On what scale do you think efforts should be put towards renewable energy?

[XemaSab]

Sometimes as a citizen, it's hard to feel like you're making a difference, or even that you CAN make a difference.

The cost of conversion to solar power is prohibitive for most homeowners, and other means of harvesting "green" energy have to be done at the state or federal level. Or am I being too pessimistic and discounting the ability of the citizenry to effect change?

So should large-scale change in energy creation and use be the responsibility of the individual, businesses (such as car manufacturers or developers), existing energy companies, new energy companies, or governments at the local, county, regional, state, or national level? And what would be the best way to coordinate efforts without creating a bureaucracy, a cesspool of corruption, or a flurry of well-meaning but toothless statements declaring that saving energy is good?

[skids]

1. Not ability, but will.

Any homeowner (and today that term I use very loosly) could, instead of installing a deck for their swimming pool, install geoexchange or solar thermal water heating and have it pay it's own HELOC payments in energy savings. People either don't care enough to know this or don't care enough to do it.

Instead of getting a plasma TV they could put the money into energy-efficient appliances. Heck, instead of going to a movie they could replace one light bulb with a CF bulb and end up saving that money back over the course of the year.

And then let's not get started on American's choices when it comes to the vehicles they purchase.

So, it's by no means a lack of ability. The individual consumer can do a lot.

So could the business sector. But they are too busy complaining that there are no skilled workers to hire in America so that they have an excuse to cash in on exploited labor in other countries. Meanwhile foreign companies seem to have no trouble finding American workers to work in their renewable energy and conservation plants they open here in the U.S. Again, lack of will.

As for politicians, well I think we know where the current lot stands on the issue and shouldn't expect much there. Of course, they have a lot of power to insert stimulus into the market. These guys don't just lack the will, they oppose any meaningful progress (unless of course they can figure out a way to funnel money from it to their loyalists e.g. Johnson Controls.)

[XemaSab]

3. Putting the onus on the homeowner

Assumes disposable income.

Also, while converting one's water heating system would be considered a large-scale change, installation of CF bulbs wouldn't.

It's frankly pretty damn hard to get excited about saving 1/500th of your total energy usage by installing a different light bulb. Not to say that we shouldn't do that, of course, but that alone won't save the planet.

And you're right, we don't see any real action from ANY of the sectors mentioned, but maybe it's because there's no clear delegation of responsibility. :shrug:

[skids]

5. Nope, it doesn't assume disposable income.

Just a good credit rating. FWIW.

(Oh and lighting as a whole is much more than 1/500th of the average household energy budget, more
in the area of 10-20%, CF bulbs saving at least 50% of that.)

[XemaSab]

6. It still involves spending money that most homeowners don't have

And the 1/500th was an estimation of the energy drain of a single bulb. :P

[skids]

15. They don't seem to have a problem with that...

And like I said, many of these systems when sized properly will pay their own loan payments in energy savings from day one. So it's money they were going to spend anyway.

[Dead_Parrot]

25. You're kidding, aren't you?

Our bank account currently stands at NZ$1,355.53, with all our bills payed for the month: If I were to go out to buy a Prius or a PV array, I'd have to borrow the extra $43,644.48 - giving me monthly repayments of $1003.81, which is more that I spend on fuel and electricity in 3 months. It's just not a sane option.

We're still in the top 5% income bracket globally, but - like the other 95%, stretching from La Paz to Changchun - we don't have 000's of dollars sitting around. What we can do (and have done) is fit CF bulbs everywhere, and get low energy appliances - and with the exception of Mrs_P's computer, everything is second-hand. Heating is provided by wearing sweaters: If it's really cold, we get a log fire going (from a sustained plantation, I checked :))

What I'd like to see is, in each country, state schemes to offer interest-free credit for those sorts of purchase. Both the UK and NZ have schemes for funding a university education this way (you pay it back as and when you can): just duplicate this for PV, solar heated & ground pump water, even transport. There are some UK schemes supplying grants for insulation, which is a good start.

Another option would be to subsidise power-saving industries to the extent that power generation normally is: instead of a CF bulb costing $10, slap a subsidy on there to bring it down to $3. The expense would be reclaimed from a drop in the funding required to build new power plants and upgraded grid infrastructure.

[skids]

26. Nope. Not kidding.

See, you don't have to go buy a $23K Prius or a $30k-$60k PV array. Just take out a HELOC on a nice cheap solar hot water system at well under $10K. We've done out the interest calculations on this group before. The system pays itself off in 5-7 years and then starts contributing savings.

