Comments on: President Obama Bets Big on Solar Energy

By: Joe Page

Joe Page — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:44:54 +0000

My colleagues have said it straight here – solar is a loser. It is many years before we can get the price down to achieve grid parity. However, nuclear could save 800 billion from being sent to the middle east each year as we can pay nuclear engineers in this country to work to produce the required power. See what happens when we let Hollywood tell us all Nuclear is the evil devil? Nuclear is a bit nasty without good management, but with good management France has made it save the day. Imagine that, we are now 30 years behind the French in something. Ouch. Integrity IP

By: Juan Carlos

Juan Carlos — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:18:24 +0000

What a waste of taxpayer money. It’s a losing bet because if this stuff was viable, the free market would promote it. I know that there are economically viable solar energy sources, because people are using them without government subsidies. When the government, rather than the market, decides to pick winners and losers, it runs the risk of picking the wrong one and crowding the truelly efficient folks out.

By: Jill

Jill — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 02:07:25 +0000

You discount the cost of this technology as if it isn’t the elephant in the room when talking about emerging alternative energy sources. The extremely high cost of creating and installing photovoltaic cells when compared to the amount of money America invests in developing in this technology emphasizes the fact that we really don’t prioritize its develop–and probably for good reason. I’ll tell you the secret, but shh, most people don’t know about it. It’s called….here it is…nuclear power. Penny for penny, it is the most efficient choice.