[acdha]

That’s both moving the goalposts and also leaving out the true cost comparison. Solving climate change should be worth a lot more than $0.12/kWh and viability in countries like Germany suggests that fossil fuel advocates saying that it would be economically ruinous are not making a good-faith argument.

[colechristensen]

Solar is still cheaper than anything else is in Germany. Deutsche Bank thinks so [1]

There's no "moving goalposts" possible. Without any morality, preventing future costs, or any such way of adjusting the "real" costs... solar is just cheaper, and by a large margin which is only expected to grow. Yes you need storage and methods to move power east and west, solar is still cheaper. The greediest, most short sighted, heartless monster would still invest in solar before anything else because it makes them the most money.

https://www.dbresearch.de/PROD/RPS_DE-PROD/PROD0000000000528...

[acdha]

Good point. I’m not familiar with the German power market but the amount in question is small enough that I suspect our descendants will consider it trivial compared to the cost of dealing with a broken climate.

[bluefirebrand]

For what it's worth I'm a nuclear advocate not a fossil fuel advocate

[acdha]

I think it has a place in the portfolio but one of the reasons why fossil fuel-backed think tanks like to push nuclear or hydrogen as the green option is that it means years of continued growth in oil consumption before anything competing comes online, whereas solar cuts into their profits within weeks. Deploying solar as much as possible buys the decades we need to get much new nuclear power online and in many cases it doesn’t require much more than buying commodity products.