Comments on: Google crunches numbers on clean-energy policy

Search giant pressures policy makers with an analysis arguing that government and business can clean the U.S. energy supply while stimulating the economy.

[Manhattan2]

Ask Google why they installed solar panels on their offices in California? Was it to be green, or look green? Would they have done it without government subsidies? Also what is the monthly return or power capture from their investment compared to the upfront cost? Then ask yourself if those numbers would look attractive to the typical individual interested in going solar? That is the problem with the current way we are looking at solar. It doesn't work across the country for the rest of us!
At Solar Transfer we understand this and we know how to get millions on an even playing field with Google, Walmart, GE, and others.

[gerrrg]

You should consider making STATEMENTS instead of posing RHETORICAL QUESTIONS.

That way you won't sound as though you're trying to prop your ego: "Don't you know what I know?"

[Manhattan2]

Socratic Method of proving others are not following logic. For now the answers have to remain a mystery but the questions are still valid.

The Socratic Web is the perfect forum for Platonic Dialogues.

[HeavyJim]

"by Manhattan2 November 21, 2008 12:16 PM PST
Socratic Method of proving others are not following logic. For now the answers have to remain a mystery but the questions are still valid.

The Socratic Web is the perfect forum for Platonic Dialogues. "


In other words, he has no answers.

[Manhattan2]

Solution to be revealed in 2009 with or without the government's participation. We thought we might get some development and construction assistance from the US along with changes in the way state and federal subsidy programs are handled but it does seem that money has been given away for failing companies with bad products instead of emerging markets with potential riches. Not to mention the green factor! We promise 2009. Get on the early release list.

[walt41]

For Google and the rest: Twenty years is a long time. Considering that a plan for further planning was presented 5/15/1972. One year in advance of the first so called Energy Crisis. During 1973 Energy Independence became the buzz word.

What I am reading in the news this year continues to project out to a not so near but rather far out future.

After 36 years I am more convinced than ever that I could more in less than four years. I believe the above story confirms the span of time 5/15/1972 to 11/21/2008.

I do not believe that Google has any Energy Experts. Google has just about everything but an EE, Martin.

I bought about 90 dollars worth of energy saving light bulbs. In about a years time I have very few bulbs working. In order to make these bulbs worth while; an external starter may be needed. Every time we turn the bulbs on the internal starter wears a little bit. The 10000 hour claim is not accurate at all. They save money but their operating life span is very low. So saving money is out of the question unless the user time can be increased. The light bulbs I am referring to are used as incandesent bulb replacements.

[HeavyJim]

To the above post, you refering to the compact fluorescents? Yes, they are a joke, they don't last, at least for me and others I know, anywhere near the time they claim, and another thing I find is they don't fit most light fixtures. Another scam.

[geod998]

dont know where you guys are buying your CFLs,but, mine cost 2-3 bucks per,and they last well over 5X as long as incands,i prefer the LEDs but they are pricey to buy,buy cheap and easy to make for yourself