Jimmy Carter's solar panels help power a Maine college, then star in film

What a pity that we are again dragging our heels on finding alternatives to our oil dependency. While few would want the government to actually do the research and trials, a little boost here and there could pay tremendous dividends in the near future. Think less militarism because we won't have to project our "power" to protect corporate energy interests, think more stable energy costs well into the future providing business and residents with costs they can count on, think higher global esteem as we move from using 25% of the oil (for less than 6% of the global population), think cleaner air and water worldwide, think better life for developing countries as they would no longer have to compete with our rapacious energy needs, and no longer would we have to be using food crops to prop up our driving habits. Compared to the $1- $2 trillion we will end up spending in Iraq, this would be money well spent and could obviate the "need" to go adventuring again.

Not that I am a Carter supporter...but we can mark that the great dumbing down of America began when Reagan, as the puppet, and Orange Country CA Republicans and oil companies as the puppetmasters began the rightward sharp turn, toward a "Restoration" of pre-Teddy Roosevelt economics. Taking down the solars panels was only one of many symbolic items in the first days of the Reagan Administration that have wounded this country grievously...some others:

1) Closing the mental hospitals when he cut Federal funding only days after taking office ("Gee, where did all these homeless people come from???DUH....)

2) Release of US hostages in Iran seconds after he (Reagan) was sworn in as President on 01/20/81,,,DUH (Of course this was only a coincidence,,,the right-wing Repblicans would never use back channels to keep the hostages at the Embassy in Teheran through the 1980 election, now would they...nor would they never attack another country that had nothing to do with 9/11 - see Tim Russert interview with Dick Cheney on 9/16/01 - "no connection")

3) Arming Iraq in 1985-86 against Iran...DUH...

4) Arming the "Freedom Fighters" in Nicaragua and El Salvador...DUH

5) In 1979 the US was the world's largest creditor nation but by the end of Reagan's term had become the world s largest debtor...DUH

6) Cutting and running from Lebanon after 1983 Marine Barrack's bombing..."These people are crazy" DUH

We have lost decades in the development of many technologies and will fall further and further behind....now where did I put the keys to my new Honda ????

Sad commentary on the What If's of a past generation...

Sad commentary on all of the What Ifs, not just of past generations, even today we still find ourselves with a clear lack of political will to take real action. Witness the guy who was arrested in Maryland for traveling 55 to reduce the amount of gas used by his vehicle. That was an action taken by Jimmy Carter that clearly did reduce significantly the amount of gas used by the American drivers. The present generation does not want to consider it. Another sign that we still lack the political will.

Just read the article to get some clues about why solar has been a failure to bring energy dependence. 'The panels were refurbished but now don't work'. Reliability was always a problem with solar. Also initial cost. And maintenance costs. And problems with aiming, snowfall, cloudy days, hailstones. Solar panels don't put out much energy and it isn't house current anyway. Solar panels aren't cost effective except in very remote areas where concentional electricy isn't available and that's not where people live. Why is it that simple answers to complex problems never seem to work. That's why Obama is guaranteed to be a failure. All he has to offer is simple solutions to problems that he doesn't fully understand. Obama will be the next Jimmy Carter

So sad, so sad! GM was able to retool their plants and begin making tanks instead of trucks and cars in 1942 when directed by Roosevelt. Surely, we have even better technology to overcome the weaknesses of solar power. Mccain wants 11 new nuclear power plants built right away. A terrible waste! Maybe the public needs to see pictures again from Chernoble. That would be a wake-up call. People forget that tragedy. Lets not go there! Solar is always there, clean, and cheap. I would love to see solar panels on all of our cars. What a beautiful sight. I have a question? Whare are all the scientists that Jimmy Carter hired for his Solar Power Agency that he created? Many were from our most prestigious univercities. Are they available for rehire? I hope so. Americans, lets not give up! Help!!!

Nuclear is the most environmentally friendly option there is for power generation and it has an excellent safety track record. Chernobyl is a terrible example. It used a plant design that never could have been built in any Western country -- even back in the 50s. It lacked a containment for one, which is key to preventing the spread of radioactive material in the event of an accident. This is one thing that separates it from Three Mile Island, where there were zero casualties.

A single nuclear plant, in a relatively small amount of space, will output over 1000 MW of power with a 90% availability factor. It uses hardly any fuel to do it and all the waste -- which there isn't really that much of either -- is contained. It can be reprocessed. There are other promising techniques for dealing with it in the future too.

There are solar plants proposed that consume several square miles that produce something in the range of 200 MW with around a 30% availability factor. The amount of energy that you can extract is very low -- even with the most efficient panels -- for a given amount of space.

Solar is not as clean as nuclear. You're forgetting that the panels need to be manufactured and degrade over time. The amount of energy that goes into production is relatively high versus the amount gathered during use -- especially is areas with less direct sunlight. It's also not that cheap. The costs are masked by subsidies.

The problem is not finding sources of energy. It's finding cost-effective sources that are reliable/consistent. We don't have the storage technologies to do wide-scale wind and solar -- even if they were cost-effective.

It seems people don't understand that low-cost power grows the economy, bringing a higher standard of living to everyone. Increase the costs, people on the lower end will starve instead. I suppose knocking the population down a bit is one way to make things "greener". Man is the problem, right?

I want cleaner sources of power too. I especially want to put an end to coal. I don't like dependence on oil. But I'm also a realist, and there are costs -- big costs -- to pursuing overly expensive power sources. I'm concerned that many followers of the "green" craze don't understand that -- that they let their emotions get the best of them. They want to believe it's all a big conspiracy or something, even when there are gaping holes in most of those theories.