|
|
|
|
|
|
by DoingIsLearning
1696 days ago
|
|
|
It is important that we discuss cost, but I think the urgency of our need for mass generating non-intermitent power should override costs. As an example Solar energy as it exists now would have been ridiculed in the late 80s as something that would never be cost effective. It was the massive subsidies/tax rebate schemes in Germany and later on in other EU countries that open the window for manufacturers to produce at scale and make it the cost competitive source of energy that we see now. I mentioned this in a previous comment on a biomass thread. We would be better off with EU funds allocated to solving the massification of geo-thermal or the massification of small vessel nuclear reactors, than to continue to pour money into converting coal plants into natural gas plants and opening up new biomass furnaces. Natural gas and biomass are just a means for governments to play with statistics on 'renewable' pie-charts. Until we solve the problem of mass energy storage of intermitent renewables or a far away nuclear fussion we need to start _now_ deploying non-carbon emitting non-intermitent energy generation. We have to be realistic and accept that we need to find a means of replacing coal and not all regions have the resources for hydro-generation, geo-thermal is the next best bet considering the time and friction it would take to roll out more nuclear for example. |
|
|