Lawsuits can & do happen....

There is no lawsuit that can win because someone said something on the internet. That's what free speech is there to protect. Now they could I suppose depending on what was said go in front of one of those unconstituational human rights commissions but those are a whole different discussion that is probably best left alone cause it'll get more than a few people riled up.

 

Libel laws still apply to internet postings. And there are limits to what is protected with respect to Freedom of Expression in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Free speech on a message board is a myth - you give it up when you agree to the terms of service that lets the board owner(s) and their appointees edit or remove your posts.

In a court of law the truth can be used as a defence. So if what you are saying is offensive, it still is legal as long as it is true. In the Kangaroo Court of our "Human Right" commissions, the truth can't be used as a defence. Nothing applies to help the defendant in those things, you are basically guilty when you walk in the door and the process is the punishment.

There is an interesting case of libel going on in the US right now - several publications and bloggers have called Michael Mann's global warming "science" into question, and instead of providing evidence to satisfy them, he is suing them instead for libel. This is what is known as a SLAPP lawsuit. In any event, in order to win his case, Mann will now have to prove that his work showing his hockey stick of global warming was in fact accurate and his data is solid. In all these years since his "hockey stick" projections of global warming went public, he has never released his data. If he does in fact do it, and the defendants prove they were right all along about Mann's work, the entire global warming industry might crumble, which it should, given it appears to be built on sand anyway.

Simply put, Japan made their disaster 1,000,000 x worse by not owning up to their mistakes AND being so..... Japanese in their honour code. If they would have just admitted defeat, called in the help, handled it then we wouldn't still be talking about how much radioactive crap spewed forth from their moronic attempts to keep contaminated water (and crippled reactor... Or is it reactors at is point?) at bay...

Stupid Japanese honour code... Shouldn't all of the nuclear leadership in Japan just committed seppuku and their replacements fixed then damn thing properly??

 

 

Thanks for the heads up. Of all of the green options we're looking into, geo-thermal is certainly one we are willing to budge on. It's pretty easy to do for people on huge lots, but with a relatively smaller city lot the upfront cost is through the roof. We are fortunate in Manitoba to have such cheap electricity, but Manitoba hydro is also pushing people to use less... not because it's 'green' but because they can turn around and sell it to the states for a lot more than they sell it to me. Hence the solar panels. Even if they only generate enough power to run my fridge and stove, they pay for themselves on a long enough timeline.

 

 

As for selling the house... geo-thermal or not... if I were to build this dream house, it's the house I plan to retire in!

 

 

Do they really?

 

 

 

with an economic life of about 25 years (http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/life-expectancy-solar-PV-panels) do they really save you any money when you factor in the up front and ongoing maintenance costs?

 

In fact they do (or can/should). Barring a catastrophe involving damage to the panels or a sudden drop in average peak hours of sunlight (approx 3.5 hours/day) a 100sq ft panel system costing less than $11,000 (before rebates) will pay for itself in 15 years. If it lives to be 25 then 10 years of power is gravy. Add in all the crazy rebates (upwards of 30%) and it would pay for itself even faster with a reduced upfront cost.

 

Different households have different power consumption needs. The setup described above would eliminate my household reliance on hydro-electricity with a little energy to spare. However, this setup is nowhere near capable of heating my home. As is, I would never be able to give up natural gas. Now, give me an ICF home with a greenroof (naturally cooling in the summer, naturally insulating in the winter) and the heating costs come way down - within striking distance of being able to heat your home with electricity, or at least far less gas.

 

Someone mentioned that we are not currently paying the real cost of a solar panel, or something to that effect. The same can be said for many things. Raj Patel wrote a very interesting book called 'The Value of Nothing' where he explores the idea of including the social/environmental costs in the price-tag of many things we take for granted. Coffee would be a drink exclusively for the rich. Most of us wouldn't be able to eat exotic fruits or vegetables. Is the environmental impact of every oil spill factored in the cost of plastics or gasoline? Is the human cost of mining for cassiterite in the Congo included in the price of every cell phone or circuit board? I think not.