A wind-swept, sunny, pacific, island is the 2nd best possible place, and it's still being heavily federally subsidized ... There are no better places (excluding the open desert), and even then you need major state manipulation of the marketplace in order to make it lower cost.
It's a nice theory, but not supported by the facts. Federal subsidies was only $2.5 billion across all states compared to $66 billion for fossil - that's why each state does it's own thing, with coal in WV and solar in CA from state subsidies, wind in TX because Federal subsidies are tiny.
How do you look at charts like this (source) of unsubsidized cost and continue believing such nonsense? Nat gas is cheaper than coal, wind/nat gas/solar are about tied on mainland.
This isn't an economic issue, where if you toy with just the right things, you'll make the price go down enough to justify it to yourself.
Right, it's an economic issue where the market will pick the best solution and except for things like container ships or long-haul trucks that need energy density that's usually the cheapest solution. You're arguing against the invisible hand, but you don't realize it because you're talking about a 1990s market not today's and certainly not a future energy market.
You can only fight the market so much, like how the left made nuclear a boogie-man and yet it's still happening in China and even here it's just standing by waiting for the pragmatism of hard times.
It's a nice theory, but not supported by the facts. Federal subsidies was only $2.5 billion across all states compared to $66 billion for fossil - that's why each state does it's own thing, with coal in WV and solar in CA from state subsidies, wind in TX because Federal subsidies are tiny.
How do you look at charts like this (source) of unsubsidized cost and continue believing such nonsense? Nat gas is cheaper than coal, wind/nat gas/solar are about tied on mainland.
Right, it's an economic issue where the market will pick the best solution and except for things like container ships or long-haul trucks that need energy density that's usually the cheapest solution. You're arguing against the invisible hand, but you don't realize it because you're talking about a 1990s market not today's and certainly not a future energy market.
You can only fight the market so much, like how the left made nuclear a boogie-man and yet it's still happening in China and even here it's just standing by waiting for the pragmatism of hard times.