Aug 25

From The Wall Street Journal:

It is is nauseating, not instructive, to celebrate the wealthy individuals who can afford to take advantage of subsidies provided by the rest of us, to build exceedingly expensive “high-efficiency” homes (“The Homely Costs of Energy Conservation,” Currents, Aug. 7).

Energy-saving multipane windows, insulation and appliances have been available for decades but are beyond most people’s means. Meanwhile, solar panels don’t grow on trees; plus, they are very inefficient and their production requires large amounts of energy.

If the wealthy and green-conscious really want to improve efficiency, they would be smarter to promote nuclear power instead. This form of energy inexpensively generates power for domestic and industrial demand, a fundamental component of all manufacturing and of our ability to compete in the global marketplace.

Only nuclear power has the potential to make battery-powered cars practical and at least somewhat “clean.”

Kent Brady

Woodland Park, Colo.

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


2 Responses to “WSJ Letter to the Editor: ‘…solar panels don’t grow on trees’”

  1. […] WSJ Letter to the Editor: ‘…solar panels don’t grow on trees’ Tags: diy solar panels, home solar panels, power save solar, Solar Panels, solar panels cost, solar […]


  2. Andrew Pelt says:

    Many people like myself have searched for several years to find a cheap affordable solution using solar panels for your residential home. Unfortunately the cost has always outweighed the benefit of being off grid. The upfront capital investment in solar panels would take 20 years to succesfully pay off and maybe more. Deep cycle batteries …


preload preload preload