If we go back to the title of the thread it needs to make sense, both economically and practically. A payoff period of more than a decade makes no sense. The vast majority of people will not tolerate an investment with that poor of a return.
As to practical real world application of green energy there's a very simple example of why it's not currently viable, the California small engine ban. In the near future, small less than 25 HP off road engines will be banned for sale. There is one glaring exception in the law, any government agency can still continue to purchase gas powered equipment. So they can keep buying chainsaws for fire crews but the guy that earns his living with one can't. They can buy anything they want as long as it's necessary, but the average taxpayer whose paying for that equipment can't.
If going green was really viable and sustainable then why have the government regulators excluded themselves?
As to practical real world application of green energy there's a very simple example of why it's not currently viable, the California small engine ban. In the near future, small less than 25 HP off road engines will be banned for sale. There is one glaring exception in the law, any government agency can still continue to purchase gas powered equipment. So they can keep buying chainsaws for fire crews but the guy that earns his living with one can't. They can buy anything they want as long as it's necessary, but the average taxpayer whose paying for that equipment can't.
If going green was really viable and sustainable then why have the government regulators excluded themselves?