[Dead_Parrot]

27. But until it breaks even...

I need to be in a position to pay more than I'm doing at the moment. If I'm in a position to do that, I'd do better to put the extra into a savings account until it pays for the installation.

More to the point, a lot of people just don't have the spare cash for the extra payments, they're living paycheck to paycheck. Knowing you'll be better off in seven years really doesn't help when you can't afford to buy a new pair of shoes, even though your feet are getting wet. I've been in that situation, and investing an extra $50 a month is just not an option.

As it happens, we are squirreling the money away for solar HW, but that's because we're lucky enough have the option. And this way, if we can't manage the extra for a month or two, we won't end up with the bailiffs carting the furniture away.

Like I said, we're in the top 5% income bracket, globally: I think you're grossly over-estimating the amount of spare income the majority of people have.

[skids]

28. That would be the way I would do it, but...

...I'm not normal :-)

Most people don't save to make home improvements, they draw equity out of their house in the form of a loan. I don't see why, if that's the way people are determined to do things, renewable energy improvements should somehow be required to adhere to a more fiscally prudent set of standards.

If you had payed any attention whatsoever to what I was saying, you would have noted that noone has to come up with any extra cash to do this. One merely needs to take the money that the system saves and apply it to the loan payment. I think I said like two times that these systems can ay for their own loan, didn't I? Is there some reason that's not getting across to you?

[XemaSab]

29. It's not that it's not getting across to us

It's that having to take out massive loans is not a happy situation.

Suggesting that Americans add to their debt load doesn't seem like prudent advice. :(

[skids]

33. Like I said -- if people are encouraged...

...to take out HELOCs to redo their kitchen floor, put a new roof on, pave the driveway, etc, then they should be encouraged just the same to do so with renewables.

I don't like that people are encouraged to do so, but it's not the time to be putting renewables at a disadvantage just because of personal perspectives on proper personal financial management. Keep in mind that what's being suggested is that we get the same idiots who take out ARMs to consider renewables. Said idiots will not buy in if you talk financial reasonable-speak to them. They only understand things when they are termed in "buy on credit" language. Sad but true. If you tell them to save money, they'll dismiss you as some sort of freak.

I speak from personal experience. I have friends that are like that.

[Dead_Parrot]

30. lol. we know you're abnormal...

;)

My primitive brain understands the concept of being better off in the long run, but in the short term - while you're paying off the loan - you're spending more on a month-by-month basis. Maybe I'm just fucking up my sums (it's not unheard of) but as it stands, if I were to put solar water heating on my roof (NZ$5K, $1K from my a/c + $4K loan, NZ$98 repayments) and half my electric bill (from ~$100 to $50) I'd be paying $148 instead of $100 - ie, $48/month worse off: I don't catch up until month 118 (nearly 10 years): After that, I'm laughing.

Now, I'm probably an extreme example - NZ interest rates are massive, and my bills are fairly small - but if the repayments come to more than the saving each month, you need to be in a position to pay the difference...

Maybe I am a bad case example. Just for fun, I worked out that if I did buy a Prius on credit, it would be 83 years before I broke even. That's what you get for driving ~40 miles a month... :)

[skids]

34. Yes, you're not representative of the normal case.

You seem to have low utility bills, and electric water heat which I don't know about NZ but here that's the cheapest form -- in my area people heat with oil at great expense (though arguably at less carbon load than those who heat with coal-generated electricity.) In the rest of this country, there's a lot of natural gas and propane use.

Still if you put the time in you could probably find a system sized more optimally, from the perspective of payments, than your example.

[Dead_Parrot]

36. I'm also abnormal?! Woohoo!

And 70% hydroelectric, of course...

I spec'd my example on the system I would install, with our HW use. Although given that for 6 months, it's co-gen with the heat (pipes in the fireplace = free hot water from wood) it's even less sense to install solar...

I guess I should shut up and let you get on with it :) But I still think that inflation-only loans would be a good thing for a Dem. government to introduce.

[XemaSab]

35. Anything where you're planning 10 years down the road

seems so far in the future.... 10 years ago I had just graduated high school, 10 years before that I was in 2nd grade... it's not a time span that one can really plan on. It's an abstraction.

[Dead_Parrot]

37. We're an old family

My grandfather taught my family's history, from ~1000 years ago, and my mother taught me what remains of the Westmorland Cumbric language we spoke ~500 years ago. The lifetime of a Lewthwaite is just one name on a long list: The reasons I'm in NZ is for the next 1,000 years that my descendants will face.

