Are  US soldiers  statistics, measured in percentages as the generals speak of them, or as human beings, who ought not be asked to fight and die for oil?

Oil is a commodity it can be replaced with other energy sources, better, cleaner, cheaper sources.

Those who die in these oil wars cannot be replaced.

They are not a commodity.

Can any of you dedicated duuhbyaists see the difference?

Even the faithbased must be skeptical now.

Rummy said to US troops who questioned him about the lack of armor and armored humvees, if a bomb has your name on it, there's no armor that will protect you.

A general sitting next to him today says how wonderful it is that the return rate after being wounded for US troops in Iraq has risen 10% to 70%!

He claims it is because of new armor being used in Iraq.

The lies are catching up to one another.

http://gristmill.grist.org/comments/2005/6/17/6143/96379/10#10

"today's typical residential solar system costs a whopping $8-12 per watt generated. In other words, about $500-$700 of equipment is needed to power just one sixty-watt light bulb. And you'll need to double that--and add in batteries--to keep it going at night."

"Solar economics are best viewed in terms of cost per kilowatt-hour (k/Wh), which factors in expected lifetime output with installation cost. According to Michael Rogol, Analyst, Solar Power Economics at MIT's Laboratory for Energy & Environment, solar costs between a quarter and fifty cents--while today's average US residential power comes in at less than a dime."

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1771457,00.asp

So we have an estimate based upon real live analysis of existing solar power insdtallations:  "...costs between a quarter and fifty cents..".  That is per kwh.

 A reduction in cost to 10 cents per kwh puts solar electric  in sight of competition with present electric power available to homeowners.

As power costs double in the next few years due to fuel inflation a solar system at 10 cents per kwh would be a huge savings.  Enough to allow families on fixed retirement incomes and decreasing earnings from low pay service jobs to afford ever increasing property taxes and mortgage costs?  

So how is that cost best reduced?  Nano tech materials research to increase the efficieny of solar cells?  Well that's fine, but is vulnarable to the vagaries of corporate/government research ever reaching production.  

Instigate mass markets creating mass production efficiencies to bring the cost of the solar cells down?  This is more likely!  That could cut the cost to 12.5 cents from 25 cents by itself.  Witness the cost reduction in computer chips with mass production.  It maybe even greater cost reduction over a longer time period.  

But here's an unrealized low tech cost reduction.

In most areas solar cells only generate maximum power 1 out of every three days.  And unless they have expensive, complicated tracking systems the light hitting the cells is diminished by a large percentage for about half of daylight hours.

Instead of maximum output from the cells for only half the day and on only one  out of every three days, what if maximum cell output could be maintained everyday for say 80% of daylight hours?

Well then solar power would cost maybe 8 cents per kwh or less?

And no expensive or groundbreaking nano tech is needed to optimize the power output based on merely suppying the cells with maximum light in daylight, early or late, sunny or cloudy.  only a different design for a collector, and that collector will produce heat as a byproduct.

Solar cogeneration.  It's coming.  Beware corporatist codgers, it's scary.  Hehehey. 

It's the kind of thing well suited for small business.  Very threatening to mega power monopoloy companies and interests.

http://gristmill.grist.org/comments/2005/6/17/205223/211/1#1

This living without ownership of the land brings up an idea I have had.

I envision nature conservancy areas that feature large windpower systems that feed power back into the grid and at the same time provide low impact high tech camping for voluntarilly homeless people.

The wind power would pay the taxes and upkeep, and provide green energy for the residents.  

Students, young families starting out, retirees traveling and camping, and just dedicated nature lovers could use these living areas to save money for school, to buy homes, or just to have a low energy and consumption impact on the environment.

Make homelessness voluntary and patriotic, saving energy for the good of all of US!  And an added benefit is green energy for the national power grid and more land under conservation.

The impact on the land itself from camping could be minimized with portable platforms for tents that have built in wind electric heat, power, water, internet access, and bike/ski trails for physical access.

Electric buses with area for bikes and gear could provide access to and from the camping area to mass transportation, allowing car free living and travel.

Residents  could even rent cars to go from area to area...cruising the country's natural beauty and staying in one area for days or years before moving on.

It's a radically low impact solution that many people would love!