~ Why aren't using nearly 100% solar power in places like Florida, California, and Hawaii?
~ Why aren't we putting EZ Turf (or another such real-looking grass product) in all public areas? (i.e. islands in intersections, neighborhood parks, parkways along roadsides, etc.) --no water, no maintenance!
We could ALWAYS be/act "smarter" toward conservation.
I live in CT and drive 20 miles down I-84 to work. I drive passed what's eaily a couple of thousand of acres of frequently mowed grassy median -- the media is 30-40 yards wide for stretches of miles. Why not let trees grow there? For the liberal global warming crew, of which CT is infested, wouldn't this mean less gas used in lawnmowers, millions of dollars of maintenance costs saved, and more trees to absorb CO2, not to mention a prettier drive?
Do you buy a new car every month? Why not?
For most of us, the reason would be that the expense would not be justified.
The answer to YOUR question is the same. The expense is not justified. Such "solutions" may have become MORE attractive over time, but there are no true savings to be had.
You mustn't base your decisions on highly biased reports of how damaging CO2 is going to be or how limited the world supply of crude oil is.
I worked in a business environment in which a one year payback on investment was considered quite attractive. Two years was also pretty much a no-brainer. But when you calculate a ten year payback, then you are dealing with a situation where circumstances might quickly change and cause the investment to have no payback or possibly even a long term cost that was not anticipated.
When solar energy installations have payback periods close to two years, without the uncertainty of continued government subsidy, then you will see significant activity.