all 5 comments

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And the difference is made up by government subsidies because of powerful coal lobbyists over the centuries or something?

[–]d3rr 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think the difference is that cost effective solar is not purchased and installed yet. There's certainly a missing piece to the puzzle.

[–]Sunflower 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

and I cyncially see it through the lense/filter of money as a grab to enduce all the innocent into buying solar. Do you not see the sun dimming underway boiling frogs???? Whaddya suppose that means for solar. ?

[–]Vigte 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm all for replacing the energy production technology - and it is both financially and materially inevitable - HOWEVER, there is a limiting factor no one often considers. Do you know the quantities of certain fairly rare elements required to make one solar panel - let alone hundreds of billions (which is how many standard sized panels we would need, at the very least).

Future looks good, but there are still hurdles.

[–]pcdoodle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

True, we all do better if we accept the challenges of deployment. Energy reduction is the cheapest and most beneficial step in 2018.