Relying on coal/oil/gas energy is one fire/explosion/spill away from a shortage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... (Fire STILL burning since past 60 years. Will continue for 250 years. Entire town abandoned)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... (Town had to relocate)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

Relying on nuclear plants is one tsunami/earthquake away from a shortage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Let us come back and talk when solar starts causing entire towns to be abandoned.

You were saying? Nice try setting up a false dichotomy, moron.

The false dichotomy you put up here is that if it was a chemical company which caused a spill in ground, contaminating your drinking water, you would have been up in arms against same. You would be objecting to the government spending a single taxpayer penny on the cleanup, and would expect the cost to be extracted from the culprit company.

But just because the pollution/contamination is going in air, you have a different criterion here. And you seem to believe that letting the polluters get away scot-free, without spending on complete cleanup, while taxpayer funds are ultimately spend on same, is not somehow a subsidy by government in itself.

Oil and coal get a shitload of indirect subsidies.

Do the oil and coal companies clean up after themselves? Do they clean up the tons of pollution they help put in air? Pollution causes diseases and health problems. Is healthcare subsidized/regulated by government in most countries? Afraid so. Does government spend millions and billions then, trying to combat the pollution? Afraid so. If our tax funds are ultimately footing the bill for fixing problems caused by oil and gas companies, they ARE being subsidized for well over a century now, much more than green energy.

So if both sides are getting subsidies, especially with your side getting even more so, it is ending up being a free market regardless, since things are on equal footing and even tilted to your side in fact. You are welcome to nitpick nuances.

You might prefer Nuclear, but a) solar plans do not have the problem of where to dump their toxic spent fuel(you can actually recycle solar panels), b) Solar panels are not known for exploding and causing chernobyl like events, and c) in event of a typhoon, earthquake, tsunami etc. a solar panel accident will not usually claim lives and cause you cancer.

It is interesting that you refuse to just move to a different location expecting us to sympathize with your plight, while irony of endangering fellow humans to risk of radiation accident just so you do not get "annoyed by noise" escapes you. Normally a person like you would be considered an asshole.

Shit happens. Highway/Freeway constructions for example, do end up requiring people to move elsewhere. You could have legitimately argued about getting fair compensation from the wind farm utility for the inconvenience to you. Nobody would have faulted that. But instead, you chose to put YOUR convenience over many of others benefiting more in the long run, by opposing Solar and wind power. Worse, you are asking more people to risk their LIVES in nuclear plants so that YOU do not need to put up with "annoying noise". Nice going.

Funny.

But not as funny as pretending that somehow the drivers do NOT have valid driving licenses, or that there are some special inspection requirements that are not required for family cars, but should apply here. This is why lobbying is pure evil.

What is next? Ban car pooling? Because it is only a matter of time till someone comes up with a popular "couchsurfing/airbnb" version of car pooling, and just generating revenue via registration & background verification fees and advertising.

Hellooooo Coch brothers. Are those coal plants and oil wells, fire resistant?

Conventional power sources are only interesting if they won't catch fire with just a stray cigarette, spark, or a bit of lightening falling from the sky.
Oh, and THEY do not just get destroyed but cost lives and add tons of smoke and pollution when that happens.

Nice try.

Nice red herring there.

Did you bother reading the article title however? It talks about SOLAR. If your only argument is that wind turbines should not be near residential areas, nobody is going to disagree much.
If wind power is such a joke, people will realize it is a money losing proposition, and they will NOT invest in wind turbines. Isn't US supposed to be all about capitalism, and stuff? Why are you against market taking its own shape? What are you, a f***ing COMMIE now????!!! :)

From your OWN links :

"wind turbines do not directly make people ill." and "Annoyance is not a disease." and "(sickness) likely caused by the psychological effect of suggestions that the turbines make people ill".
More damningly, "similar irritations are produced by local and highway vehicles, as well as from industrial operations and aircraft.". Will include ultrasounds and what not. You do not get annoyed by those, because your brain and ears have adjusted to those sounds over the years. Try asking those who move in from remote areas away from roads with traffic.

Do you ever actually read things, when desperately trying to google up evidence to fit your viewpoints?

What is confusing is, why is there a debate about wind turbines on an article about SOLAR? Wind turbine are probably irritating and it might be better to install them in deserts, away from residences. Now can you and that idiot Harlequin80 (1671040) shut up about wind turbines already?

Heh. Typical. Solar is doing well? Wind turbines are noisy. Ergo, anything except coal and oil is EVIL. I love the way you guys use "logic and reasoning". Harlequin80 (1671040) and your points could all be valid about turbines, but have no place in an article about SOLAR! And yes, if you do dumb things like that, people WILL laugh at you. I suggest not doing dumb things, if the response bothers you so much.

Well it is obvious that you will HAPPILY drink your own pee, eat someone else's vomit to avoid dying. Good for you.

However some of us who are a bit more human, think no one deserves to be forced to do that, irrespective of their crimes, whatever you think they are. Not because they may or may not deserve it. But because what such attitude says about us.

