Geothermal power, THE Answer?
I read an article in the L.A. Times this morning about geothermal power plants currently operating in California and Nevada. Highly efficient, zero carbon.
Paraphrasing: There is 50,000 times more geothermal energy available within six miles of the Earth’s surface than all fossil fuels combined.
Right now the easiest way to access this type of energy is near fault lines along the west coast but there is every reason to expect that new ways of accessing this energy will be coming soon.
I sure hope that our new president reads the same reports and gets behind this technology.
Edited 11/3/2008 2:22 pm by Hudson Valley Carpenter (Hudson_Valle)
Replies
I either read or saw something on true geothermal power. The idea is to drill down to a depth that is hot and then use that heat to create steam and power the turbines right?
I believe that there were limited areas of the country where the hot layer was reasonably accessable and as you pointed out were near fault lines. The problem with the areas that have been used is an increase in the number of tremors they experience. Then it becomes just a "best guess" as to if or when this technology can or will destabilize a fault.
The not in back yard attitude about many power plants could be a whole lot bigger issue if you think that one of the new geothermal power plants might collasp your house .
I live in Northern Nevada and the are has tremendous potential for geothermal, many projects have been in service for over 20 years and I have never heard of such a de-stabilization of ground faults and increased earthquake activity. Almost every basin and range has naturally occurring hot ponds and flowing warm water in small areas. In fact, we already own it and should develop this resource because it is OURS, not the federal government's property. Public resources are being mined without royalties and entire ecosystems are altered beyond repair and the people who own the land - you and I - are getting no compensation whatsoever and are in fact footing the bill.The sad fact with all alternative energies is they need to be funded...period. Wall Street tried to throw money at a problem in hopes of a solution miraculously appearing. As a result, we ended up with ethanol debacle and no real solution at all - it was simply the easiest thing for Wall Street to throw other people's money at in hopes of double digit returns and being in on the ground floor of the next Google. Geothermal is a great technology, however, the federal oversight and permit process is a tremendous entrance barrier to new firms and new technologies. I doubt any President will make much progress with a federally mandated program encouraging alternative, sustainable energy sources. Private industry and capital will be needed to find the new technologies that work, corporate tax breaks and poorly funded government programs will not work and it's gonna take more than just talking about 'green' for the sake of being trendy to make it happen.Look at the Scandinavian countries and their 'green' programs - recycling, mass transit, bio fuels, geothermal, etc...are borne of necessity rather than mandate. This country is too divided and led by too divisive of forces to ever recognize that the best solution is the one that makes 'cents' and that these 'green' solutions were in place decades ago before we were so collectively wealthy and intelligent that we needn't be bothered by such archaic burdens such as railroads and glass bottles.But I digress...
"The sad fact with all alternative energies is they need to be funded...period."Or conventional energy sources need to be taxed. Hey, it's just a thought. That's the strategy scientist Bjorn Lomborg advocates. Lomborg, a Dane, uses a bicycle and public transit instead of owning a car. The only reason, he says, is that the Danish government has taxes that discourage car ownership. Otherwise, he says, he'd own a car.I know that this is exactly the sort of notion that p1sses off a lot of people. Well, it doesn't exactly excite me, either. I'd love to be laissez-faire and let the market do its thing, but we've got a serious problem with near-sightedness. The day of reckoning is going to come, sooner or later, and if we play wait-and-see we will ALL PAY.
I'll vote the Biff/Haystax ticket, you guys are sane thinkers.
I believe it's the Phillipines the generates a significant amount of power using geo.
Check out Iceland, they have been producing power from geo for years. It's pretty amazing what they have accomplished.
As I understand it, geo-thermal power is not exactly a "slam-dunk". The first large-scale Geothermal power plant in California (called Bottle Rock) ran out of natural steam pretty quickly (18 years ago) and went out of business, then someone bought it up and revived it by pumping water into the fault, which did cause a few tremors. However, the bigger issue is that it takes a lot of water to keep it on the boil and water is hard to find at some of these locales. Also, at some locations, sort of like in Yellowstone, the fault can just shut down unpredictably, which makes getting investors to buy into it kinda tricky. What the investors want is guarantees against such failures, and well, we can't allow bailouts like that, can we? That said, there are other GT sites being explored in California.
Still, if they can figure out the technical issues, I say go for it!
