Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Well the American Association for Communism can own their comment. All of the institutions are corrupt, especially the ones masquerading as The Science.
I'm not defending coal, I'm pointing out the obvious fact that IF solar was cheaper than other generation sources, those sources wouldn't exist. It doesn't take ANY knowledge of the industry to understand that economic principle.
|
I wouldn't presume to know what informs your decision-making process.
I'm limited to only empirical measurements, statistical analysis, modeling, reporting. These are only the one's who win our wars, and stuff like that.
If that's 'corruption,' then I'm all in!
Present reporting gives 36-nations that are 'going solar.' It's the lowest-cost energy available. Fossil-fuels are not part of their energy portfolio, as they're more expensive, in more ways than one.
With decentralized geographic and temporal distribution of sources, and grid-scale storage, they have the capacity for around -the-clock service.
The buildings have less 'load.' Their transportation has less 'load.' They can enjoy comparable standards of living on 'less.' Everything is modular. Plug and play. 'Power plants' do not require 'years' to construct. New capacity can be wheeled onto the grid within 'weeks'.
Since they get what they need with less, any argument for requirements for 'installed capacity' must be communicated within the context of a 'leaner' market.
For instance, their new cars only need 29% as much 'fuel' as the United States, for the same amount of travel.
It's pleasing to a mechanical engineer.
