Agreed - but Solar is the very kind of investment by government ("low fat pork"
;-) which not only can provide many jobs for the short term- and yet with a
meaningful long-term net benefits ... the gift that keeps on giving, so to
speak...
...and as such: solar or wind is highly preferable to the kind of "pork" the
previous administration was fond of - the bridge to nowhere, the airplane
nobody wanted, new Navy ships going straight into mothballs - or massive tax
cuts for the rich. Eight long years of that kind of wasteful pork is what got
us into this predicament.
There is always going to be so-called "pork" - i.e. the expenditures that the
other-side does not want, and chooses to slander as socialism, or whatever
other spin they can dream up - even when it is such a "liberal" idea as health
care for poor children ... but hey, even that kind of pork can they have
continuous net benefit over the years, unlike Star Wars wastefulness -
...and it is just this kind of low-fat pork, the investment in solar, wind,
cellulosic ethanol, health care etc - that separates the two sides of the
"feeding lot" in this debate...
Jones
________________________________
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 5:57:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Solar - will it flare up?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:50:28 -0800 (PST):
Hi,
[snip]
>Check this out:
>
>http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/02/23/daily23.html
>
>Jones
Note that $1/W is probably per peak Watt, not per average Watt (over the year).
IOW in order to compare with e.g. coal, you probably have to multiply that by at
least a factor of 4.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