So considering that it takes you nearly a day to travel to the other side of the world(you STILL have check-in and all that stuff), you are seriously suggesting that you would prefer traveling for 32 hours instead of just say, 4 hours(with check-in and all that stuff)? Well, masochism has its appeals I guess, for some folks.

How many "rich boys" died testing initial aircrafts? or when very early cars were being bought and tested?

I mean those cars used to be expensive too, for that time? Death of Jean-François Pilâtre de Rozier apparently did not get us a single step closer to commercial flights. I mean those guys died too trying to test a toy for the rich folks obviously? Damn them for not banning planes at that time itself. Imagine the problems it would have solved. No 9-11. No hijackings. Right? Damn them!

Oh wait. People making toys for the rich people, eventually ended up the technology being developed sufficiently enough to become affordable for not-millionaires to own cars and fly once in a while too. We mock the people who called for ban of useless technologies like fast cars(the first fatal car-accident reported the car as traveling at "reckless speed of 8miles/hour") and yet remain blind enough to fall for the same nonsense today.

Orbital flights mean even faster travel. Two-three hundred years ago, it was unthinkable for you to "walk" 20-30 kilometers every day to work(Hint. It took all day on a good horse). Today with cars, you don't think twice about it. Think of being able to reach Europe from America eventually within an hour, after say 30-50 years.

Of course if you are the type yearning for "simple times when world was not a small place" (and I don't say there is anything wrong with that either) you may not see this as being useful. Like the early humans hated the wheel for complicating the world. But on other hand, lots of us find it very useful to travel long distances in a short time. All technologies were initially affordable usually only by the rich however. And people did die during the course of perfecting a lot of it. The Wired article was written by an idiot.

The more simplified answer : If I was an Indian working in America, and took X amount of the money I was making in America, and paid my income tax from that money back to India, all the while using AMERICAN public services, I don't think Americans will be very happy with that. If I am using tax-funded utilties like roads etc., I would be expected to pay income tax in that country, from my income in THAT country.

However I would not like to pay income tax to BOTH India and America on single salary. Hence the treaties to avoid double-taxation.

Problem arises when I pretend to be have the income "generated" in whichever country has the lowest income tax. That should NOT be allowed. You pay sales tax as an individual. But do you as a person get to pretend that your salary earned in USA was "generated" in Ireland, and therefore pay no tax in USA, and only a tiny amount in Ireland? Why should the corporations get to pretend that, then? This is not "tax optimization".

If I lived in India, the indian government will actually deduct income tax at source. This is a really good idea. It means that the rich don't get away with paying just .002% while rest of us paid through the nose. Income tax should always get deducted wherever the income is actually generated(i.e. where you get paid), right at the source, and paid to THAT government. It definitely will involve a total rethink of international trade workings, but it is not like the current system is working well, based on all the poverty and starvation we have, while a few people just get off on seeing zeroes add up on their bank account, without ever actually spending all that money for anything.

So using your own logic that was used elsewhere... "they could have disposed of it slowly, but they don't!" ...

The land where they stash it, becomes utterly useless and you can get cancer by just living on that land. To bury it deep enough to not have that happen, is VERY expensive. To borrow from your hysteria, "someone may build a children playground on top of the landfill someday, and OMG the kiddies will all get cancer! Think of the children!!!!!" ... and all that.

So if someone built an airport on prime farmland, you will call for a ban on planes? "they could have done it elsewhere but they didn't! Planes are evil!"

Logically impaired much?

There is this interesting thing called battery, which can store power. I understand that you are technology challenged but I would have assumed you would have encountered these at some point. The 500W rated panels store 1 HR of 500 watt power each hour, btw. Store power in the noon, use it at night or morning. Amazing concept, isn't it? At least to you it is. The suggestion was not to use 1000 panels. Suggestion was to use 2-3 panels to store 500Watt x 3 panels x 4 hours worth of power in batteries. And there is the idea of using national power grid as an unlimited battery. Store power during day, to use it at NIGHT or NEXT day. It might not supply all the power needed by the country, but even if you are managing to cover 50% of the demand(and other nations are doing this as you can see in the link, so it is possible), that is 50% less coal burned. Germany is producing a SURPLUS via solar. Only 46% of its power is generated via coal and they plan to reduce even that by replacing with Solar. Germany is not really a sunny place either, contrary to your fantasy figures. Care to explain how they manage to achieve this, despite your "logical objections"?

The advantage is that you do not need to worry about disposing nuclear waste, or nuclear plants going kaboom in an earthquake, nor do you pollute the air with smog. Typical solar modules last 30 years and you break even in just 12 years. MUCH cheaper! Does your coal plant not need fuel for operating? Is the fuel free? How about your nuclear plants?

How about the healthcare cost due to all the pollution? I guess you are a cheapskate who would rather have government and Johnny public pay or subsidize your healthcare cost via insurance, due to all the pollution, just so you can save on the personal initial installation cost of solar. A total unpatriotic parasitic leech.