Jasper57
I wonder why they didn't bother to recapture the water and reuse it? It seems rather silly to vent the steam into the atmosphere when water is such an issue in CA.
vent the steam
When you see that, it is evaporation from cooling systems, not geothermal steam, ya get a LOT energy out of condensing the steam - aka 80% vs 95% gas furnaces, that 15% comes from condensing the water vapor (steam) in the flue gas.
Junkhound -Comparing a steam turbine to a gas furnace is an apples to oranges thing.The thermodynamic effeciency of a steam turbine is (at best)~30% - 35%. The rest is lost as "waste heat".When I first learned that (in Thermogodammits 101) over 40 years ago, I decided that my ticket to fame and fortune was to find a way to get 1% more effeciency. The plan was to figure it out, patent it, license the technology, and spend the rest of my life cashing royalty checks and chasing major babes.It didn't work as planned. I never figured it out, I've never seen a royalty check, and we just won't talk about the major babe part, ok? - lol
Edited 11/4/2008 11:54 am by Dave45
Lomborg, a Dane, uses a bicycle and public transit instead of owning a car. The only reason, he says, is that the Danish government has taxes that discourage car ownership. Otherwise, he says, he'd own a car.
I did a store front remodel for a friend who owns a bike shop, couple years ago. He's been commuting to work by bike daily for years, year round, about nine miles each way in heavy street traffic. His wife, who isn't into cycling, has the use of their one car.
This guy has a good enough income to drive almost any car so it's admirable of him to commute on a bike and to encourage others to do so. But that's where conservation begins and ends with him.
He refuses to insulate the overhead space in his shop because he believes that the building owner should make that investment. I've done the calculations for him, clearly showing that he'd get his money back on energy savings in one year. As he has a two year lease, how can he lose?
I'd like to think that we're all interested in every aspect of conservation but, as Lomborg points out, it appears that the only way to get cooperation is to impose a penalty or create an incentive.
I'm in favor of positive incentives myself. It's more in keeping with the traditional American approach.
But realistically, according to the example I sited, it looks like we'll need a combination of both the whip and the carrot.
Edited 11/4/2008 12:15 pm by Hudson Valley Carpenter
Or conventional energy sources need to be taxed.
Hey, that's an idea...just like they've done with gasoline and cigarettes....
So, quitting oil means going "cold turkey" and doing without... What a concept...
The scary part is that people forget when something becomes less used or in short supply, the price skyrockets....
Right now, just like it was 28 years ago, alternate energy is really just supplemental energy. Present day machine and appliances drink power like ovens, clothes dryers, large horsepower motors, all need more power to make them work....
I see that if we went to alternate energy, for the aging and the ignorant, it still takes "somebody" to maintain what ever is producing the energy...and on the whole, everybody's lifestyle would be lower. If the stock market and banks crash and survival mode kicks in, then alternative energy becomes Golden and beats super-expensive energy or no energy...
At that point, the "Have Not's" will take it away from those that have it.... Whew!! What a downward spiral this has turned into...and we're only "700 Billion" of government funded dollars away from that beginning...and the U.S.A. turning into a 3rd world country....
2008 may be the last "Merry Christmas" for a long, long time
Help! Somebody give me some a big shot of Hope,
Bill
What you are talking about is near surface or surface sources for geothermal. The thing I read or saw involved drilling 5+ miles to reach a layer that is hot enough to be a heat source for super heated steam. We are talking about some serious BTUs there.
No offense to you or anyone on this site, but not many people know what kind of power it takes to run a steam turbine.
I am not anti-geothermal in anyway. It would be great if we can safely develope it as a reliable power source. The cautionary note was sounded for a reason. If this was a low risk venture with potential for even moderate returns, don't you think there would be more investment capital directed toward it?
Something just doesn't sound right to me. Everytime I hear someone say the government needs to pour money into developing something I shudder. I see thousand dollar toilet seats for a little bit of s###.
I think you misunderstood my argument completely, I am definitely against the government funding the next green revolution in any way. Here is the link to the original article in question, pretty good for the LA Times - http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-geothermal3-2008nov03,0,3620633.storyThere is an enormous amount of potential in certain areas, like I said earlier. No, this probably won't work in Iowa but it is an excellent answer for the West where the current population boom is taxing the sparse resources the in the worst ways.The key is to develop what is locally available in terms of green energy and not losing ground on transmission or transport of energy from point of production to point of use.
