Solar is not viable economically for us just yet but it is certainly getting a lot closer. With the federal income tax deduction of 30% of the cost being approved to replace the $2000 tax deduction this helps a lot and we found out that a local electric company here in our area announced a program to give people a rebate on the cost of the converter. A 3 KW system that would use a large segment of our southern facing roof would ultimately cost between $11,000 and $13,000. With an expected 20 year life the cost per KWH is lower than it used to be but still several cents above our current rates. The idea of converting variable unknown electric costs to fixed costs over a long period of time appeals to me as does the idea of cleaner energy production, not to mention decentralized energy production. The big draw back for us at this time is that if we make this type of investment we would only have a system that would generate about 1/3 of what we need. The 3 KW capacity is great but when we looked at the average hours of sunlight here in the Dallas Fort Worth area that gets a lot of sun, we estimated that the electric power generation would only produce about 1/3 of what we currently use. We have had fluorescent lights in our house since the early 1990's and compact fluorescent lights since they showed up in the market and are looking forward to LED lights. We conserve where we can but like to live comfortably as well.

I am hopeful that technology advances will bring solar panels that generate more power per panel to make this more affordable and viable. If we had 120 million homes with solar panels and businesses as well, this could help reduce the amount of power currently generated by coal. I think that would be a good thing.

I'd like to see clean coal power generation developed and if it's not viable or cost effective then I'd like to see up stop burning coal and find alternative solutions.

I remember hearing people talk like this when they were talking about the problems of a world that had 2, 3 or 4 billion people and then advances in farming and distribution avoided the end of world scenarios some people espoused. Everyone on the planet today will be gone in 100-120 years. We should all learn to live with one another, help and share with one another and use our science and our brains to make a better world. I believe that if we think in terms of feeding 100 billion people and in terms of building an infrastructure and civilization that will last another 10,000 years that we would be wise to do so and that this type of thinking might lead us to build renewable reusable resources. We should be able to live and keep many of the animals and plants alive without wiping them out and to live without wiping ourselves out. Hopefully, we will also develop more space travel because at some point we will probably be forced to leave this planet. I guess I just do not buy into the world being destroyed by man scenarios. I suppose it is possible but from my perspective it is not probable.

I agree with helping the Big 3 and think our country would be wise to change our policies that seem to support converting from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. I believe we need a balance of manufacturing and service. I think we should do this for economic reasons and for national security. If we become totally dependent on other countries for oil and then also become totally dependent on other countries for cars, televisions, refrigerators, and all of the other manufactured items we buy and use in this country, we will feel a bit foolish if for some reason others decide to cut us off. It would be a painful lesson to learn.

Our manufacturing capacity saved Europe in WWII and helped rebuild Europe and Japan after the war. I saw today where Congress agreed to the loans.

I do not care for GM's upper management. I recall when GM bought EDS in the 1980's. I watched as they transferred people from GM to their GM-E division and then made them offers they could refuse. GM effectively laid off 20,000 people who were supporting their computer systems and replaced them with low cost people right out of college. I also watched as they turned EDS into a company of growth and innovation into a political organization that was in a down spiral until GM spun them off and sold them. I do not think that EDS had ever quite recovered. I also recall how the GM lawyers used a power play where they forced out Ross Perot and handed him a big lump of money and told him he was out. He had been going around to manufacturing and foundry sites owned by GM and would visit the workers on the shop floors and dine in their cafeteria instead of in the executive dining rooms. The cafeteria's were like public school cafeteria's you see in high schools. The executive dining rooms had wood walls, white table cloths, silver and waiters and waitresses to server you. Mr. Perot had the crazy idea that GM needed to listen to the line workers and to change their ways or end up exactly where they are today, going to D.C. with hat in hand asking for loans to keep operating.

I was not pleased to read about the electric car programs that all 3 companies ran in the 1990's and then shelved. I am not a big fan of electric cars due to my concerns about how to dispose of the batteries but at least it was something.

I care about the people who work at the big 3 but wish there were a way to infuse some new ideas and clean house at the top. These companies need to innovate and leverage off of new technology. They should use the approach IBM is currently using to either design it and build it or buy it. IBM has been doing a lot of innovation in the last decade so that they are in a position to remain competitive. Large companies need to continue to do this and when they get too big and too entrenched they need to buy new organizations with new technology and new ideas to rejuvenate themselves.

Perhaps GM should buy Tesla Motors or do a joint production and marketing program with them to leverage off of the cars and technology they have built and to bring their expertise in manufacturing and distribution to this new start up. What ever works.