10 years is peanuts. :)

[Ready4Change]

46. Wish we all had such an outloook.

My impression, from my friends and neighbors, is that thinking of solar paybacks in terms of greater than 5 years just isn't done. Why?

Consider a solar system that pays for itself in 10 years. In 5 years, many people will have moved and will no longer be recieving the benefits of those expenses.

They won't make back the difference when they sell the house, either. Most people don't value solar systems on homes. Some people don't like the appearance of solar PV arrays and water heaters, and will insist on paying LESS for such a house.

Personally I see the value in such systems. But most people can't see outside of their wallets.

[Boomer]

18. Casual class bias like this drives me crazy

>> Any homeowner (and today that term I use very loosly).... <<

There are millions of poor blue-collar or elderly homeowners who are lucky if they can afford to replace their rotting front porch or paint their house. The choice between a new deck or a solar water heater is not one they are going to agonize over since both options are beyond their means.

They are not going to install energy-efficient appliances until they can be bought at Good-Will or inherited from some in-laws or picked up cheap at a yard sale.

A CF bulb may be within their range, if they're not living on food stamps and welfare. In which case they will get the cheapest bulbs you can find at Dollar General. And even then, probably buy them one at a time, as needed.

Take a drive through the back roads of West Virgina or Appalachia and you'll see that "homeowner" is a very loose term indeed, and grinding poverty breeds concerns more urgent than going green. Like how to afford shoes AND food for your children.

[IrateCitizen]

19. Using angst as an excuse for missing the point...

There are millions of poor blue-collar or elderly homeowners who are lucky if they can afford to replace their rotting front porch or paint their house. The choice between a new deck or a solar water heater is not one they are going to agonize over since both options are beyond their means.

They are not going to install energy-efficient appliances until they can be bought at Good-Will or inherited from some in-laws or picked up cheap at a yard sale.

Not going to disagree with you here, especially since I'm from a rural area of Western PA where there were plenty of people like this. But for each person like what you describe here, there ARE plenty of others who will use the disposable income they have to lease/purchase a shiny new gas-guzzling SUV or put on a new deck or whatever. THOSE are the ones that we should be reaching toward.

Now, for example, I know that when my wife and I purchase a house, we will be going for something modest and will probably not have a lot of disposable income. But what I do know is that when it comes time for us to get a new(er) automobile, we will be purchasing something modest that gets good gas mileage, preferring to spend the extra $ on hybrid or diesel technology rather than hp. I also know that when given the choice between energy-saving measures and a new deck, we'll take the energy-saving measures.

Then, I'll take what we learn and try to spread it around the community, to show others that not only is it responsible -- it can actually SAVE THEM MONEY in the long run. The next step is forming organizations and/or cooperatives that can help the people of whom you speak get these technologies/improvements for their own homes.

Saying everyone can afford these measures isn't true nor productive. Then again, neither is bemoaning "casual class bias" in a tone that makes it seem more like excuse-making than anything else.

[XemaSab]

20. You're absolutely right

that there are a lot of people who DO have the disposable income and CAN afford these changes.

Homeownership though is about making choices. There's always a tradeoff, and things aren't as clear as they initially seem. For example, my mom wanted to put in solar, but it was estimated that it would cost her $20,000 to rewire the house. She's not a spring chicken and she's still got a $130,000 mortgage to pay off, plus she's looking at retirement in a few years. Adding $20,000 to her debt load is just too much to ask. It just doesn't pencil out at all. :shrug:

[skids]

24. Solar PV isn't "there yet" for all but the rich.

PV doesn't pay back fast enough for people who cannot afford a ten year investment.

Your mother should look into solar hot water and geoexchange. Both have payback periods that meet the demands of the average homeowner.

[Boomer]

21. What "excuse-making" are you referring to?

I wasn't "bemoaning" the facts -- as you so condescendingly describe -- as a way to excuse anyone from changes they can afford.

But I'm tired of energy solutions being proposed that flippantly refer to expenses that "anyone" can meet. I've seen this same kind of statement made over and over again on various DU forums during discussions of upgrading our energy infrastructure. But one of the biggest deterrants to a transition from oil to green technologies is this income/class issue: the people who can least afford to meet the high cost of oil are the ones least able to avoid it.

This is a major problem, and I don't expect anyone on this board to offer any comprehensive solutions, but neither should they dismiss it as a non-issue. The phrase "for those who can afford it" is not that much more difficult to master than "anyone."

