[7952]

This kind of thing does leave renewables open to attack based on the "subsidy bad" line of thinking. The whole point of the incentives is to pay a fair price for a superior product that does not cause pollution and health damage. It is unreasonable to require a superior source of energy to actually be cheaper. In that sense nuclear/solar/wind are worth purseing even if they cost more than coal. The fact that renewables are so competitive is more a testament to how inefficient large fossil fuel power stations are.

[JoeAltmaier]

Lost you. Large fossil fuel power stations are undeniably more efficient (cheaper) than the alternatives. Renewables are not competitive at all, yet.

[lkbm]

Pretty much everyone DOES deny this, once you factor in all costs. Pollution costs everyone. The undeniably better prices don't count that cost.

[JoeAltmaier]

Agreed; pollution is the real cost. But that wasn't said; not even implied. At least how I read it. That last sentence seemed a non-sequitur.

[ZeroGravitas]

It was said:

"The whole point of the incentives is to pay a fair price for a superior product that does not cause pollution and health damage."

[7952]

Well the entire raison d'être of a fossil fuel station is that it exploits the high energy density of its fuel. Despite the incredible property of coal and gas it is hardly "cheap" exactly. In a lot of economies energy bills would still be expensive for most people even if we only had coal and gas stations. It is perfectly possible that local solar will be cheaper than fossil fuel in the long run, especially when you take transmission losses into account