Comments on: Should solar power be the dominant energy-source of the 21st century?

By: ToddB

ToddB — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:31:06 +0000

Having a "dominant" energy source policy is short-sighted, in my opinion. Putting all your eggs in one basket is not a good policy economically or politically.

I think the best thing to do is to pursue all clean renewable energy sources, and eventually the most cost-efficient technology will be naturally adopted by a particular locality.

Solar may not be the best resource, for example, at latitudes that get long periods of darkness. Geothermal energy may be cheap and abundant in some areas, making the harnessing of it generate a smaller and more efficient footprint than a commercial solar array in the same spot. Wind tower arrays in predominantly breezy and overcast areas (San Francisco comes to mind -brrr!) may be the best choice for that locality.

Reliance on fossil fuels is yesterday's idea, and we must phase them out for a wide variety of compelling reasons. But global reliance on a single technology is not wise in any scenario, so I say go solar, go wind, go geothermal, go hydro!

By: Bobbi

Bobbi — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:56:49 +0000

The tax code should allow credits to install solar or wind on homes and businesses. There ARE great products out there, but they are in the small mom-in-pop start-up stages. More buyers will bring the needed influx of cash to the good products; offering competition, increasing technology, and lowering cost.

By: Mr.

Mr. — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 02:45:19 +0000

On one condition….

Millions of people and businesses, already have roofs that panels can be mounted to, instead of clearing millions of acres of land for big energy to get another handout.

…If the government chooses to subsidize the implementation of solar energy, they shouldn't do so utilizing existing big energy companies.