[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

In short, the technology is out there to make America - and for that matter most nations - energy independent. The problem is that the market has only begun this transition.

For security reasons alone, I think the US should seriously consider focusing energy policy on creating market incentives to adopt this type of technology. It would surely benefit American businesses, and surely harm the Saudis and Iranians. I can hardly think of a better proposition.

[dementg]

I can't refute this article, and don't feel sufficiently interested to research it. But the economics of other, already existing conservation and recycling efforts don't add up well. It makes people feel good but the net "savings" are negative.

[martin_fierro]

At Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, the lights are controlled by sensors that measure sunlight. They dim immediately when it's sunny and brighten when a passing cloud blocks the Sun.

Thank God. I thought I was having flashbacks.

[sergeantdave]

Checked out solar for my house 5 years ago.

The cost was prohibitive. Serious problems with maintenance, also. I also questioned whether or not the cells could collect enough energy in winter when the clouds mask the sun for weeks on end.

What makes alternative energy especially unappetizing is the initial cash layout.

Keep working on it, though.

[Leisler]

Any energy saved will result in lower per unit cost of energy supply. More people will thus use that supply. There is no net energy savings. It's kind of if you don't want it, it will be sold to me for half price, and I will use twice as much.

No mention in construction cost per foot. Typical lefty story, missing as usual the total cost of yet another Utopian scheme.

[cogitator]

Nice post. I agree that technology will be the way to energy independence, not drilling for limited fossil fuel reserves.