Switch to Sustainable Energy

Recycling of spent fuel rods.

 

the best way is to have a piece of property with a stream that runs all year long going through it...i had one 15 years ago..no power to it...so i used a water wheel running my generator and had power 24 hours a day for FREEEEEE...power the well and the heater i had..but i used wood for heat most of the time...

 

I'm gonna run right out and buy my Tesla. Oh wait, I have to sell my house, my car and probably one of my kidneys. Sustainable energy is not yet ready for prime time. Get a grip.

 

we have a tesla dealer ship in Roseville ca and i test drove one last month...wasn't impressed...i will stick to my dodge instead...

 

The best method would be to levy a tax on pollution. This would not be a revenue tax. The money collected from the tax would be divided equally and paid back to each individual citizen as a “citizens dividend”. Those who pollute more would be net payers of the tax. While those who pollute less would be receive more from the citizens dividend than they pay in tax. The big nasty polluters would be paying COMPENSATION to those who pollute less.

People like to avoid paying taxes, and in this case the more they avoid paying the tax – by conserving their use of fossil fuels or other pollutants – the better off we are. The tax doesn't have to be excessively burdensome -- just burdensome enough to lower consumption to sustainable levels. The desire to avoid the tax will spur investment in renewable energy sources … like, if you don't want government redistributing your money to the poor, then find a way to power your Hummer without burning fossil fuels.

 

the sticker price takes all the oxygen out of the room. I'd rather keep my 57' Chevy Belair

 

You have a point!

Especially for libertarians, going self-reliant would be the best way to stick it to the much hated government. What about growing your own food, producing your own energy? That way, you can stick it to the tax man and be the self-reliant, responsible, free citizen every libertarian dreams of.

In realty, however, dreams do not always come true, just like most liberals are quick to proclaim the advantages of renewable energy, while they happily use fossil fuels, myself included. If it were only me, I'd have solar panels on my roof since decades. However, I have a family and the wife usually has other ideas for the discretionary funds .

Does that make us all hypocrites? Absolutely.

Note in edit: To my defense, though, I drive the smallest-possible vehicle with the highest gas mileage (45 miles to the gallon) and reduce mileage driven and bicycle whenever I can.

 

A tesla now costs $70,000, and in a year or two there will be a $35,000 model so it's on its way. $35,000 isn't too bad considereding that it's not a low end car, and refueling your car will be cheaper. SolarCity isn't too bad either, If you get solar panels on your house, you'll eventually make a profit.

 

Which has deminishing returns.

 

I currently grow a garden every year and have studied renewable energy. Like you, my wife is not on board with downsizing and moving out to the country where I could set up a small homestead. It is my dream to have land, build a nice small house, use solar and wind energy with some propane and raise some animals.

I want out of the rat race. I want independence/liberty. I could still maintain my business working less at it. IMO, using less energy can enjoy support from both liberals and conservatives. It just requires Americans to accept less lifestyle. I don't need more than 500 sf.

 

I will add this. IMO, the jump from 1000 sf to over 2000 sf by the average American household is a direct result of government intrusion in the housing market. Specifically through low down payment programs. Not only has this affected the saving skills of Americans, it has also allowed them to acquire larger homes that use more energy that cause higher energy use(bills), higher insurance costs, more interest costs and more upkeep costs, which also dimenishes Americans ability to save. All of these affect energy needs and use. It was natural for early Americans to live in smaller homes.

Government programs have severe unintended consequences.

 

Yes, this is definitely something where conservatives and liberals can agree, especially if they are against the consumerist lifestyle, like myself.

I'd love to downsize and live a more minimalist life, that's the part of libertarian in me. However, today's society is just against this kind of lifestyle, and you don't want your kids to be labeled as some weirdo who's parents go against the norm.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, it's the rat race. However, keeping up with the Jones's is an old tradition, government intrusion or not.

 

Yes, the scourge of pier pressure.

 

That's exactly the problem. Nothing can compete with oil, pricewise.

- - - Updated - - -

And peer pressure too.

Plus, you have as your spokesperson, Al Gore, who uses enough energy to power a city. Likewise for your other champions Kerry, Obama and DiCaprio. They have no intention of ever using less energy. They're the liberal elite. Funny how that works.

 

When the mind believes in something or something it works almost like a lock. In this information world people's minds are overwhelmed with information. All that information let people make decisions, while the self-thinking minds are almost reduced to zero. Self-thinking while your brain is overwelmth with too much information and you can't self-think so well.

Switching to sustainable energies can only be done by the energy companies and industries and the oil companies (not via politics or society), because people don't have the power to do that, and trying to innovate won't work, because you can't begin an industry yourself (the industry is already organized, since industrial revolution) And via politics it will lead to the same kind of problems, that you see a lot of political fights and discussions with no results. Powerful people in the industry are the only ones that can cause or force change.
An energy revolution from within in a society won't lead to a greener world, but to a red one. Industrial revolution was a revolution outside society, did not happened in the masses, but the masses started to use that steam energy more and more, over decades. But now we can't use energies like tidal or geothermical or blue energy, because the industry is not using it enough. First the industry has to start, never society (because a green revolution can become a red revolution, and such revolutions can become historical, in disadvantage of the freedom and progress of society)
The industry need to be informed and begin to build to use the sustainable energy sources in nature.
Btw nuclear energy is not sustainable, uranium/plutonium will be depleted one day in the same way as oil and coal. The sustainable energy sources are the inexhaustable and zero-carbon energy source in nature, there are a lot the industry should look at; geo, tidal, hydro, wind, sun, volcanos, geothermal, blue energy.

No need for a discussion about this reply (would bring climate even more out of balance, because communication cost energy, extra thinking cost extra food, computers and tv eat energy, spread of information eats a lot of energy, and so on, because billion do it inthe same way) People from the industry, energy companies, etc only have to read threads like this (if they aren't politically indepedent or deattached, because some believe in a political solution (wait until politics give them the green light) or the words from the president or another known or popular person, that's how it works in reality, because everybody is part of a system or the society, which is hierarchical, the deeper problem why nothing is happening, or why things are happening very slowly. Because some changes can't go too fast, that could bring unbalance in a system)

 

I live in the southwest AZ area. Solar panels are not yet ready for prime time. The power companies are in the business of fleecing those who take the solar step by making sure they do not lose any revenue. You can lease or rent the panels, but you still have to pay them for the power they weakly apply If you happen to be able to afford purchasing the equipment, the payback time span is far longer than the expected life span of the panels.

Keep looking for your "profit".

 

Those complaining about costs: capitalist ecoomies are driven by "growth", which is the increase of turnover of services and goods. There are not many possibilities to create "growth". One is "war", another one: innovation. Until present another factor is creating growth: former Third world countries like China and India with their large demands for western products create growth in the Western economies. when those markets are saturated, other growth factors have to be created. Problem solution is one side of innovation (called "market pull" in contrary to "techno push", new products creating their own demand). For that however a problem has to exist. Manmade or not, global warming is an existing problem, it certainly can be worsened by human energy consumption and the change to alternative energy sources with all their new equipments is a large creator of "growth". Of course there will be costs. But costs means "sales and services" and that means: healthy economy. Global warming or not. If it wouldn't have existed, capitalism would have invented it. The present discussion therefore is not only driven by scientific knowledge but also by stakeholders interest.That is the most friendly which can be said about it.