To answer your questions, I have a long range view, and I like to prognosticate on where things will go after everything has been said and done.
Recently I saw on MSNBC website as aprt of their Global Warming
, Rachel Maddow Show Climate Change
and Solar Power
discussions, I saw an article which headlined by stating that, QUOTE: Oklahoma moves to discourage solar power
I scoured the article and read some of the comments of the readers. It didn't take too long for me to conclude that The state of Oklahoma wants a flat rate fee on users of solar power who are connected to the grid and thus benefit from the utilities.
Here are some thoughts of the readership:
"Can we just charge the Koch brothers with crimes against humanity? How many millions will die so that oil interests can make billions from oil? The tabacco companies just killed their direct customers but the oil companies are affecting the survival of humanity. Name a fraud that is worse..."
" This sounds like something that Inhofe cooked up. This is an obvious attempt to discourage green technology, not as something impractical but as too expensive, so as to counter the argument environmentalists have always made about how solar power is a (relatively) free source of energy...."
"this is the same state that only yesterday forbade any local municipality from raising the wages paid the peons, er, loyal republican voters. considering the brain dead cow they anointed governor, you really have to wonder if democracy is as crackpot an idea as marxism. "
Can you catch my drift? Pretending that matters like growth and hating the rich are not intertwined in this energy debate is self delusion.
It seems to me that there is a limit on prime locations for Wind Power and solar power, after these locations are tapped, where will additional energy (for future growth) come from. Isn't there a diminishing returns on renewable Energy and hence growth?