I am familiar with Tesla and like the concept but with there were something we could afford. Wouldn't it be amazing is someone at GM, Ford or Chrysler worked on a join effort to mass produce the Tesla cars? The old manufacturing companies could retool and ramp up and leverage off of their manufacturing knowledge and Tesla's innovation. Tesla could avoid having to go up the rest of the learning curve in manufacturing and marketing trying to build that entire infrastructure in order to be viable and compete with these companies and others like Honda, Toyota, etc.... At least the old companies have a lot more in common with the new Tesla company than horse and buggy companies had with Ford and their model T.

I suspect you know about the electric cars that GM sold in California and the advanced orders they cancelled for their electric cars and the program they initiated to acquire all of the electric cars and have them destroyed. There were people who wanted to buy it and were outraged at the behavior by the company.

I'd buy a hydrogen fuel cell car in a minute if one were available and if fuel were available. My second choice behind this technology would be a car that runs on natural gas. Honda has hydrogen oxygen fuel cell cars being tested by customers in California. They even have a hydrogen oxygen refueling station designed and built and being tested. Check out their web site. Interesting. Honda also has a CRV that runs on natural gas but I have not been able to find a dealer who will order one for me. I am not sure but I do not think they are selling them in this country and I as of yet have not determined why. I do not know if it's a company thing or an import thing.

I do not like the idea of electric cars run on batteries because of all of the problems trying to dispose of old batteries. We have enough problems disposing of old televisions and computers. A lot of these that go to so called recyclers are simply being shipped by container to China where their people burn and melt down these electronic devices to recover the gold and other valuable minerals from these devices. They do this in a very unsafe way that pollutes their water and poisons the people who do this so called recycling.

If you are in the Vicksburg I am thinking about you are down south and know about the new car industry developing there with new manufacturing plants built by companies from other countries. I suspect a lot of American car buyers are tired of GM's engineering that is designed to fail to encourage people to buy new cars more often. I know, I worked for a company that was acquired by GM in the 1980's and I met people and saw the programs and the information developed to accomplish this goal that was intended to maximize profits and manage the market in a way that would keep them in business. Over time that policy has worked against them. Their lobbying still works however as you and I just gave them loans worth billions of dollars.

I no longer own cars built by these old American companies. I can not afford to. I need cheap reliable transportation and like the quality of the used Honda's that we purchased this past decade.

Did you know that in some parts of the country you can contact your local natural gas company and have them install a device that will allow you to fill up a car or truck that uses natural gas from your home natural gas line?

One problem I have read about with natural gas is that if we convert all of our cars, trucks and busses to use this that it will increase the price of natural gas people use to heat their homes and that we will run out of this just like we will run out of oil and other non-renewable power generating fuels. There are limited supplies of uranium and so at some point nuclear reactors may become obsolete.

In the short run the alternative you mention should work for you and a limited number of people. If the entire country converted to cars and trucks that run on natural gas or propane, I suspect we'd have supply problems at some point in time, peak gas, and when we reach that peak of production and start going down the back side of the supply side on that bell curve that we will experience the same sort of wide price swings like we've seen recently with gasoline because of oil prices and supplies.

I wish that everyone including women were paid for their work based on their work effort and the merits of their work. Fair wages seem to contradict the short term quarterly maximized profits goals of many large, medium and small businesses. Cheap labor has always been an important part of being competitive in a so called free market. The concept of a free market is a myth because there is always someone who has enough economic or political power to control a market or the supply of commodities or a distribution system. Sometimes it's a government, sometimes it's an industry, sometimes it's a corporation and sometimes it's an individual. Robber Barron's anyone?

Hopefully, with more women being elected to represent us in Congress there might be some laws passed or better yet, tax incentives, to encourage all businesses to pay fair wages based on the merits of the work performed regardless of gender, race, color, nationality or any other trait or characteristic that can be used in a biased way against an individual. The statistics about wages for H1B's from other countries shows just how they are under paid compared to their U.S. counterparts who have the same level of education and experience. Likewise, people who are over weight are often paid less and given fewer opportunities to advance to positions of leadership.

We are not as civilized or as advanced as we might think and when you begin to look into the statistics about things like this based on information available in computer information systems, it's simply amazing what we can learn about the human tendency to be biased and subjective in different ways.

The EPA was supposed to be exactly that when it was created a long time ago in a far away galaxy. Not the EPA is telling California it can not require higher fuel economy standards.

