[luckylion]

> If someone can buy or place a solar panels/plant and it is economically feasible, then it is.

"then it is" what? economically viable? He still needs 100% backup from other sources, so you have to factor that cost in. Possible? Yeah, it's possible, but that wasn't the question.

[bkor]

> "then it is" what? economically viable? He still needs 100% backup from other sources, so you have to factor that cost in.

Nope, you do not need to factor that in. If I put solar panels on my house, I check if it's worth the cost/investment. I am not intending to go fully off-grid, that is not the aim. Similarly for a solar plant. If it's economically viable it means if there's a good return on investment.

> He still needs 100% backup from other sources, so you have to factor that cost in.

Again, if you put solar panels up or if you have a solar plant it does not make any sense to factor in such costs to make a business case/economical sense. You're adding complications that aren't there.

[luckylion]

> You're adding complications that aren't there.

I'm just not ignoring externalities. You can't do your thing _unless_ the other thing is being taken care of, you have a hard dependency on it, so factoring in the cost of that is the right thing to do. You'll pay that cost, too, be it via your net-hookup fees, or taxes that subsidize it. If you're lucky, others will pay more than you do and you can make more money. That's economically viable at a small scale but does not scale far, because you quickly run out of other people who foot the bill.

Much like tax havens do not scale, because they don't produce anything of value, their concept does not work without other countries where the value is being created.