Further Comment

Unnecessary. (From)

Going Solar

Leah Nash for The New York Times

A worker at SolarWorld in Hillsboro, Ore., fills a container with polysilicon, which is then melted to make a solar crystal.

I've seen a number of articles regarding the price drop of solar panels; this is in large part due to Chinese plants that are manufacturing, at lower prices, key materials that go into the panels. An article in the NYT states that the prices have dropped 40% since the middle of last year. I'm dubious about the economic viability of these devices at the current time, but am optimistic that as their efficiency increases and their prices fall, they will eventually be truly competitive with traditional electricity generation.

That last sentence needs a little teasing out. Currently there are government subsidies for installing solar panels. In other words, the government recognizes that while the benefits to society at large of increasing solar power are substantial, the costs to the individual investor are not met or exceeded by the value of the electricity thus generated. In the article, one of the subjects spent $77,000 on fitting his house with solar. In addition to that up-front cost, you also need to account for the foregone income he might have made by saving or investing that money over the time it will take to recoup his expenditure- an estimated 16 years. So when I say the economic viability is dubious, I mean that without government subsidies, I'm not confident that the panels will actually pay for themselves in the value electricity generated.

Nevertheless, their value to weakening our dependence on carbon fuel is powerful. In this case, the subsidies balance out a cost that electricity generators and suppliers have externalized: the cost to our planet of dumping CO2 exhaust into the atmosphere. In other words, traditional sources of electricity ought to be more expensive; the price of power does not take into account all the costs of generating them.

However, the thing in this article that really jumped out at me was at the end: a way of paying for this investment that is new to me, and very sensible in my opinion.

Danita Hardy, a homeowner in Phoenix, had been put off by the prospect of spending $20,000 for solar panels — until she spotted a news item about a company called SunRun that takes on the upfront expense and recovers its costs gradually, in a lease deal, essentially through the savings in a homeowner’s electric bill.

I hope that SunRun is a great success. This sounds like a very smart way of funding the up-front costs for many people who otherwise couldn't pull it off, and weaning those who choose to invest in solar off of government subsidies. I think subsidies, as in this case, are sometimes justified, but they should always have sunset clauses, and a sharp eye kept open for opportunities to end the unbalances that justify them in the first place.

Pet Peeves

I haz sum...an dis iz wunna dem.

Via epic4chan.

Third Anniversary of the Rover Landings

Counting in Martian years. May the little rovers that could have many more!

The Lion Sleeps Tonight

Seems like an appropriate song today. There are some audio glitches in this, but this is a version I haven't heard before; I like the way they weave the tale of comfort and safety into the song.

The Tokens' performance on the Dick Clark Show, the version that first became a hit when Kennedy was a newly-minted Senator, is embedding-disabled, but here's the link.

This metaphor, the lion as the one that was trying to keep us safe, comfortable and healthy, has really got me teared up.

Who In the World Are We?

That is the question that needs to be asked at this point. Are we a country so afraid of actually caring for its citizens that we will allow the Glenn Becks and Sarah Palins to block meaningful reform, condemning hundreds of thousands to death, and millions to misery? Are we more afraid of modest tax increases on the wealthiest one percent than we are for the lives of the poorest twenty percent? Do we want to place the profits of the health industries above the risk of bankruptcy to the 80% or more of our population that is at risk in the event of a medical catastrophe?

Scanning over the news these days, I'm afraid the answer to all of the above questions is "Yes."

At this point I see no realistic way to dissipate the fog of lies, innuendos, and rumor. The president is brown, therefore anything he proposes must be a ploy to destroy whites: ipso facto. One benefit to my learning from all the hullabaloo, though, is that it has motivated me to read articles comparing and contrasting how civilized countries manage their health care issues. There's a concise rundown in the Alaska Daily News today:

"For Native Americans or veterans, we're Britain: The government provides health care, funding it through general taxes, and patients get no bills. For people who get insurance through their jobs, we're Germany. ... For people over 65, we're Canada: Everyone pays premiums for an insurance plan run by the government, and the public plan pays private doctors and hospitals according to a set fee schedule.

"And for the tens of millions without insurance coverage, we're Burundi or Burma: In the world's poor nations, sick people pay out of pocket for medical care; those who can't pay stay sick or die."

It's been interesting to learn about the tremendous variety of systems advanced countries use to take care of their citizens, but so terribly sad to realize that the country I live in is no longer advanced or civilized. We have become a post-modern corporate-driven idiocracy. We inhabit the infrastucture-- social and physical-- painfully constructed by the efforts of past visionaries like Ted Kennedy, but we no longer have the will or sense to maintain it, let alone continue their efforts.

So my answer to the question in the title is "We are Terri Schiavo."

Pull the goddamn plug already.

Thanks For All You Did

Edward Kennedy has died. More when I've had time to process... I guess I didn't realize how bad his situation was.

OregonLive's short note here.