I'm one of the fortunate few in my working class neighborhood that has the disposable income to spend on energy-saving appliances (which I'm doing), and I'd be willing to install solar if it were possible in my area. Unfortunately, there is no legal or technological support for me to use (another story entirely). We may end up moving because of that barrier. But I'm blessed to have those options when most of the homeowners in my block do not. There are a large number of elderly on fixed incomes who are barely making ends meet, and the rest are blue-collar families just barely hanging on.

American society has a nasty tendency to dismiss anyone who is not making a middle-class income; people just getting by don't even register on the radar. So yes, I get testy when I see that attitude cropping up on DU, intentionally or not.

[skids]

22. Homeowners include landlords, FWIW.

And I've been pretty strident about addressing the problem among the poor. e.g. here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/5/133326/5724

[NNadir]

31. How about linking one's tax rate to energy consumption - and production.

We might have a tax code wherein one's overall tax rate is reduced if one has significant investments in renewable energy.

Here's an example of what I mean. Let us say that the maximum tax rate is 50% (and it should be at least this high) beyond $200,000 annual income. A wealthy person might be permitted to reduce the tax rate by 1% for each petajoule of renewable energy investments he or she holds. By such a means one might lower his or her overall tax rate to say 45%.

Nothing motivates rich people, for some strange reason, than taxes. Considering that many renewable energy is - in theory anyway - something that has a payback, it's a win-win. I'll bet it would result in significant wind, solar, geothermal etc resources being developed. A petajoule at continuous loading represents about 32 MW of power. A wind plant generally operates at 30% capacity loading, and thus about 100 MWe of wind power would constitute a petajoule. Suppose one could build a wind plant at 0.05 kw-hr busbar cost. The investment would be $13,000,000. A person making $100 million/year (and yes there are such people - too many of them) would thus save $1,000,000 year on his or her taxes plus make money selling the energy. Four or 5 years of this and they'd begin making money, big time, when taxes and revenue from the sale of energy go together. This might help in inspiring them from NIMBY bullshit like carping about the views off Nantucket impacted by Cape Wind.

One could mess with the numbers, of course, depending on response, but it might work.

Mostly the wealthy regard renewable energy - as the criminal Cheney put it - as an optional matter of one choosing to feel virtuous. Otherwise they don't give a shit. We cannot rely on these people to do the right thing - and I know there are exceptions - but we can get them to participate in a convoluted scam, or something that feels like a tax scam.

It's a wild idea, but I thought I would throw it out there.

[Dead_Parrot]

32. It has it's attactions...

as an alternative, (and it would allow the little people to play, too) how about making income from renewable energy tax-free? with suitable trust bodies set up, you could buy a "turbine bond" for example, for $10 in return for 1/100,000 of the energy produced (or whatever, it would depend on the turbine): If the trust skimmed off the operating & replacement costs, it would equate to about $1.10 a year, indefinitely, and you could cash in or sell on your bond whenever you wanted to...

The prospects of an eternal 10% pa return, tax-free, would appeal to quite a few of the rich and infamous, I suspect...

[LSK]

40. who are all these people who have a swimming pool??

:shrug:

[phantom power]

42. Well, we have one...

I didn't ask for it, it came with the house. (of course, I didn't turn down the house, either).

I looked into (a) filling the pool in, or (b) building a deck over it. Option (a) is supposedly rather expensive. It's not legal to simply dump a truckload of dirt in and fill it. You have to break it up, provide drainage, I don't know. People told me doing it "right" can cost $15K. Option (b) was quoted to me as $12K, which surprised me. I could probably do it myself and save some big bucks, although engineering it both safely and attractively is pushing my skill level quite a bit.

Option (c) was repairing it and remodeling, which in the most extreme case came out to $9K, ironically the cheapest of options.

Fucking pools. They're just like boats. A big hole you pour money into. At least you can sell a boat and get rid of it. Actually *get* money out of the transaction.

[OneBlueSky]

2. Manhattan Project scale . . . n/t

.

[XemaSab]

4. So you think it should be strictly a federal undertaking?

:shrug:

[wordpix]

43. no but we need a fed Manh.-type Project for r&d to bring alternate energy

to us on a massive scale.

[Oerdin]

7. California has a law

requiring 20% of all electricity generated in the state be from alternative power sources. It has lead to a boom in wind, solar, and geothermal but they also count burning trash as "alternative power" which isn't good. The problem is without tricks like trash burning they'd never reach the 20% mark.

[greenman3610]

8. A plan has been outlined

at

http://www.oilendgame.com/

very high powered group has a plan that would
cost about 15 to 20 billion annually over 10 years
or so,(I'm trying to remember the specifics)
that would get us there.

