Family of 4 in 800-ft^2 house. In least in real estate terms. There's maybe 400 more upstairs, but it doesn't count due to the ceiling being slanted. More like loft space.

Life is too short to do without and be a drudgery...

Living w/o doesn't always imply drudgery. Most human lives run the same length, but each of us choose our own path to wander with that time. I doubt my family's simple, (more) earth-friendly lifestyle will leave any more/less legacy than yours acquiring a ton of stuff and travelling. Nor do I think that the quality of life of my children or grandchildren will be improved due the actions of my single family (it would take a significant percentage of the population to sacrifice to affect change). However, we try to live by example.

Your attitude on life is all too common. And while I don't fault you personally (after all, it is in our basic animal instincts to be selfish in the Darwinian sense), I do fault our society as a whole which not only condemns, but *encourages* such thinking. Gotta love Capitalism. :)

I have to ask, though... do you have *no* awareness or empathy of how millions/billions of people living like yourself will eventually lead to permanent damage and loss to our resources and ecology?

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[UbuntuDupe]

Look, if you're trying to convince me that I don't feel something that I believe do, you're likely going to fall short. I hope I won't sound rude if I assert without basis that I know my consciousness better than you know my consciousness. Even if, as a green, you are smarter than everyone.

I hate fluorescent lights, and every CFL I've tried. The debate ends there. Even if it's purely a placebo (anti-placebo?) effect, it doesn't matter. I don't have a way to cancel it, since I'll always know what I'm using.

Then, if you accept that I have loss of productivity or additional stress, you have to consider the ecological consequences of that. Production I don't accomplish is a loss to the labor pool, which is that much less that can't be used for researching better solutions or building them. My inability to relax at home means I'll have to find some other way to do it, which means driving around (that I wouldn't otherwise have to do).

There's really no excuse for not replacing a lot of your home's wasteful incandescent bulbs with CFLs,

Sure there is. How about, "I already have a way smaller ecological footprint than the median due to living in a 660 sq. ft. apartment, driving a fuel-efficient car, using ~300 kwh per month of electricity, and not requiring parkland for my recreational needs." ? Why the focus on whether I slavishly adhere to a hastily-thought-out rote process for reducing my energy usage, rather than on how much I'm actually using?

Re:Okay, good idea, but this sucks

[ProfBooty]

oddly enough you might find that non HOA properties in some areas of the country (such as vegas) are selling for more than non HOA properites....

I have no problem with the rules in my own HOA, just that the managing agent has attempted to apply rules that don't exist (and are most likely from other properities they manage) on several occasions. (namely condo rules and I live in a townhouse.)

I'm involved in my own HOA and run one of the committies, I am looking to get out of my home because I am sick of being harrassed and having the HOA back down and admit they are wrong in that no such CC&R exisits. I would gladly pay a 10% premiumn to not be harassed.

congratulations

[Anonymous Coward]

"t *should* be a painful, daily reminder to the practitioners -- like how some religious fasting is supposed to remind its practitioners of humility, etc"

Congratulations on setting the conservation movement back 1500 years.

If you're going to turn it into a religion, then it defeats the purpose. By all means, worship at the alter of self-flagellation, but don't think it makes you morally superior. It just means that instead of workship Jesus/Budda/Allah, you worship conservation.

Everyone else will try to figure out the more viable option of working with society to reduce the amount damage done by man to make sure the human race survives for the foreseeable future. We don't want to live in mud huts living like Gilligans Island because it serves some sort of bizarre Gaia worship that you enjoy.

We just want to make sure our cars, our big screen TV's, etc are as efficient as practical.

 

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[cayenne8]

"I have to ask, though... do you have *no* awareness or empathy of how millions/billions of people living like yourself will eventually lead to permanent damage and loss to our resources and ecology?"

Well, I'd like to think I do have a concience, and I try to do good for other people, etc, but, really when it comes to thinking of the environment, etc. In all honesty, I have to say no, I really don't give it a 2nd thought.

I was in a discussion with others once..and I guess what was the truth blurted out...basically that what do I care? I mean, I'll be dead and gone by the time it all goes to hell, so what do I care about it? I won't be here to deal with it when it all goes up on 'flames'.

I've never recycled, no cared about how much gas I burned (my previous car, lost in Katrina, was a little German one that got only 10 mpg)...I like to burn fireplaces in the winter when further up north, and I keep the AC on when at home pretty much from May till Nov...at comfy levels, I don't like to sweat unless I'm in the gym.

I dunno...I don't go out of my way to be non-green, but, really...I never give it a 2nd thought. I don't know many people who do. While I applaud people who choose something like this, and live true to their conviction, I personally have never given it consideration.

If you make it economically good to me, then, I listen. I listen when money is involved. I like to make it and save it so I can spend it. If there was financial incentive to being more green...I'd be leading the pack to live that way.

This is the same mistake they make about traffic

[Colin Smith]

If the world power consumption stays on its current growth rate, and if anything it's poised to accelerate, then by 2040 we will need to double the worlds energy production.

Um, nope... Our use of energy, and roads increase to fill existing capacity. You could double the amount of energy produced tomorrow, and the number of roads and what'd happen is that our use would simply double to fill it. If we cap our energy production or roads, our use will remain static at the current level. If you reduce the energy production or roads, we will simply use them more efficiently.

The key concept is that it's a general principle. We tend towards the use of all available capacity of a resource. Be it oil, water, energy, roads whatever. It's why btw, we won't end up with perpetual gridlock in the future, no matter what we do to our roads.

 

Re:At $500,000... How long to pay back the cost?

[Deagol]

Well at least you're internally consistent an honest person, which puts you above quite a few others. The ones who buy a few organically grown bath robes from whatever trendy simple living magazine they get in the mail and call themselves "green" are the folks that should be hung out to dry as hypocrites.

Re:Insightful?

[hey!]

The "war" we are in now is a generational struggle between cultures, like the Cold War. Three is no end in sight.

Nobody in his right mind thinks the troops have signed on for a struggle that is going to last for decades.

If you want to be legalistic, then the only declared war was over Sadaam's WMD. That's long over. We're dicking around in a conflict now. If it were warfare, we'd be winning. It's not and we're not. What it is is nation building. Our guys mostly aren't fighting battles, they're trying to police a country full of hostile inhabitants, a task they're not trained or equipped to do.

Technically, I'm not arguing that the President can't use stop loss. What I'm arguing is that it is morally wrong to use a clause that's there for dealing with a state of war to turn the military into a police force.