Thanks for the link. I read the article in the newspaper, didn't think to look for it on the LA Times web site.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-geothermal3-2008nov03,0,3620633.story
To those who are interested, be sure to read the entire article, so that you get to the part about EGS, the latest technology being developed to make Geothermal more viable in many locations, around the world. Looks very promising.
Research on EGS, or Enhanced Geothermal Systems, is being partially funded by Goggle so you can find a lot more information about how it works, etc., by using that phrase to search there.
Edited 11/4/2008 11:31 am by Hudson Valley Carpenter
I would suggest you do a bit more research about the "Scandinavian" countries and how they have implemented green energy...you might have to "digress" a bit from your biases.....
I guess you can't be bothered to provide any actual information?
Nope.....
Just because a bunch of corn farmers hoped on a bandwagon that our bought & paid for system of gov't. funds doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't have some sensible gov't.s that have managed to put good green policies in place.
I though I detected a rock hard free market ideology in the OP's comments that needed a bit of, shall we say, challenging.
Are you alluding to the strong presence of nuclear power plants in those countries? Would you be kind enough to elaborate or is that a task unworthy of your precious time and opinions?I live in an area with vast, untapped 'green' energy potential, and it so happens that this area was the birthplace of the nuclear era and the future eternal resting place for the waste associated. It is also an area of vast energy usage as well as conventional generation so I have some opportunities of observation that some may not.I have also witnessed first hand some of the progressive tactics and attitudes towards energy independence being introduced in Sweden to be specific. I have close family members there who have an entirely different mindset towards conservation than do the residents of this country and my main point is that stems mostly from necessity as well as ideology regarding energy.
I'm guessing you are in the SW US., and you seem to have some of the West's traditional distrust of the Federal government.
I was not referring to the strong presence of Nukes in the Scandinavian countries. Top of my head, I don't think there are that many, but I could be totally off base. (Don't think it's anything like France...)
Yes, they do have a different mindset towards conservation, and to some extent it's from necessity. But I think you underestimate the extent to which smart gov't., that believes in science and data had/has something to do with it.
near fault lines along the west coast
Now, now, you are not being enough of a true Luddite, where is the doom and gloom? .
Don't you know that if MAN goes messing with these forces just to make his life a little more comfortable the seam will split and CA will slide into the Pacific??<G>
Come to think of it, that may not be such a bad idea, think you are onto something.
OH NO! Now we'll need to worry about "earth core cooling" and it's effects on Presidential candidates! < G >
CA will slide into the PacificPlease don't perpetuate this myth, Junkhound. It's an established fact that CA isn't going to slide off into the Pacific Ocean. Everything east of the Sierra-Nevada range will slide into the Atlantic.
i always wondered about live'n in a place like hot springs arkansas where hot springs are somewhat common... or in places where natural gas is common and shallow... seems alot of crafts type people flock to these areas so they can fire their wares for free... in gas kilns... they have natural gas fired refrigerators.. (if you can do it for refrigeration can you do it for ac?) and most have natural gas fired generators...
could be interesting
p:)
ponytl,Years ago in western Kansas I knew folks who had gas wells or gas lines on their property and got free gas. And yes, their HVAC was all gas.
For free. Downside was that it had no odor added at their site.Pete
Actually, you'd be surprised at the number of Californian's who wouldn't mind doing just that.
I think Geo-Thermal is great, but why is it sooo expensive to drill a hole in the ground?
Family.....They're always there when they need you.
Buckminster Fuller once quipped that will never be an energy crisis - only an ignorance crisis. That sounds harsh, but I can't bring myself to disagree.
Our civilization doesn't have a future if we don't kick the fossil fuel habit, global warming or not. Eventually, the stone won't be giving any more blood.
One of the biggest is w/in spittn' distance of me. In fact it is located w/in the confines of where I work. As I understand it ... they have to continually explore new sources as once they drill ... it is not the proverbial bottomless pit of energy. Drilling for this kind of stuff is expensive. A lot of deep drilling of large holes (small holes simply can't give you the quantity of power you'd need, I suspect).
I'm all for taking advantage of alternative sources and offering our middle finger to the foreign oil ... not because of who they are ... because it is the right thing to do. Even if we had unlimited oil ... there is still the environmental impact of uncheck oil use.
Biggest untapped and EASILY accessible energy resource: WASTED ENERGY. We waste more energy than we can possibly imagine. We consume energy to create energy. We consume energy to create products and things that we literally do little or absolutely nothing with.
