How Much "Green for Clean?"

It is for this reason alternative energy , clean energy ,renewable source find difficult to make way in lively hoods , we need such sources much cheaper than conventional sources , with government subsidies and funding these can be affordable , why should general public be made to pay penalty or fine for clean energy source when its in governments interest when they spend hefty amounts from tax payers on un necessary expenses , some like looking and fighting for oil , health care specially pollution related , funding in R/D for un-necessary discoveries , and more.... If govt interest for people is matter of concern these need subsidise bills to motivate general public from opting to conventional sources , by paying say 5-10% more for clean source how much people do you get , say 25-30 % of population in developed world , 1-2 % developing states , you still have majority opting for cheap energy that happens to be conventional non renewable energy and doing the damage that was intended to prevent and doesn`t solve any purpose for other minority clean energy users , It is arguable initial cost to put clean energy sources to be highly expensive and in efficiency for area per unit of energy produced , but it is economics that is concern.

Vikas,

NO. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS RESPONIBILITY. I don't want to pay for it. If I did want to pay for it I would prefer to pay through a somewhat fiscally responsible company than our extremely wastefull government. I am so tired of idiots saying "the government has so much money they should pay for this". NO the government has my money and yours. Government subsities don't come from thin air, they come from tax money that comes from taxpayers. Even if you argue that the money can come from corporate taxes, that still comes from the average person - every time you increase corporate taxes the corporations increase prices to make up for it. Using gov't money is a lose - lose situation. It is just not worth it.

I think that it comes down to the fact that the government isn't willing to make a real stand on alternative energy yet. They will talk a big talk and do just enough to say that they are trying, but they won't actually commit to anything substantial yet. This is because of the power of money (in my humble opinion), I personally would be happy to pay more for renewable energy, I don't know what my "cap" would be but since I live in New England it would be nice to have "green" electricity that could heat my house in the winter as opposed to oil heat which is quickly on the rise in price. It seems to me that if the general public were a little smarter and didn't get scared every time someone said the word "nuclear" and if we didn't have treaties against it, then we should build some nuclear "breeder" reactors and have sufficient energy for an almost undetermined amount of time.

I took a class on energy in college a few years ago where we discussed the use of breeder reactors and the fact that they can basically re-use their waste over and over to some point at which it becomes useless (far beyond the reactors we use today). Some people would argue that these reactors are expensive and could then become the targets for terrorism...I say bring the troops we have all over the world home and use them for OUR security! The startup costs would be outweighed (eventually) by the amount of energy produced, the estimates given by the coursebook stated that on our current path toward power usage and expansion, the US would have power for 4500-50000 years if we switched to breeder reactors for all of our power needs (not what I'm suggesting...just a portion of our power would need to come from this source...why put all your eggs in one basket?).

It just seems to me that this is a pretty good idea, and I know that it isn't perfect but what is? The main stigma of nuclear power comes from Chernoble (I know I misspeled that) and 3 mile Island, the two "black eyes" of nuclear energy, but we've come a long way since then (I think) and I believe it's more dangerous continuing on our current path than trying this new one.

There's a bit more stigma than TMI.

Dead & cancerous mine & power plant workers, could be a bit of a problem.

What's a little radiation among friends?

No. Energy costs should be the same or cheaper. The sensible person not only does not want more expensive energy, they want cheaper energy. Governments that mandate higher prices often lose elections. Using tax money is not an answer, because that too takes money out of the pocket of the ordinary person. What would really help is to give some meaningful tax breaks to people who do things which save energy, enough that they can afford them. Why do banks class underground/earth-sheltered homes with basements and refuse to loan money to build them? Why do zoning and building codes often prevent energy-saving construction, prohibit solar collectors and many other things which could save energy, save money for the people to spend and make us more energy independent? Two reasons, political power and tax money.

I would like to be as energy independent as possible, but I shouldn't have to be rich [I'm not] to do it. Except for initial cost and upkeep it is possible to have free electricity, free heat and free A/C, but that would deprive the government of the ability to regulate your power and to tax it.