Most people have not the slightest clue of
how powerful a tool conservation is,
(.. not meaning we have to turn down the
heat and take cold showers.....)
In the 1973 energy shock,
major industries cut energy needs by 50 percent
for the same production, in the space of a few
years.
We have better technology today.

[skids]

23. Another plan as well...

...in case anyone has missed it is DailyKos's "Energize America"

http://www.dailykos.com/tags/Energize%20America

(EDIT: the latest draft is a few threads down)

[NNadir]

9. I think the effort to remove dependence on fossil fuels should be massive.

The scale should at least on the scale of the Iraq war, which should be cancelled.

Let's go further. Possibly the matter should render the department of defense to a rump status, like that of the Japanese defense forces or the German forces.

We have an idea of the joule/dollar efficiency of research invested over the last 50 years. Given these numbers and their utility, the proportion invested in each type of alternative (to fossil fuel) energy should be proportioned appropriately.

It does seem to me that under the current adminsitration we have effectively squandered our resources to accomplish this however.

[IrateCitizen]

11. I've got another proposal for you re: DoD...

The DoD has proven in the past that it can be used to promote significant projects. Take the internet, for instance. Perhaps if we stopped using it as a means of projecting power and instead enhanced and empowered the parts of it that can be used positively, we could promote a project as massive as what you envision?

[NNadir]

12. I agree on some level, but they've produced stuff in secrecy.

Some of most important DOD projects include the Global Positioning System, the nuclear reactor, the pressurized water reactor and the initial work on the molten salt reactor - originally envisioned for nuclear powered military aircraft - the internet (as you mentioned) and advances in high temperature materials science, and of course the missile technology from which space exploration became possible.

They also train most of our nuclear reactor plant operators.

However, they delay technology also through the use of secrecy and via promoting a climate of fear and threat. For instance, at least in public minds, they have inordinately confused the nuclear case - and continue to do so.

The real reason many technological advances have come through the DOD is that this has been the priority of many Americans. I think a better model would be simply to cut out the paranoid, suspicious middle man and cut right to the chase. The war mentality is wasteful and inefficient. We don't have many resources left. We are broke, financially, morally, resource wise and ecologically. We don't have much left to squander. We cannot look to this dubious past to approach a survival having a significant - albeit still small - chance at survival. Whatever we have left must be used with openness and efficiency.

[IrateCitizen]

13. Not at all in disagreement in openness and efficiency...

... nor am I advocating continued paranoia, warmongering and secrecy. Just wanted to point out that the DoD has been quite heavily involved in some of the major technological breakthroughs of the past 50+ years. ;-)

[NNadir]

16. You are correct. Point well taken. N/T.

[IrateCitizen]

10. Several prongs are needed to be effective...

First of all, when we talk of not everybody having disposable income to make these changes, that is a reality we have to work with. That being said, there are PLENTY of people who DO have disposable income and/or access to good credit that can help make these changes, and the vast majority of them use that money to buy an SUV or install a new deck for their swimming pool rather than doing the "right" thing. For those of us who do have the disposable income, the onus is on us to be a catalyst for change. Since America is a "middle class nation" -- by that, I mean that the values embraced by the "middle class" seem to push the general direction of things -- then if a significant number of the middle class / consumer class get on board with individual changes, it CAN make a big difference.

Which brings me to the second prong -- governmental programs to help the change along. When a critical mass develops among members of the consumer class, then it will cause government to get involved and create subsidies/credits for speeding these programs along. IMHO, it's not much different than how federal and state government financed the post-WWII boom in home ownership through the mortgage interest deduction, and how local governments did through zoning regulations.

Finally, let's look at a third prong, which actually ties into the first -- the development of local community groups dedicated to bringing change about. As an example, I'll use solar cooperatives, which are active in towns around where I live. A group of local homeowners get together and form a solar power cooperative in order to get lower costs on materials needed for solar power installation, and at the same time take advantage of state governmental subsidies and energy rebates that exist. Such models could even embrace the community lending model, putting a portion of collective energy savings from "rolling back the meter" into accounts that could be used as near zero-interest loans to facilitate projects for homeowners with less disposable income. Furthermore, these groups could come together in political blocs to fight for local zoning issues and the like that encourage the development of alternative energy sources.

There are actually a lot of statutes in place in certain states that provide some financial incentives to switch to alternative energy sources. My state, New York, has a lot of such programs. We just have to research them on our own, help spread the word, and develop strategies that maximize our ability to take advantage of them.

