Poor people get more value from a cell phone than just about anyone else for all the reasons cited. Bottom line - forced mobility and the need to communicate in order to avoid deeper poverty.

That is one reason why in the developing world, a (pre-paid) cell phone is often people's most prized and valuable personal possession.

It is far from "only in the USA" do only poor people have, use, and need cell phones. The comment is laughable on it's face.

Let's not do that. There have been many life cycle studies over the years - both in terms of energy and emissions - that demonstrate all commercially significant flavors of PV are huge net benefits to the environment.

This is in part because of the 20 to 25 year life cited. Actually it is much longer than that in all likelihood.

Manufacturers warrant modules for 80% power output after 25 years. This doesn't mean they fall apart at this time, it just gives a predictable investment horizon for cash-flow analysis. In most cases modules will simply continue to steadily degrade in output, making clean energy for perhaps 50 years or more. No one really knows.

This is in marked contrast to other products, which will last forever in landfills etc. but are disposed of after a couple of years, if not months. When talking about the environmental impacts of a technology you have to think about the useful life, and in the case of PV the fact that it is actively offsetting all sorts of emissions over its life.

This is not to argue against environmental controls on PV manufacturing. That is obviously important, and I think you will find that responsible manufacturers do care about this - including voluntary tracking of their carbon footprint, etc. (of course there is a marketing angle here as well, but why not?)

As for product take-back, there is an industry organization called PV-cycle that is figuring out how to disassemble, reuse, and recycle components of old modules. The only thing is that there is not much of a need for such a service since so few modules are retired (the global manufacturing capacity for PV modules 30-odd years ago was minuscule).

I pulled out almost all of my funds from WAMU yesterday. Thanks for the tip, Andrew.

As I'm (hopefully) about to close on a house, I just can't afford for my cash to be in FDIC limbo for any period of time. I figure there's about a 25% chance of losing access to funds for 2+ weeks. Not a chance I can take. It was easy enough to do.

It was surreal going in there though. I half-expected a line around the bank. But the only people in there were actually opening an account! As soft easy-listening music played, the teller and other patrons appeared completely clueless about what was going down.

It really did make me feel paranoid. But I guess you're only paranoid if your predictions are wrong.

Andrew,

As usual, a very good post. One very interesting thing I have see in the last month is a significant run-up in real estate prices in North Oakland and Berkeley. In the beginning of the summer prices were starting to look soft in the more desirable parts of the East Bay, perhaps off 20% from the peak of the boom. That was still pretty stinking high and as a first time homebuyer, I was hopeful that as we progressed through buying seasons home prices would continue to drop.

But no. Prices seem to be holding steady for anywhere withing striking distance of BART and easily biking and in some areas bidding wars have started again, with houses going for well over listing price. Even the recent bump in interest rates does not seem to have impacted this dynamic. Certain areas, such as Temescal in Oakland, seem to be getting truly into mini-bubble territory. Simultaneously, prices in the suburbs further out just continue to plummet. This is discouraging personally but fascinating intellectually. I do think it is directly attributable to the price of energy.

As Pablo noted, LEDs are directional. Therefore they are typically packaged in a fixture that includes a reflector and limits the lighted area to ~ 20 degrees. This concentrates their light output to a relatively small area and the efficiency (lumens per watt) is measured in this area.

CFLs are not packaged this way; they obviously emit light much more generally, but the standard measurement method (putting a meter some distance from the fixture) doesn't account for the difference. In the "real world" the CFL will produce much more light (which will bounce of walls, ceiling etc.) for a given wattage.

Apples-to-apples would be to put the CFL in a reflecting fixture.

So anyhow, LEDs are good for spot lighting; their very long life is an advantage; and as noted they have no mercury. However CFLs are more efficient for general lighting even if the "lumens per watt" may not appear to be as good.