http://whittakerassociates.com/with-growth-in-u-s-solar-industry-international-solar-companies-target-the-u-s-marke/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=with-growth-in-u-s-solar-industry-international-solar-companies-target-the-u-s-marke Whittaker Associates provides targeted marketing services, so you can spend your time and resources on only those companies interested in your area, building or service. Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:35:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://whittakerassociates.com/with-growth-in-u-s-solar-industry-international-solar-companies-target-the-u-s-marke/comment-page-1/#comment-83 Barry Visel Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:08:50 +0000 http://whittakerassociates.com/?p=1670#comment-83 Interesting article, but yet another one that fails to address the cost to the consumer...both in terms of higher electric rates, and the tax subsidy cost (neither of which I want to pay). It's interesting to note that not long ago the MEDC was bemoaning Michigan's high electric costs as a competitive disadvantage, while at the same time promoting alternative energy scheme's that will raise electric rates. And, I haven't even touched on the cost required to expand the grid (let alone improve the one we have). Given that relatively clean natural gas and really clean nuclear power can be built at less cost than alternative fuels (Energy Information Agency data, not mine), and we can build them along the existing grid (creating jobs along the way), I'm scratching my head trying to understand our hellbent desire to build expensive alternative energy scheme's that are only available about 30% of the time to meet demand. Please help me understand. Interesting article, but yet another one that fails to address the cost to the consumer…both in terms of higher electric rates, and the tax subsidy cost (neither of which I want to pay). It’s interesting to note that not long ago the MEDC was bemoaning Michigan’s high electric costs as a competitive disadvantage, while at the same time promoting alternative energy scheme’s that will raise electric rates. And, I haven’t even touched on the cost required to expand the grid (let alone improve the one we have). Given that relatively clean natural gas and really clean nuclear power can be built at less cost than alternative fuels (Energy Information Agency data, not mine), and we can build them along the existing grid (creating jobs along the way), I’m scratching my head trying to understand our hellbent desire to build expensive alternative energy scheme’s that are only available about 30% of the time to meet demand. Please help me understand.

]]>