Cliff's Comments

Russ, you wrote, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you are the one who introduced nuclear into the discussion ...? No, that was Alex - comment 22.

You're right Alex, it's about solar and how to market it.

Alex,

Odd that you'd argue my point when the record is here in black and white.

In your first post you insult Sunrun and author Steve Leone: 'the writer doesn't even have the gumption to include an email address to hear from those he depends on propagandizing!'

'About as unprofessional as one could be ....'

'Leone needs an editor to quash his juvenile prose.'

In your second and third posts you continue with the insults. Not until your fourth post did you start with your off-topic and often repeated advocacy for nukes: 'Here are the nuke safety stats... blah, blah, blah'

So Alex, with that issue behind us maybe you can answer Bob Mitchell's question, 'What's the hold up?'

How much longer do we need to wait for electricity so cheap we won't need a meter?

Russ, I'm afraid you don't know me well enough to say what I do or don't get. You may recall that this discussion began about solar PV - some clever ads in particular. What Alex does is rather consistent within these renewableenergyworld.com discussions. He attacks what ever form of renewable energy is being discussed and then, within a post or two, begins advocating for his brand of nuclear power. It would seem that there are enough on-line discussion on thorium reactors to keep his salesman genes satisfied. Apparently not.

I have no particular beef with nuclear other than that it's never fulfilled is original promise. If you guys can make it safe and affordable, go for it.

You write, "Solar cannot scale far without help from nuclear or fossil fuel backup." That is simply not true. There are many options for dealing with solar intermittency without resorting to nuclear or fossil sources (including coal). If you want to promote nuclear, do so on its own merits and please do it elsewhere.

Alex, you wrote, "So 20 years of R&D and several years of operation mean "no track record" to you?" Operation? What "operation?" You do agree that we need affordable solutions, right?

The recent decision of the Chinese Academy of Sciences fund TFMSR research sounds like another 20 years of R&D. Like so many pie-in-the-sky technologies, this one also has a constant 20-year timeframe before we can expect any pay off. IMHO we do not have 20 years or the $billions that would be needed.

Thanks, Alex, I knew you'd like it. But actually my phrasing was more accurate since most people put them all in one barrel and that's the reason nuclear is going no where. Further complicating any growth is the new designs have no track record.

Or how about, "Saving on Solar Way Cooler Than Preventing More Fukushimas."

flyingcircus, think for a moment. The demographic they are targeting has been fully indoctrinated on all the reasons that PV and renewable energy is a "silly waste of taxpayer dollars." Sunrun and the rest of us combined do not have the resources to counter dirty energy's campaign. You and I know there is more to it than just the money. These adds leverage the results of the larger campaign and turn the argument on its head. You watch, they will work and the planet will be better for it.

Without knowing the area of the country where these TV spots are to be aired, its hard to predict their effectiveness. They won't work in W. Va. I understand the reasons, but disagree with most of the criticisms.

SolarFred, lets face it few of us aspire to life in a trailer park, even if the roof is 100% PV. I interpret the smugness in these characters being from their clever PV decision, not their comfortable lifestyles.

Brian, I agree that these ads build on the disfavor of environmentalism that has emerged from the oil-funded anti-AGW debate. However, SunRun has PV to sell and if the ads work (I believe they will) the result is positive for all of us. I also think the majority of these characters reek of conservative demographics.

Alex, again, you make no sense.

Geno, you're right of course - welcome to the world. If these ads can reach those self-absorbed, anti-planet bastards, then we are all the better for it. How many panels would they sell by calling them out?

Phil, I've explored PV but a luscious 120-year-old silver maple would have to come down for me to qualify for the present PPA programs. The shade is too valuable.

It's hard to forget nuclear living 10 miles from Seabrook. I will out live it and am confident the age of electricity-so-cheap-there-is-no-need-for-meters is over. :)

Alex, I'm sorry you are unable to discriminate between carbon sequestered in fossil fuel resources and carbon temporarily taken up by vegetation. Here is some simply-worded remedial reading: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28_2/text/bio.htm It's not too late to prevent a lifetime of flawed conclusions.

Alex, save your lecturing for dirty energy. As most of us know, the carbon temporarily locked up in trees will return back to the atmosphere in due time, whether through forest fire, falling and rotting, or as wood scrap thrown away to rot. In some cases it emerges in its more heinous form, CH4. Yet none of those unavoidable processes allow us to displace the burning of fossil fuels. Isn't that the goal?

It is indeed crunch time and that means we can't ignore the good while we wait for the perfect.

Phil, things are moving rather quickly here in Massachusetts. Check out: http://www.solarizemass.com/index.cfm/page/About-Solarize/pid/12858 The program has some feature that will avoid the NJ pitfalls.

Come on Alex, there are down sides to every human endeavor. Solar, wind, you name it. They all have the CO2 costs associated with manufacture, transport, installation, maintenance, decommissioning, etc. All of this pales in comparison to the direct and indirect CO2 emissions associated with fossil fuels.

Again you do your particular favorites no good by attacking other technologies that ought to be part of the solution.

Alex, the program sounds pretty typical. But most renewable energy technologies can stand on their own merits and don't need to invent problems associated with others. I have no stake in biomass but see it as merely part of the energy mix needed to get off fossil fuels.

Your arguments against burning wood might have some validity if the carbon it releases wasn't just pulled out of the atmosphere. But it was.

Only if you routinely squat over your garden.

In the US we are in an altered reality where fossil fuel and nuclear interests have Congress in their pockets from a national energy policy perspective. Their subsidies and ability to externalize costs make is uniquely difficult for RE technologies. As a result, it has been left to the states to enable the move to sustainability. That is what makes these new DOER standards so troubling.

Phil, really? I don't think anyone is talking about attacking mature forests. But biomass as a crop can be done quite nicely and if you doubt that, best if you stop eating. And what do you suggest we do with the waste stream from wood-product manufacture - or should we cease and make everything from plastic? As long as we are burning fossil fuels, less-than-perfect versions of biomass have an important role. But not, apparently, in Massachusetts.