[nfnaaron]

"Nope. We'll end up with a lot of old-tech solar that isn't as good as what we'll get by waiting."

No, we'll still get the years of use from the "old tech" while new tech is being developed, partly on the back of what was learned by bothering to develop the old tech in the first place.

What if we decided not to build cars until we developed the Prius? Or computers until the iPhone? You have to go through the stages, tech doesn't happen fully realized without what went before.

[anamax]

> "Nope. We'll end up with a lot of old-tech solar that isn't as good as what we'll get by waiting."

> No, we'll still get the years of use from the "old tech" while new tech is being developed

(NB)-C < (N-k)B'-C in some cases. (Yes, I realize that NB ignores time value of money. For N>>k, that can be reasonable if C is not too large.)

The numbers matter.

> What if we decided not to build cars until we developed the Prius?

What if we didn't invent false choices? (Hint: I'm not saying always wait.)

You're the one insisting that all-in is always the right solution. That's simply false, as is always wait.

The numbers always matter and they're often context dependent. (Example - pretty crappy solar made sense in some situations while it didn't in other situations. Better solar makes sense in some of the latter, but not all. And so on.)

[nfnaaron]

"You're the one insisting that all-in is always the right solution."

I never said the words "all in," and you complained above that I'm not going all in. I'm confused.

In fact I'm opposed to "it must work 100% or it's useless, and if we do it we must do it 100%." I thought that was clear, but I guess not.

[anamax]

> I never said the words "all in,"

Your response to every cost-based objection was "more" and "build it".

> you complained above that I'm not going all in. I'm confused

You've said that spending on solar is necessarily good and the more the better. If you're serious, that's how you've spent your money and every dime that you can borrow.

That's why I asked what you've done with your money. Surely you're not going to say that other people should spend money on something that you're unwilling to go "all in" on. Right?

> In fact I'm opposed to ... if we do it we must do it 100%." I thought that was clear, but I guess not.

Let's review what you wrote.

> That's a lot of solar generators. So the sooner we start, the sooner we'll get there.

> The interesting thing is, just as better computers help us design and build still better computers, increasingly available energy will drive the cost of existing energy down, reducing the cost of energy used to build and maintain new capacity.

Which doesn't imply that spending on solar is a good idea. Spending too much on an energy source leads to less energy, not more. However, the fact that your statement is false doesn't mean that you didn't make it.

and you complained above that I'm not going all in