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.

This subject pops up periodically - Cleaners. Keep in mind, there are options that don't come with extra packaging, advertising and expense.

Baking Soda has a ton of uses. White vinegar is often overlooked for its cleaning properties as well. Here are a couple good recipes for cleaning - no guarantees and always test before using on precious items or large areas:

Silver

Aluminum Foil, Boiling Water, Baking Soda and Salt: Keep your sterling shined with this seemingly magic method. Line your sink or a bucket with aluminum foil, and drop in tarnished silver. Pour in boiling water, a cup of baking soda and a dash of salt. Let sit for a few minutes. The tarnish will transfer from the silver to the foil.

Windows

White Vinegar, Water and Newspaper: Mix 2 tablespoons of white vinegar with a gallon of water, and dispense into a used spray bottle. Squirt on, then scrub with newspaper, not paper towels, which cause streaking.

If you're out of vinegar or don't like its smell, you can substitute undiluted lemon juice or club soda.

Carpet

Spot Cleaner: Make your own by mixing: 1/4 cup liquid soap or detergent with 1/3 cup water. Mix thouroughly. Spray on, then rinse with vinegar.

To Deodorize: Sprinkle baking soda or cornstarch on the carpet or rug, using about 1 cup per medium-sized room. Vacuum after 30 minutes.

Click image for a larger view.


Although this is not a normal article, by now you know I occasionally insert something that is more of a tie-in than on target. Well, this is one of those.

This incredible image is a perfect reminder of how small and special our planet is. This image is unique because of how it was taken and why.

The shot is taken in Chile and represents the sky as it is seen from a human eye. The real magic is the 30 days it took the artist to get enough images to create the 360 view with such clarity and detail.

Click the related link to find out about the image and view the 800 megapixel version.

A higher resolution version of the image than I have included, not as large as the original 800MP, is available through NASA.