I'd go solar if it weren't for the fact (and we've priced this) that it will take as 15 years just to break even. There's no incentive for me to invest my money there.
I used to live in a passive solar house. It worked well and saved me a lot of money. But it was in Colorado, where the sun shines 300 days a year.
I now live in the Puget Sound area. We haven't had enough solar energy here since last October to wad a popgun. Solar can never be much of a contributor to heating buildings or electricity in this climate.
Yes, n your drippy clime, it should by hydroelectric that charges your electrons, but the Greens are fighting hydroelectric tooth and nail (natch). Maybe you can tap into your nearby volcanoes for some geothermal ... or just stick to the trustworthy hydrocarbons.
You can actually get a pebble rock nuclear generator for your house. They use them in villages for Africa.
You bury the generator in the ground and since it uses graphite balls, it can't meltdown and flow radioactive into the ground water or what not.
Course, the environmentalists knew this beforehand and thus wiped out nuclear power from the table because it does them no good to create a problem and have a safe alternative energy source available to solve that problem. The solution must come from environmentalists or else they can't get the kick off on power and manipulation.
We wouldn't want that, now would we.
Commenting by HaloScan