I hope our new president is successful at bringing people together who can be more effective either in the federal government or industries outside of the federal government to change our direction away from short term profits for stockholders and more toward long term benefits for all of us, especially when it comes to doing business in a clean way. I wish we had vehicles that kept our air clean. I wish we have manufacturing processes and farming processes that kept our air, water and environment clean. How we get there I do not know.

Al Gore seems like a good man. I hope he is effective if he is asked to serve again. I am not sure that he will want to get involved with the federal government directly again. I do not know if there are problems between him and the Clintons but it could work if he's interested because this would be an entirely different area then they are being asked to work in.

I read where the French have developed a breeder reactor that burns up the nuclear waste. Our country is 20 years or more behind in nuclear technology expect in the Navy and the defense department. The Yucca mountain idea is outdated and should be cancelled. The problem some people have is that a lot of money has already been spent to develop and build this facility. I think we should write it off as a bad idea and money foolishly spent. If what I have read about the French having developed a way to burn up the waste then nuclear may be more viable in the short run than clean coal or natural gas.

In the long run I'd prefer not to use any fossil fuels or nuclear either.

The tides are a possibility but I have read where one day the moon will leave orbit. I suspect that's a long way off so tidal power is fine with me so long as it's done on a micro scale that has a low impact on the environment in and close to the ocean.

I'd prefer to work with the powers that be and include them and everyone else like you mention. It is possible that companies like Exxon could help develop geothermal. They sure know a lot about drilling deep into the earth. They too could be the ones who develop refineries that generate hydrogen instead of gasoline. It is possible. They have chemical engineers and mechanical engineers who would know how to do this.

Other companies could be encouraged to do the right thing too. For example, if we bail out GM, Ford and Chrysler, I read someone's idea about making at least one of them use Tesla Motor's electric car design. It's a great car, too expensive but great electric car technology that works today. If GM, Ford or Chrysler ramped up their production facilities I suspect in 1 to 2 years they could deliver a lot of these at a reasonable cost.

We need innovation and if the big old companies want to join the effort, so much the better. If not, then you are correct, we need to leave them behind. We need long term plans that will help us regain our economic freedom and not be dependent on the whims of geopolitics to run our cars, buses, trucks, trains and air planes.

Thanks for the reply.

I'd like to breath cleaner air. I remember breathing cleaner air when I was young and I also remember the first time we drove up the east coast before the interstates were built and when I asked my parents about the big storm heading our way. It was not a big storm, it was New York city. The air looked black from 50 miles away in New Jersey because of the lead that was being burned in gasoline at that time.

Since then gasoline was changed to unleaded and engines built that could run on this. I think it was MBTE's or something like this that were added to try to reduce the pollution and burn up some of the pollution in the catalytic converters that were invented. Now I read where these are though to cause cancer and that ethanol is being used in place of this. I am not sure if that is because the farm lobby wants this so they can grow corn and convert it to ethanol or if this also happens to be in our best interest.

Regardless of all of this, if there were a way we could have cars, trucks and busses powered in a way that did not pollute our air, especially in our cities, I would like to see this. I have read where there is less oxygen in our cities. It seems that more children have asthma than when I grew up. My daughter has it and no one in my extended family or my wife's has ever had it. Our daughter did not have it when she was young but developed it around her teen years. I wonder if she would have these problems if we had cleaner air? I like what I read about the hydrogen oxygen fuel cell cars at the Honda web site and their hydrogen refueling station. I like what I read about Ballard in Canada that makes hydrogen oxygen fuel cells for buses and in place of diesel backup generators. I wonder whether hydrogen oxygen fuel cells could be developed for our homes to generate electricity in a distributed fashion. I wonder whether nuclear power plants could be build to run hydrogen generation plants that separate hydrogen from oxygen in sea water and have the hydrogen piped around our country like natural gas is piped today. If enough hydrogen could be generated we could run our cars, buses and trucks on this and perhaps our houses and businesses too. The air would be cleaner if we did not burn oil, natural gas, coal, gasoline or jet fuel. I wonder if hydrogen jet engines could be developed. The space shuttle has hydrogen rocket engines. Do they pollute the air or do they just produce water vapor like clouds?

Our country spent a lot of money to go to the moon and threw a lot of that technology away. I have friends that worked on that program and that still work at NASA and they could not duplicate what was done with the Apollo program because everything was lost. They still know how to go to the moon but have to develop all new engineering to do it.

Our country spent a lot of money building the interstate highway system. Ike wanted that so that we would have an infrastructure to move the Army around on if we ever had to fight a war on our soil. It also happened to have a great benefit to our economy.

If we can do these things and others like bailing out companies, we can do anything we want to and spend and invest our wealth anyway we see fit.