This may seem an odd fit, as you know I sometimes throw these types of subjects into the mix. The food you prepare at home has an impact on the environment as well as your budget. The budget often causes us to buy more processed or chemically altered food that has a higher yield and therefore pushes costs down for the supplier. However, the processing is really pushing the cost off on the environment and our health. So how do we keep the cost down and the quality up without taxing the environment?

Part of the solution might be as simple as a good recipe that makes use of locally grown foods. Follow the related link for an article with a lot of good recipe ideas to stretch your dollar and be considerate of the environmental impact.

Photo from the original blog - follow related link.


This is a question raised on another blog. I think there are some good points in the article and heightened awareness can help prevent problems.

We need to consider the impact of renewable energies. Solar panels on rooftops are different than those installed outside a city on a commercial scale in a natural habitat. This may be a call for more wide spread small scale private power generation to offset the amount of commercial size projects.

Clearly we need to consider this.

Follow the related link for the whole article.

From the article:

Texas is now home to the world's largest wind farm. The 781.5 MW Roscoe wind complex has been completed and went live last night at 9:00 p.m.

Built by E.ON Climate & Renewables, the $1 billion farm covers 100,000 acres of land across four counties in West Texas and will be able to power more than 230,000 homes.

Click the related link for the full article.

The New York Times has an article about the EPA and GHG's. As Congress is slow to take action, the Obama administration has encouraged the EPA to regulate GHG's.

If this happens, it will affect large producers such as power plants. After my article yesterday, this is really re-enforcement that the cost of fossil fuel driven power will go up in the near future.

Follow the related link to read the whole article.

It has been brought to my attention that certain renewable energy sources do not pay for themselves. I've been told there is no real return on investment - or is there? In my mind, a product or resource that I have come to depend on and refuse to do without is something I pay for. If I have opportunity to attain the product or resource at a lesser cost, the difference is viewable as savings. When my "savings" cumulates to match the cost of the product or resource, I consider that as the point I experience the return on my investment and every time I use the item or resource going forward, I am ahead by the savings.

I am sure you have a similar interpretation. Here is the catch, the subject is solar power cells. The actual cost of a cell is so high that in its expected life, it is not likely to give you a return on investment. The catch is a financial boost known as a subsidy.

Subsidies are very real and we need to consider what we are comparing. Remember, we are comparing the old product or resource, fossil fuel, to a new one, solar. We can not compare a new product or resource without subsidy to an established one that is heavily subsidized. This is a comparison process, we need a common denominator, cost to cost, without subsidy in both cases.

The following information may come as a surprise to some people, but a large amount of our fossil fuels are subsidized. What would happen to the return on investment comparison if the subsidy shifted or went away?

A new study from the Environmental Law Institute in partnership with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars titled "Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources: 2002-2008," sheds light on U.S. energy subsidies.

The study finds that fossil fuels received almost two-and-a-half times more subsidies over the 7 year period than renewables: $72 billion for fossil fuels compared to $29 billion for renewables.

Of equal concern is that 58% of renewables subsidies ($16.8 billion) went towards corn-based ethanol, a fuel that's carbon credentials are in question and has been linked to increasing world food prices.

Not only do fossil fuels get more subsidies, they also get better subsidies. Fossil fuel subsidies are primarily permanent provisions in the U.S. tax codes. Renewable subsidies, on the other hand, are usually tied in with energy bills and come with an expiration date.

This makes it harder for renewable industry firms to plan long-term, while oil and coal companies can be confident that their financial statements will be padded today, tomorrow, and in perpetuity.

As a population we need to effect legislation, the fossil fuels can not continue to obtain these subsidies. With climate change finally becoming common knowledge I do not think it will take long before these fossil fuel subsidies are challenged.

We need to think long term and wheather or not you feel or believe there is a return on investment with solar, there is a grand return for the environment we protect. Renewable energy sources need the support that fossil fuels continue to claim.

I know I have not answered the question in the title, it is well beyond a simple blog article. Hopefully what I have done is raise your awareness.