Story About Solar Should Be Sunnier 

I opened the Home Style October edition ("Going Solar," Oct. 3) and was thrilled to see an article about a solar-powered home, but after reading it, I was discouraged again. For years any mention of solar energy was coupled with discouraging remarks about lack of efficiency, cost, installation difficulties, etc., and now it is still presented with derogatory references such as: "Trailer park living never looked so good."

I get that it's in the parking lot of the Science Museum, but that still leaves a negative image in readers' minds -- can't a solar panel catch a break? I am also irritated by the statement that "payback on investment would take years." I never hear anyone mention a payback on using oil, natural gas or electricity — just one is less expensive because with any of those systems you pay and pay and pay as long as you use them and certainly don't get back 70 cents an hour.

The reduction of your carbon footprint is not even mentioned with not having to mine, drill, process, transport, etc., the power source. The "dream" won't ever come true if it is continually presented in a negative way. If some brave developers would jump on board, the cost would come down the same as with any new technology.

Kathy Kurtz
Richmond



  • Click here for more Forum

    Comments

    Subscribe to this thread:

    Add a comment

  • Re: Opinion: The Portrait in the Attic

    • You are blinded by your privilege, Mr. Slipek.

    • on December 3, 2016
  • Re: Opinion: The Portrait in the Attic

    • I suspect that Mr. Slipek felt it was a timely moment to write a short…

    • on December 2, 2016
  • Re: Opinion: The Portrait in the Attic

    • No one cares about your racist hero's architectural taste and love of fine wine.

    • on December 2, 2016
  • More »
  • Copyright © 2016 Style Weekly
    Richmond's alternative for news, arts, culture and opinion
    All rights reserved
    Powered by Foundation