This list is HUGE: we waste 200-300 horepower to take our 100-200 lb lazy arses to the store and to work and to nowhere ... why do we need so much horsepower for simple things? We create energy to make paper ... much of which I take from my mailbox and literally don't look at it and put it in my recycle box. I could myself create a list of examples that would [should] blow the minds of most people. All the energy taken to create electricity and transport it to a location to be literally used and consumed for no real purpose or real benefit of any sort whatsoever. Now THAT is something to think about.
All the solar power systems in the world do not make it right or OK to simply create the energy and then use it for no practical purpose. Even high temp geothermal power has finite and practical limitations. We got to quit looking for sources and have a paradigm shift of thinking.
Those who went through the World Wars understand conservation and recycling in a way that would amaze most of us. Energy and resources are finite for us. No policy, politics, morals, or religion will alter that simple fact. The sooner we get off our high horses and do something that makes science sense, the better off our grandchildren will be. Anything else we are disrespecting our heirs and handing them garbage (literally). .... stepping off my soapbox now.
There are some fairly interesting geothermal resource maps available at:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/maps.html
Here are some basics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power#Geothermal_technologies
I haven't read it all. Sounds like about 1% of the world energy is already provide by geothermal.
When I have more time, maybe I can find what the end use cost of geothermal power. Seems like if is competative with current sources there would be a bigger push in it's development.
Check this web site. http://www.geysers.com
for more info.
Something that the web site doesn't mention is that the geothermal steam is highly corrosive and plant maintenance costs run very high.
Geothermal sources are also expendable. If you remove the heat faster than it's being generated by geological forces, you'll eventually run out - just like oil or coal. - lol
There is no single "THE ANSWER" for power generation, but geothermal can be a viable alternative in some locations. Iceland, for example, has done some fantastic things with geothermal - in large part because, for them, it's easily accessed.
Geothermal probably won't be viable in other locations (e.g. upstate New York)because drilling and casing a six mile deep hole that's big enough to provide enough flow to generate significant power is probably not feasible now. Maybe someday, but I wouldn't bet on "soon".
Geothermal is no panacaea. Pumping water directly into hot fractured rock is a way to mine the subsurface of (useless) minerals which later turn up as scale and corrodents inside the geothermal power plant itself (if not the well- if it plugs the well, you're in deep doo-doo!). It's no slam dunk, regardless what Warren Buffett and Google may suppose. Part of the solution? Sure- better than burning coal!
There's only one thing we can do in terms of energy supply which has no environmental ill effects, and that's to avoid wasting so d@mned much of it in the first place. Scrap the geothermal plants and get rid of all the electrical resistance heaters used for home heating and you'll be WAY better off!
All means of energy generation have some downsides in environmental terms.
How do you make energy worth conserving? Make it more expensive! Simple economics. Now all of a sudden, energy conservation PAYS for itself- and people will start doing it in earnest.
Take ALL the resulting tax money and invest it in schools and hospitals, or even put it in a big pile and burn it, and you'll still be doing some good for the environment. Take some or all of that money and invest it in helping people to kick the fossil fuel monkey off their backs, and then you've really got something!
Do nothing, and the results of that too are entirely predictable.
While environmentalism and energy conservation continue to rely entirely on people's sense of collective responsibility and altruism alone, people who have those sensibilities will be the only ones to spend their money on it. But the costs of NOT doing the right thing in terms of energy policy are currently and will continue to be borne by ALL of us, and not necessarily in proportion to how much we contributed toward the problem. It should make the majority of us mad as hell, but we continue to put up with it for some reason. Hidden costs versus visible ones, I guess.
Every thread needs at least one iracible curmudgeon. Thanks for dropping in.
;-)
Nobody should argue with conservation, but some people do. The fact is that our future, in terms of energy consumption patterns and production is going to look very different from our past and the building trades are in a better position to do something about it right now than anyone else.
It would be nice if a crowd of people would chant, "Insulate, Baby, insulate!" once in a while because it would also insulate us against future price increases. The current price of a barrel of oil not only reduces interest in conservation or renewable energy, it reduces interest in drilling for known reserves. An energy sector investor, Gregor MacDonald, said recently,
"Let’s make this simple: if OPEC cuts big and gets the price back up to 90.00 or 100.00, then the chances of a new price high in oil next year will diminish. But if price, for whatever reason, stays at 70.00 into the middle of Winter, then prepare for 160.00 by next August."