I think that such a plan provides at least a beginning, and can demonstrate what might be able to happen if we begin to think outside of the box, rather than waiting on government to enact the laws that bring about immediate change. Any thoughts?

[XemaSab]

14. Seems like the second and thrid prong both rely on government

to do the right thing, and the first and third rely on a very heavily motivated citizenry.

I am interested in these solar cooperatives of which you speak. Do you have a link to a group where I can learn more?

[IrateCitizen]

17. I'll see if I can find what I can...

I found out about one in particular at an energy fair in Cold Spring, NY a year or two ago. I think the group was from Croton-on-Hudson, NY.

Of course addressing these issues relies on both government and people to "do the right thing". I think that here on DU in this forum we have a lot of people who are heavily motivated to do so. It would be great if we could find ways to organize for positive change in the real world as opposed to the virtual. I know that it's a big aim of mine after I finish my current education and look to purchase a small house in a town, where I can actually help drive some of these changes through my own choices and actions.

[rfkrfk]

38. the US is the Worst place to try to start this

{exceptions, solar heat and water heat}

consider electricity in the US, why try to
compete with capacity already installed and likely paid-for,
and with cheap fuel like coal and nuke.

Try other places...

Europeans are getting screwed every which way but loose on
natural gas, which is even used for electricity.

Wind-electricity would be a good match for a place
with nothing, or currently using diesel generators

[XemaSab]

41. If Europe went totally renewable

The US powers that be would cheer because the cost of oil and other fossil fuels would plummet.

I don't think it would be the start of a US conversion to renewables.

[JohnWxy]

39. The two cheapest renewables, offering the quickest return on investment

are:

1. Ethanol (first, corn based, which we are already producing and then later, cellulose based).

2. Wind Power.


Even if it seems like it won't make a difference, go to www.congress.org and send an email to your congressmen and senators (even if they are Repubs) and tell them we need a national mobilization on renewable fuels (like Kennedy did with the Man to the Moon Program). I think it;'s now 8 staes have committed to requireing all the gasoline sold within their borders to contain 10% or more of ethanol. The reduction of GHGs and enhancement of energy and economic security, makes this a worthy near term goal.

Fuel Cell technology - based on using hydrocarbons (gasoline and ethanol, and poly-ethylene glycol) to supply the hydrogen. Free hydrogen fuel cells aren't ever going to be a practical option (too expensive to make safe, and the expense of creating an infrastructure to handle free hydrogen is just too expensive). We should be suppporting development of this technology as it offers the best hope of replacing a great proportion, if not all, of the gasoline we now use.

Low cost (or Government guaranteed) loans for this investment (in wind farms and ethanol production facilities and development of fuel cells) will accelerate a process we should have started some years ago.

If people start emailing their legislators you can have an affect. Every day this effort is delayed it just makes the Global Warming that much harder to correct.

Every gallon of gas replaced with ethanol we are sending less money outof the country for imported fossil fuel. This will strengthen our econony and help put us in a better postion to invest in the new equipment we will need to have cleaner energy, as well as enhancing our strategic security.

[kestrel91316]

44. Conservation needs a truly massive effort, followed closely by

development of renewables.

[JohnWxy]

45. Yes, I should have included conservation as no 1 on teh list.

A lot can be saved by making more efficient electrical appliances.

[Ready4Change]

47. Apollo scale.

1 kilowatt of generation ability on every residential home in the USA. Solar, combined with wind where that's feasible.

Programs to allow large factories, with as yet un-utilized roofs, to become defacto micro power generation stations, and profit from it.

Federal and State Govs to focus on reducing old, dirty, ineffiecient power generation ability as new energy production rises. Then, focus is to be on power STORAGE facilities, to store daytime production for night time use.

The goal is to produce all domestic electricity with solar or wind, with hydro and nuclear purely as backups, by 2026.

[Kolesar]

48. I cannot even find decent plans for solar domestic hot water in Ohio

I cannot find any material that develops the mechanical engineering and heat calculations to build a "solar" hot water heater. I need something that determines whether we have "enough sun" (=insolation) and how to deal with freezing. DHW is a significant user of fossil fuels.

[rfkrfk]

49. what is the holdup?, just go build

I would suggest starting with renewable electricity,
in an country where few have service.

By providing service to people who currently have none,
you make friends.
Don't demand payment in cash,
better to take barter... livestock, produce, etc.

You have to start somewhere, just go do it.
You don't need my permission, just go build.