"solar is expensive.My 3kW system cost...$12k out of pocket."

That's $4 per watt or $4000 per kilowatt. What do conventional plants cost to build?

"What does that get me?...9c/kWh roughly, on the low end for power nowadays, even before time-of-use metering which in my case "gives" me about a third more power."

Where I live, nine cents per kWh is cheap for residential electricity.

More important, the price of electricity from the grid is only going to rise, regardless of the technology used.

"If I move, I'll just dismantle it and take it with me."

Maybe, by the time you move, it will be more cost-effective to leave it behind and get a new one for the new house.

"Still, yeah, the up front cost is there."

This is how engineering economics works. The return-on-investment is the driving force; things are always compared to the cost of money.

"However, I see blinged out Yukon Denalis and other monstrosities, vehicles that haven't a prayer of lasting 30 years. I see gigantic home entertainment systems and huge wall-mount televisions. Will these still be in the owner's home in 30 years?"

The problem is that most Americans have been trained not to see infrastructure as beautiful, nor as something *they* have to pay for. The classic American mindset is that electricity should be cheap, plentiful, and safe, with no thought to where it actually comes from or the total costs.

"Ask yourself..how much will you spend on computers alone in 30 years?"

In my case - not much. That's because I've learned how to assemble my own from discarded desktops found in the discard. Sure, it may take a half-dozen discarded computers to build one working one, and I do sometimes have to spring for a copy of XP or a hard drive, but the savings are huge and the education invaluable.

Last new computer I bought for myself was in 1997.

For the family, I've bought refurbished computers at a tiny fraction of their new price.

"I know solar isn't cheap. But then, neither are those other "essentials" people keep buying, over & over with little to no thought or care on how their F-350 will be a return on investment."

The problem is that folks have their essentials mixed up. How do we fix that?

It's funny how people like Elephantman think it's everyone else who is an extremist.

Investch

Get real about the collectivism thing. Extremists on the right have gotten to the point that if you mention sharing something or cooperating on something, suddenly you are a communist or socialist. Isn't cooperation the basis of all society/ civilization? You guys have taken the idea of personal responsibility and turned it into "every man for himself".

The world isn't all us and them, black and white, good and evil, and won't fit into your narrow labels and shopworn red baiting.

Were we socialists or communists at the time of World War 2, because we pooled our energy and cooperated and yes, sacrificed, to be able to win the war?

We now face an even bigger challenge.

As far as the science of global warming you are just plain wrong. You are wrong on the biggest issue mankind has ever faced. The scientific evidence supports the AGW theory. There is no other credible hypothesis, never mind theory.

This link shows the overwelming scientific consensus on AGW

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/

You might as well learn now, that those lists of hundreds or thousands of skeptic scientists have all been debunked and discredited. The Oregon Petition was a hoax perpetrated by a group containing not one climate scientist, who passed around what was basically a forgery of NAS stationary to fool scientists into signing it.

Their leader believes that the more CO2 we pump into the atmosphere the more wonderful life on earth will be. Common sense tells you that is out to lunch.

And I recommend reading the book

"The Heat is On"

You'll learn who is fooling you and who's paying them to do it.

They've even been quoted saying that the science behind AGW is getting stronger, so they need to push the PR more to confuse the public.

I'm paraphrasing here but that was the gist of it.

Who are "they"? The oil and coal and auto industries and their PR men.

Who else?

ikuiku

"It's f..king amazing how stupid we are as a country. People would still need to have gas for autos and natural gas for heating and cooking, but there is absolutely no reason solar power systems of one kind or another have not been required in new construction of all kinds, particularly in the Sun Belt. The proverbial no brainer"

Amen

We've been trying to get people to build passive solar homes and use solar for hot water for well over 30 years now.

Parts of Florida had solar water heaters on the roof of almost every home up until about WW2. They were usually disguised as chimneys.

I also like Obama's pick for Commerce secretary- Richardson is strong on renewables and the environment.

"This guy must be kidding himself if he thinks the United States can switch entirely to renewable energy without seriously compromising our way of life."

Our way of life is already seriously compromised by not doing so already.

"we depend on large-scale industrial power, and windmills and solar power are just not that efficient."

How do you define "efficient"? Kilowatt-hours per dollar? How many BTUs wind up as electricity compared to waste heat?

Fossil fuels and nuclear require energy to extract, process, and transport. They also leave waste and other effects that must be dealt with.

"Windmills take up space and cost tens of thousands of dollars each to build, and solar power is unreliable at best--after all, the the sun stops shining, but industry does not stop operating."

The land under windmills can be used for other things, like agriculture. Renewable energy isn't limited to wind and solar - there's hydro, biofuels, tidal and geothermal just to name a few.

There's also energy efficiency - if you don't use a kWh, you don't have to generate it.

Most of all, the change to renewable sources will take a long time. The challenge is to get it done before the nonrenewable sources are all used up.

"Scientists like Chu have sold themselves out to the "green" fantasy of a world in which humans have no effects on the environment. What they are really advocating is a doctrine of man-hatred and the total destruction of civilization."

Not at all - in fact, just the opposite. They know that things cannot go on as they have been, if for no other reason than the supply is limited.

Forget about "global warming" and consider that the price and supply of oil is unreliable, coal won't last forever and demand for all sources keeps rising.

What do YOU advocate? Burning more fossil fuel until the supply runs out? Unlimited growth in population and energy use?

Or simply playing ostrich?