Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Hurst who wrote (3501)	1/7/2014 2:24:04 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 4326

a lot of nasty chemicals and rare earths go into those panels. The mining of those rare earths sure do fukk up the ground water. Then after 10 years you have to throw them into the land fills polluting the water supply once again. oh yea and the birds crash into them thinking it's water

To: Don Hurst who wrote (3501)	1/7/2014 2:38:01 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Recommended By Jorj X Mckie Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4326

That's called fascism. The individuals own things but the government dictates things. <I want to hear your objections to that one> It's also called stupid. If people want to invest in things, they should be left to choose what to invest in. What if somebody would rather invest in a business, such as buying $10,000 of equipment to repair cars, with which they could earn a living instead of pouring the money down the drain? Rather than buy a solar system, they could wear warm clothes, drink cold water, not watch tv, and generally do without electricity. But you would force them to do what you want instead of earning a living. If they go and shoot you and take your stuff it would not surprise me. That's why I think it's a bad idea to rob them by forcing them to buy a solar system. I certainly wouldn't force them to do so. It's amusing how people think Adolf Hitler and National Socialism were bad ideas, but they are keen to do the same, in compliance with Godwin's Law. Mqurice

To: Don Hurst who wrote (3501)	1/7/2014 2:57:59 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	1 Recommendation Recommended By Hawkmoon Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4326

OK, we start with this one...All new homes and residential buildings in the state(s)? of Florida (I'll add Nevada, Texas, Arizona, and at least Southern California) must have solar systems installed. I have no objection to solar systems being installed on all new homes as long as it is voluntary. My objection is to the forced implementation of a technology that is not economically viable on its own. Without government force and subsidy, even in the places you mention, solar is still a niche play due to expense. The free market should dictate when and where solar is implemented. I want to hear your objections to that one...oh yes, coal sales will go down and we might not need to dig up Alberta and ship its sludge to Houston or frack up Pa. Actually, the implementation of solar on all new homes and the solar farms and wind farms, will not make coal sales go down. The demand for more energy would certainly offset any loss in coal sales. The actual usage would remain at a consistent level, though it may become a lower overall percentage of the energy pie. Alternate energies are not a threat to the coal or natural gas industries. The EPA is. For the record, if it made fiscal sense, I would go 100% solar on my house. I would like more than anything to get off of the grid. But right now, it just doesn't make sense. Sure, there are all of the government subsidies that you can get through going with Verango and other type companies. But they end up owning the equipment and then they have a lien on your house. And get this, if you want to sell your house, the buyers have to qualify separately for the liability (loan) of the solar equipment...AFTER they qualify for a loan for the home. In other words, those solar panels on your roof may impede the sale of your home.