dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
SMS wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes
from coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2
produced by that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not
'various green sources'

Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...

Yes, if you're looking at it strictly in terms of CO2 emissions, that's true.

In virtually any manner you wish to compare it has less total
impact than any alternative technology on a per MWe basis.

That doesnt make it a green source.

In any rational definition of "green" as being the minimal _TOTAL_ impact it does.

Wrong. Thats not what green is about.

(See other response)

See my comments on that.

It's rather ironic that the suburban life style of individual houses, and low density population, actually lends
itself well to distributed generation. In my area, you can lease solar panels for $70 per
month, including installation, and the monthly savings off your
electric bill will be more than that (or your meter will run
backwards and you'll be selling power back to the utility).

I'd be interest to know where that is and what/who is doing this...
doesn't sound economically viable to me based on what data I
know of on cost/kwh from solar generation...

It does happen in some places where legislation artificially skews
the economics. Most obviously in Germany where the price the
power companys are forced to pay for electricity does skew the
economics enough to make it economically viable for the consumer.

Thats just a hidden subsidy tho, industry pays a significantly
higher price for the electricity it uses to pay for that.

That is the only way I know of it being so, yes. I was curious if there were something other than that model although
I suspect I know the answer.

Yeah, it someone had fixed the economics, there would be plenty yapping about it.