5 years? pathetic

These ROIs should be one year - so people can compare them to the APRs on their credit cards, car loans, CDs, stocks, savings accounts, resale, etc.

Rooftop solar should never be pushed so hard as to need to use 5 year ROIs (lord have mercy) that make it look like a "good" investment compared to traditional money storage which only talks in terms of one year ROIs.

People should know and support and demand UTILITY SCALE solar THERMAL FARMS IN THE DESERT the kind that heats up water to make steam to turn electricity generators, not just the kind in the calculator that's sexy and eco trendy on the roof.

Education should be our number one goal because the numbers are on our side.

Rooftop solar is great for stabilizing the grid, adds resale and should absolutely be done, but the focus should be on both technologies, not just one.

The smart grid is coming anyway to prevent blackouts like the one in 2003. It will also send solar electricity (made at thermal farms) from the south and west to the north and east where it's needed. Right now, power lines leak most of their electricity when transmitted beyond 300 miles.

So let's go back to ONE year ROI cycles since they are great for everything else BUT solar. Actually, only in CA and NY are the rooftop (calculator) solar paybacks good even on a one year ROI cycle - as much as 8%, which beats a savings account or stocks, but you can't try to eliminate the whole electiricy bill to get that good payback - scale the system to only offset the highest price tiers on the bill and spend the remaining budget on efficiency and simply turning things OFF and unplugging them.

Economics ARE in OUR favor, so let's re-imagine the conversation we're having about them truthfully and relatably.

Amory Lovins is (gasp) a CONSERVATIVE! Because the right thing environmentally IS the right thing financially. And his research at Rocky Mountain Institute has shown this over and over, without environmental pandering, without preaching to the choir, without fear, with just honest numbers that money shamed, success guilt damaged hippies don't want to talk about.

He even showed us that all this talk about nuclear poison is nonsense - because the ECONOMICS of nuclear now make it more expensive than solar! That's right, solar is now cheaper than nuclear! So why are we still talking about nuclear pollution? Those outside the choir don't care, let's talk to them about money - something they DO care about.

Wind is also as cheap as coal. Why isn't that bragged about?

But more importantly, nuclear's true costs are going up while solar's are dropping. The utility bill might not charge you the true cost of nuclear, but your TAXES do - the GOVERNMENT pays for liability and disaster cleanup insurance, long term waste storage and decommissioning - the taking apart and storing of toxic nuclear facilities when they are too old to keep running safely - every plant will eventually need to be decommissioned - that's more waste than the plants themselves generate!

All those costs borne by the government are now seeing the light thanks to Amory Lovins and others and Wall Street is listening - nobody wants to finance nuclear power anymore - but the politicians know most people don't know that - so they listen to the nuclear industry who's desperately trying to get the gov to finance nuclear one last time before it goes away from a natural economic death.

ARE YOU LISTENING HIPPIES? STOP PANDERING, GET OVER YOUR SHAME, AND START BRAGGING ABOUT YOUR FINANCIAL ADVANTAGES!!!

The REST of the public is waiting!

This message is for both of you since you're the only ones responding and are both equally non-plussed by my comments. So you may pick out the responses below if they apply to you.

I don't want to be here if I have to agree with and support common misconceptions or support nuclear for the wrong reasons.

My bad, wind WILL be as cheap (has the potential for now) as coal and as coal goes up due to penalties imposed, it will do the flip that solar and nuclear did. So the idea is still true.

"Hippies", my intentionally insulting catch-all, are the ones in the bay area/socially focused non profit world maiming the movement for the rest of the world's eyes/ears with constant talk of "the environment" and virtually no bragging about the financial benefits. That's fine when all you want to do is pander to the choir who's already been over saturated with such messages, but what about the rest of the public? They don't care about the environment or climate change. They need another motivator. The press keeps reporting that every energy saver is "environmentally friendly" and maybe "reduces bills" but never challenges the public's opinion that there is virtually no payback.

The press never explains the advantages of energy savers/makers compared to money rotting away in savings accounts below the inflation line at 3% interest. The "hippies" never bother to say "it's better than a CD with less risk than a stock" because they don't think they have to - like GM and Toyota who got fat and cut quality, the "hippies" too have taken advantage of it's core group. Well, when all you have to go on is "the environment" and thinking insulation doesn't pay more than a CD, then you're going to lose audience.

Hippies must change. So must the nuclear folks who keep promoting it when solar is cheaper.

By the way, the grid upgrades will help reduce the costs of solar and wind moreso than fossil/nuc because they will affect areas where wind/solar are sourced but currently don't have access while increasing the grid's stability. Hawaii is already dealing with this very publicly and the rest of the country will too.

Wind and solar also have storage options as well - but the cost argument pro-solar with storage really works best with thermal, not even concentrating PV.

If you care to dispute the leaking comment, please show us all the information you were able to find online so it can be picked apart.

Your warm welcomes are appreciated. Pot meet kettle.

So perhaps what is rational is to continue headstrong down the path of berkeley bubble intellectualism which dictates that all environmental marketing and media keep quoting "the environment" and not the financial savings?

Is it rational to ignore the masses who don't care about the environment by not addressing the money advantages that climate solutions like smart energy use offer?

So far you offer nothing but attacks. Something you can't seem to handle when delivered right back to you. You offer no answers, no proof, no numbers.

And why so defensive about the hippie thing? You couldn't possibly be one promoting the nuclear fallacy.