Comments on: We're No. 11! USA! USA! USA!

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 03:20:00 +0000

You should contact a solar installer in your state. Nevada should be a green energy-friendly state with that great sun! SunRun is trying to be available to people in more states, but it is all about the legislation that allows (or forbids) competition from solar PPAs with fossil energy utilities.

By: Muni

Muni — Sun, 12 Sep 2010 13:22:43 +0000

Hi Susan,
I am interested in making my home solar, I do not see you listed the state of Nevada in your companies service areas?. Is there anyone or any company providing services in vegas or Nv similar to what you do?.

Any suggestions will be appreciated.

thanks,
Muni

By: J

Sun, 23 May 2010 19:50:42 +0000

Thanks to George Bush and all the EVIL Republicans, the US over took Germany and became NUMBER ONE ! ! ! ! in the world for installed capacity of wind power by the end of 2008.

The US is number one in Geo-thermal energy production, out pacing Iceland, although it has the highest use of geo-thermal per capita, it’s population is less than many US cities.

The US has recently out produced Brazil in ethanol production, ~8 billion gallons as compared to our ~12 billion gallons per year.

Because of differences in population, per capita expenditures, etc. you can come up with just about any negative statistic and toot your horn in any direction you want.

China, by sheer weight of it’s population will be number one in many respects. It has ~40 million installed solar hot water heaters, #1 in the world.

The US by size and dynamic of it’s economy will no doubt rocket to number one in many areas in the future.

Between 1939 and 1945, the US went from mouse to powerhouse in short order.

Don’t discount the US like all the rest of the King oumgbama “bad mouth America first” crowd.

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Sun, 23 May 2010 14:11:12 +0000

The APA climate bill doesn’t “provide” $4 billion for CCS, it will just give a loan guarantee – to any source that lowers GHGs. So if the coal company can’t find financing (for the Feds to guarantee) no loan guarantee from the Feds.

Likely investors will pick cheaper, less polluting solar and wind than expensive CCS and nukes that both have disposal problems. So APA evens the playing field by pricing carbon into the equation, that’s all.

By: origo

origo — Sat, 22 May 2010 16:54:29 +0000

Why are those in the U.S. Congress providing $4 billion to develop carbon dioxide sequestration technology when such technology will serve only to prolong our dependence on carbon fuels? Members of Congress are pandering to the fossil fuel industries. Why can’t Congress use that $4 billion to develop vehicle onboard water-splitting systems so that we can achieve total energy independence from fossil fuels now—not sometime in the future? No carbon dioxide emissions from water means no need for carbon dioxide sequestration.

Water dissociation systems using several existing photocatalysts is an existing technology, waiting to be utilized. That BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is floating on top of the very substance that, while hiding in plain sight, can be the answer to U.S. energy independence.

Origo

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Fri, 21 May 2010 22:29:51 +0000

Well, I’d like us to be first.

The internet, the freeway, the railroad, GPS systems, the high-speed trains they have in other countries, hybrid cars in Japan, even the aquaduct system of the Roman Empire – there’s just so many examples of ways that initial government investment ultimately creates an economy of new private investments that only happen because the initial investment was made.

By: Sven

Sven — Fri, 21 May 2010 19:22:19 +0000

That really sucks. We should be somewhere around 150th place.

The last time I checked, the means of production in this country was mainly privately owned.