Are ideas such as this too simplistic?

[theHandpuppet]

For a start, why couldn't certain public projects funded with stimulus money be required to install heating/cooling/power systems that use alternative energies such as solar and hydrothermal? And those who are unemployed or under-employed could be trained to install and manage such systems. From low-income housing to public universities and government buildings, existing structures could be retrofitted, a project that could keep people employed for decades to come and replace our crumbling energy grid. The benefits would be so wide-ranging, from slashing the utility bills of the poor to boosting the alternative energy industry, to training people for well-paying, 21st Century jobs. Why do we keep pouring money down the same old drain? Why retrain people for jobs that are already outdated? Why not start NOW to make a real change?

For example, my partner and I wanted to retrofit our older home, built in 1891, with solar. We actually had to call out side OUR STATE to find anyone who was trained to install solar and even then they wouldn't travel so far for a job. The local govt wasn't even sure we would legally be allowed to install an alternative energy system in our home as there had to be certain "buy back" agreements with the local power company. Meanwhile, schools can't afford to keep the heat on and folks are looking for decent jobs. What is wrong with this picture? There are a LOT of unsold/foreclosed homes and public buildings that could be retrofitted and that could keep thousands of folks employed.

So what about this idea is too simplistic? There's got to be something, because I don't see a lot of action on this front nor proposals from Congress. As I said, all I see are billions upon billions being poured down the same old drainhole to nowhere. Obviously my logic is flawed. The idea may be simplistic but at least its SOMETHING!

[MercutioATC]

1. Obama suggested something like this.

He wanted to retrofit federal buildings to be more green as part of the stimulus bill.

Congress removed that language.

[alarimer]

2. I guess they got more money from the oil companies than from solar companies.

Maybe the trick to get them to do the right thing is to raise enough money so that WE can engage in legalized bribery (lobbying).

[MercutioATC]

4. It was probably one of the ideas Obama had that I liked the most.

As part of an economic stimulus bill? Maybe not.

...but I really hope it gets proposed again.

[Bluerthanblue]

3. Occums razor...

I think what you are asking makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Investing our 'energy' in ways that make lasting, positive progress in ways that will benefit many.

(did you ever have success with your solar hopes?)

[theHandpuppet]

6. No, I'm afraid we had to abandon the idea

We were willing to make the substantial investment but couldn't find anyone in our area who could even do the job. Plus it looked as if there were going to be substantial legal hurdles in removing ourselves from the grid, even partially! So though the desire was there to reduce the size of our carbon footprint it's not always possible, depending on where you live. And to think folks were getting tax breaks to buy Hummers, while we were getting none for downsizing. I guess it's all too obvious whose wheels are being greased. We finally gave up.

[LWolf]

5. It's a great idea. nt