That Bike Shop guy should make his wife ride a bike, too and use the money saved to insulate his roof. Then, next Winter, he can buy her a nice fake-fur coat.
Jasper57
Couldn't agree more about eliminating stupid waste of fuel by insulating and other conservation measures, including the many benefits of daily cycling.
One of the motivations for me to participate on BT has been to learn about the latest methods to conserve fuel and to plan for the future. I've learned a lot from others here about their experiences with several approaches to conservation.
I've settled on a variation of the super-insulated Mooney wall for my next home. Combining that simple, proven method with a lot of thermal mass should make that home extremely energy efficient, even by future standards.
I didn't intend to claim that geothermal was some kind of panecea. In fact, my intent was to point out that it was only viable in certain situations. Different situations will require different solutions.The idea of somehow making everyone cut their energy use to the bare bone by driving the cost up is absurd. Then, only the wealthy will be able to afford energy. Unless the poor will be forced to shiver in the dark - and limit their employment to jobs within walking or bicycling distance from their homes, the only way to do that fairly would be some sort of rationing system. Who will we trust to do that?? - lol
The comment about geotherman not being a panacaea was directed at the OP, not at you, so sorry if you got some back-blast there.
Making energy more expensive will ensure that only the rich can afford to WASTE it. Everybody else will need to conserve. Energy conservation will suddenly have a payback, so investing in conservation will make economic sense. And the collective costs we ALL bear from the status quo will also be reduced. We'll all benefit from cleaner air, less of our treasure being exported to areas of the world that won the geological lottery, and ultimately, fewer consequences from global warming.
Anybody who thinks there's ANY technological solution to this problem which will permit people to continue to live as they have in the past, poor and rich alike, is fooling themselves big time. There can be NO technological solution to this problem without an economic driving force, and that WILL require people to change their behavior. While wind energy remains more expensive than burning coal, you KNOW this is true.
Provide the economic driving force and we can use existing technology to solve this problem. Do it by proper taxation and we'll even have the money to help people make the transition.
And I love how everybody's concerned about the poor all of a sudden when we start talking about making energy more expensive. Poor people aren't driving SUVs- they're taking the bus. And they're not living in single-family homes- they're living in multi-unit apartment buildings. They're already making energy-efficient choices by default, even at current (cheap) energy prices. You don't solve poverty by subsidizing energy any more than you solve hunger by subsidizing food- you give poor people more money and let THEM decide what to spend it on.
Very nice & concise summation of where we are......
"Poor people aren't driving SUVs- they're taking the bus. And they're not living in single-family homes- they're living in multi-unit apartment buildings. They're already making energy-efficient choices by default, even at current (cheap) energy prices."I've usually figured that the poorest live in the oldest, most heat-leaky housing in the country. The housing stock that is in most need of heat-conservation upgrading is occupied by folks who either own the building but can't afford the upgrade or rent the space from a landlord unwilling to invest in the improvement as long as someone else is paying to heat the building.One way to address this in part might be a regulation that forces the landlord to share part of the cost to heat the building. Another might be to require that a house being sold be upgraded to some standard, much as a septic system might have to be brought up to code as a condition of sale. The first might not work well, as the landlord's share would be passed on as rent increase.But that's more regulation, something I hate to recommend. What else would work to address old housing?
You're right that a lot of the poor live in the oldest, coldest housing stock- the least energy efficient. But it does tend to be multi-unit, at least in our urban areas where the poorest of the poor live, and that in and of itself means it's more energy efficient per occupant- less roof and wall area per person exposed to the elements. True here up in Canada for sure. And we, the public, OWN most of that housing stock- it's full-on public housing, or subsidized housing at least. So our own governments aren't even making the investment in cleaning up and greening up this housing stock, mostly because the wrong levels of government are in charge of the housing- a different level than gets the taxes on the fuels and on people's incomes which are intended to offset the cost of this kind of stuff! That's a travesty- when even the government doesn't have a long-term view of investments to save on energy consumption that we all subsidize via our taxes, you know that things are messed up!
How do you fix it? Dedicated taxes, with the revenues directed to the correct levels of government so the money's there to do the job right. How do you get that to happen? That's the tougher question, because it involves political will, and politicians leading the public instead of merely polling them to figure out what they want!
