Nate's Comments

I disagree with Sun2Energy that renewables wouldn't be profitable on their own if the true cost of the pollution caused by traditional power sources were included in their cost. I agree that taking their direct subsidies away wouldn't be enough, but even if you ignore the economic value of the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change, if companies stopped being allowed to externalize their costs.

A study by the European Respiratory Journal estimates that pollution causes 3% of deaths in the US (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/412202), and one Cornell study estimates that pollution causes an astonishing 40% of deaths worldwide (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070813162438.htm). In terms of wrongful deaths lawsuits (which cost about $4 million/death on average), that's a pretty big chunk of change (around 240 billion dollars).

We spent about 46 billion on coal generation of electricity in 2009 (http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec3_11.pdf), and assuming coal is responsible for one fifth of these deaths, this would basically double its cost, making wind, geothermal, and micro-hydro cheaper than it in many cases. And remember, this is just counting one type of externalized cost from fossil fuels, wrongful deaths due to emissions.

I wouldn't for advocate a lawsuit based energy policy, and I think it is a good idea to subsidize new energy technology like photovoltaics and advanced biofuels even if they couldn't ready to compete with traditional power sources in an externality free environment. But I think its false to say renewable would fail entirely without subsidies if the playing field were entirely levelized.

Sounds verry interesting. I think that is a great idea to have a floating HAWT that can take advantage of winds at heigher altitudes without needing an expensive tower. Also, at 400-1000 feet, it greatly reduces the risk to birds, and can be used durring migration seasons without killing too manny birds.

Cassandra Bellantoni:
Oh... I was under the impression that the union provisions were only in the first draft to the bill, and the second bill failed because builders didn't like having to offer solar as an option. I wasn't blaming the rebublicans for the union provision, I was blaming them for voting againtst it, I didn't know the gov vetoed the bill, I thought it was voted down.

Good news, but I still am angy about SB1's failure. The requirenment for builders to offer solar as an option was one of the best parts of the bill. The provision would have provided what the solar industry needs most right now: publicity and reduced cost. It would have reduced the instalation cost because it could be instaled with the rest of the electricity in the house, and there is no beter publicity than if everyone had to consider solar as an option for their new house.

Oh well, maby we can get a new bill with that provision passed after the democrats take over in the next election.

The idea is that they are small but heigh effeciency. But if it increases your MPG by 10% than it wouldn't pay for itself in gas savings if gass averages $3/galon for about 427,150 miles of driving. What is exciting to me is the fact that they have the technoledgy to use solar pannels in hybrids. When I bought my hybrid cyvic I a few years ago before gas started gong up, I never thought it would pay for itself and I just bought it to be environmental, but now it is looking like it will be a great investment. Who knows, if gass prices go up high enough this system might end up being worth it too.

Great news. More organization is exactly what they need in order to avoid wasting all the extra biomass energy from farm and household waste. Just think of all the energy that is just thrown away because nobody knows what to do with it.

-- terry marschel:

Safty. At least that's the rational. It makes more cense for a deck or a pool because they could be potentially dangerous, but since when has someone been killed by a badly instaled solar pannel? Maby it could fall on your head or something, but I don't see any real reason why you should need a permit for solar panels.

Good job Rendell. He has good points and god ideas about renewables. I wonder when the rest of our country will wake up and follow suit.

why isn't this kind of think in the mainstream media??? Liberal media my a$$.

Chris Northrop, November 2, 2005:

I couldn't agree more. Buying an incondesent lightbulb is the worst investment you can ever make. Floresents last 10 times longer or more and use less than a quarter of the energy of an incodesent. Floresents can replace incondesents for virtually all applacations (although dimmable floresents do cost about $4-$8 extra), and they save you hunderds per year on electricity. If everyone in America used CFLs it could eliminate the need for about 90 average size fossile feuel power plants, but still we rely mainly on incondesents. The only excuse for not using CFLs is "Wow, I didn't realize that they were that ecanomical and environmental, and I am going out to the store to buy some right now."

Ernest Teeuwe:

The cost guard deosn't need to review offshore wind energy projects in order to protect them, as long as they are notified of their existance they don't need to play a part in the process to approve the turbines.

Wow, that kicks a$$. It's a good way to destroy the false arguement that biofuel production takes away people's food; this creats 8 million pounds of food, 140 million gallons of ethanol as an addative to replace gassoline, and 20 million gallons of biodiesel that can replace deseil. We need more pojects like this one.

I don't think it sounds that fishy; they already can produce biodiesel and ethanol from algae, why not biogas?

Gerald Farrow:

You would be surprised about how little a state's climate can have to do with the potential for solar energy there. Currently New York and New Jersy have even bigger solar rebate programs than CA because of their population density and energy problems. Although solar energy obviously works better in sunny environments, it is still cost effective in any place that has high energy needs and moderate sunlight.

This arcticle is a great article bearing great news. Although I have heard a lot about the million solar roofs bill and it's goal, and have even written emails to support it, this arcticle was the first thinkg that I read about it that actually said what laws the bill would creat to reach it's goal. I strongly supported the bill before reading the arcticle, and after reading the bill, I like it even better. I think it is fitting to put stricter net metering laws on the same electricity companies that made up the CA "energy crisis" just to gouge us, and if all new homes came with solar power as a standard option because it would immensly increas public awareness of the good ecanomics of rooftop PV.