Green Green Business

My husband and I are drawing up plans for a new house we will be building hopefully in the next few months. I want to look into solar power and other green options. Right down to what we use to build. If anyone can give me ideas and web sites that will help me on this quest that would be greatly appericated.

Wind and solar power is a lot more expensive than good old coal. Are you willing to pay 3x as much for electricity to shut down coal plants and switch to ‘green’ power sources to help with ‘global warming’ , even though man made global warming is NOT a proven fact? And please, I know a lot of scientists claim it is, but a lot also claim it’s a farce. So until we have near unaniminity from the scientific community (not Al Gore) it isn’t a fact.
Sorry Fishboy, but I don’t believe everything a website called ‘gristmill’ prints either. BTW, as I live in Vegas and I wish we could all afford at least a 3KW solar generating system on the roof of every house. Imagine doing that here and phoenix and tying them all into the grid with ‘net metering’, how much power could be generated. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for green power. I know even ‘clean coal’ pollutes. I just can’t afford 0/mo when I’m paying 300+ now. A major problem with wind is the wind farms are far away from transmission lines. And environmentalists oppose building those lines. And building them costs lots of money, which the ratepayers end up paying. There is no free lunch.

It would seem so– as they continue to oppose new 100% GREEN power projects– !

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/…

Is GW just a scam — promoted by environmental groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace to secure funding– or are they serious about switching to green power?– will they just oppose all new green projects, and increase the implementation costs of solar and other green energy?
Sorry — try this link–
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/21/feinstein-dont-spoil-desert-solar-panels/
EDIT- and as I have previously predicted — endangered animals will be used to sop both wind power farms and solar power farms–
Dana– I hope you are correct- as I also believe we need to move to solar and wind– but for different reasons than GW. However here in Texas the Sierra Club has opposed several wind farm projects and a low level nuclear waste disposal area. This is not the only example.
I make them out to be– I did not write that article– nor did I go before the press and oppose the project.
For example-
400 acres on top of a mountain
http://maryland.sierraclub.org/action/p0133.asp

Grassland In Kansas
http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/16205/Kansas_Audubon_Society_Opposes_Wind_Farm.html

Extensive study supported- this just means slowing or stopping the project
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/climate/2004-12-29-wind-power_x.htm
Now don’t get me wrong– I SUPPORT - green energy– but the environmental groups numerous legal roadblocks — slow the change to green– or raise the cost of the project. TWO years or more to get a permit for a solar farm?
I see that the not in my backyard– syndrome has surfaced.

Anyone with a home of over 10,000 square feet must modify the home to be powered solely on solar power or wind power.

After all, every little bit helps, and people who live in 10,000 plus square foot houses have huge carbon footprints due to their heating and power requirements. If every house over that size was powered by green energy, it would definitely reduce pollution, dependence on oil/coal, etc.

If you support efforts to reduce carbon emissions, do you also support this suggestion? If not, why not?
I’m not suggesting that we allow carbon offsets. I’m suggesting that if Global Warming is real, then Al Gore and Sheryl Crow and others who live in giant homes should have no issue with modifying them to be completely green. No credits available.
smcgilli….. you must have missed my point.

The people clamoring for us to use one sheet of toilet paper, and turn the heat down to 67 degrees, live in 10,000, 15,000 and 20,000 square foot mansions. My suggestion is, if they are right and global warming is going to kill the planet, then they should have no objection to turning their luxury homes completely green. Right? Wanna bet how fast they’d sidestep this….?
sarge — you missed the point too…. you’re talking about what’s "fair." What would be "fair" is if Sheryl Crow and Al Gore HAD THE SAME CARBON FOOTPRINT AS YOU AND ME. People in 10,000 square foot homes in Malibu, and private villas, and airports in their front yards, are telling you and me that WE have to spend money greening out homes, but they don’t green theirs. WE have to drive hybrid cars and bio-diesel, they say - but they fly in jets 100 times per year — WE have to use one square of toilet paper, and THEY make sure their entourages and themselves are bathed in luxuries while on "tour" and making movies (which are pure luxuries - and major pollution sources).

solar power?

By this I mean subsidize for citizens. What would the effect of making funds available to homeowners to add solar power to their houses have.
It would reduce emissions.
It would increase power production.
It would spur new innovations in technology.
It would create new business and jobs required to meet demand in the marketplace.

This money would not have to be handouts, but rather could take the form of government insured loans and tax incentives. The tax incentives and yearly energy cost savings would help the average family repay the loans.

Thoughts?
Ed J: I am familiar with what is in the stimulus bill and it is very limited in this area and nowhere near the type of investment I am talking about. It simply provides tax break for those who install solar appliances.
how_would_I_know: the technology is improving all the time in this area. No one says that solar is the complete answer. Massive investment in solar based on sales would lead to improvements in collection effeciency though. As for wind power. This is not a realistic idea for the average home based on the size and noise factors involved.
bkc99xx: You don’t get it. You are going to subsidize this research regardless. Obama is planning a massive expansion of green energy programs in his new budget, but rather than providing you with an avenue to help defer costs (i.e. home generated solar which can be returned to the grid and must be bought from the producer at premium kiowatt per hour rate) his plan will dramatically increase your monthly costs for energy with no plan for offset in cost.
bkc99xx: I said subsidies, but this is not really the correct word except in the case of tax breaks. The money would actually be in the form of secured loans. Yes I do know how much the cost of the system installation would be in my case. Roughly 15000 dollars and I have estimated that it would take roughly 15 years for the system to begin to produce a surplus financially. However this estimate is based on current kilowatt per hour rates in my area. The one thing I am absolutely sure of is that this cost will increase over the lifetime of the system making it more cost effective with time even when you factor in proposed maintenance costs.
Interesting answers which I enjoyed reading. I am going to send this question to a vote. Thanks to all for taking the time.

Nuclear power plants create huge amounts of energy from very little fuel, and the waste they produce, while admittedly dangerous, is localized and easy to take care of. You have the spent uranium rods, but you basically just need to lock those up and bury those, and wait for the radioactivity to die. Chernobyl was an unusual disaster; they didn’t have any of the advanced safety systems we have today, and they overrode the automatic processes that were there.

We could even just clean up coal. Get rid of the carbon, mercury and other crap. It would work pretty well.

We could eliminate our dependence on petroleum if we took a hint from Brazil.

Solar power needs some time to mature, but if we just used more effective appliances it would work quite well. Same for wind.

Petroleum is just so outdated and dirty. Despite the username, I’m a strong supporter of the free market. I understand how economics come in to play, but money doesn’t mean much if the world’s underwater.

solar power
hydroelectric
wind

anything profitable, this is for a game btw

I don’t need solar power as much as the others

I have this friend, and he insists on wanting to "work on solar power," and this seems to me to be something that someone in engineering would do. But he's in environmental studies and philosophy major. Am I wrong, or…what?

I'm referring to green as in, a green energy efficient house, car, lighting, solar power, etc.