People in the US should be all over this! Instead of spending more money funding the Saudis and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, or running the huge military needed to keep the "cheap" oil "secure", nearly every tax dollar spent on improving energy efficiency and reducing the dependence on foreign oil would go to people in the US, creating jobs and running money around in the local US economy. It's a total no-brainer!
Most utilities companies in this country have been pushing energy conservation for years.
For the past twenty three years the company I work for has sponsored, funded and provide volunteer labor for our Project Warm winterization blitz. In conjunction with community action agencies we get list of low income and needy people that want help in lowering thier winter energy usage. The volunteers go into those homes,caulk, seal and install plastic over windows.
We get from 300 to 400 volunteers over the first three weekends of October every year, and manage to winterize about the same number of homes durring the month.
We also have a Winter Help section on our monthly bills. It is pretty much standard throughout the industry, and it offers people the opportunity contribute whatever $$ they can afford to help the needy. There are also federal, local and state funds available to help those that qualify fro energy assistance.
Taxing, fineing, and otherwise placing the burden for the lack of conservation on the enrgy producers is not the answer. All that will do is add more cost to a commodity that the poor already can't afford.
This last comment is not directed at you or anyone in particular, so please don't be offended.
For those that want the government to take on the responsibilty of the poor. Stop preaching, get off your butts and go out and help them yourself. Volunteer or make a financial contribution. There are programs in place all across the country that can make a difference in peoples lives, and in particular how they can conserve energy, but they need bodies.
Your personal altruism in volunteering is commendable. But though it's helping a few individuals, that alone won't be enough to deal with the dependence on foreign oil, energy security, global warming etc.
No economic driving force = no solution.
And at the end of the day, it'll be the consumers rather than producers who pay for whatever is done- which fundamentally is the way it should be. Waste more? PAY more! Until a stronger market feedback exists to pay for it, there will be no technological solution to this problem- not geothermal, wind, solar, hydrogen, ethanol, biofuels, fusion- none of it.
We're not going to invent our way out of this one, folks.
Geothermal should be used on the home front. There are already several companies that have geothermal HVAC systems that are much more efficient than their counterparts.
This country already has problems with transmission of energy from one point to another. We need to get the kinks worked out of distribution before we start bringing on-line other forms of energy generation.
Just my 2 cents ....
Big difference between real geothermal energy, and ground source heat pump "geothermal" hvac.
I understand that ground source heat pumps are different than generating energy from steam (geothermic). However, my point is that we can do a lot right now to fix some of the major problems with the existing methodologies to generate energy (power distribution problems, power vampires in the home, Green building practices, etc).
Well, investment tax credits work (though not without higher energy prices). They have worked around the world and here in the past. I was told by an HVAC guy that I could save $10K off a $17.5K G-T ground loop by filing with state, local, and Federal programs. (That takes it from "Not gonna happen" to "Only highly unlikely").
I suspect that the businesses and individuals whose taxes are going to be raised by our new Prez will promptly figure out that they can retreive what they might be paying out in taxes by investing in energy conservation for their homes and businesses. At least, I hope it will work out that way for the sake of the guys who need the work..
I'd also like to see the new administration announce a "Civilian Energy Conservation Corps" like FDR's CCC. Put them to work on upgrading the Grid, installing new windows, spraying Iycelene on my fieldstone foundation.
Maybe Joe the Plumber should start an insulation company?
Sorry to get all political and such, but if this election means we finally get real about the fixing the energy crisis in this country, I'll take it.
Jasper57
Sorry to get all political and such, but if this election means we finally get real about the fixing the energy crisis in this country, I'll take it.
Wasn't a federal bill passed recently, extending the tax credits on solar energy installations? Not that solar presents a complete solution but it sure is well worth a healthy tax credit as well as property tax abatement. Having both those incentives would sell a lot of solar panels and installations.
I'm hoping to see geothermal research and development succeed because it seems to present one of the best long term solutions.
I've always enjoyed the personal freedom which cheap energy allows me so even though I'm ready to adapt to different forms, I'm definitely not ready to give up that aspect of American life.
The HVAC guy said that the Solar tax credit (also the ones for replacement windows, geo-thermal, etc.) was part of the Bailout Bill. I dunno if that also means it was actually funded or not? The Maryland tax credit program for G-T is out of funds currently, FWIW.
Jasper57