2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

To answer your questions quikly,

Justification of investment depends on the site location, type of renewable equipment and size.

Most often low income folks are not land owners required to meet the qulifications for installation programs.

I feel a hybrid system with small wind part as being the most cost effective system, depending on location.

Long term funding should be from utility/customer sources.

Yes ,but renewable installations are a long term pay back commitment and NOT a money maker but a Green thing.

Unfortunatly our Govenor thinks from the wrong end and has no clue on what is best for businesses or the public. He only thinks what is best for himself and the unions that are the only benifactors.

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context