2015's Electricity Retirements: 80 Percent Coal Plants (arstechnica.com) 244
AmiMoJo writes: In the US, electricity demand is growing very slowly, which means that capacity additions don't have to exceed retirements by much in order to keep the grid functioning. Tracking the comings and goings from the electric grid can help provide a picture of the country's changing energy mix. The Energy Information Administration, which provides data on the US' electric grid, says 18GW of capacity were retired this past year, more than 80 percent of it coal-fired. More than 27GW of utility-scale projects will replace that this year. Note that much of the new generating hardware is wind and solar, but the plants being replaced often had low capacity factors due to their age and high pollutant output.
And my monthy electric bill... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Natgas is one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't technologies, though what you're actually damned by is capitalism. It's better to burn natgas than to simply let it escape from the ground, because CO2 is a less strong GHG than methane, etc. But once you start using it, you fall victim to thinking along the lines of economies of scale, and you start looking for more of it because the more you have, the better the numbers get. And then you get fracking.
Re:And my monthy electric bill... (Score:5, Informative)
Natural gas does make a good backup for wind and solar, though, because gas plants can come online quickly when the wind drops.
Re: (Score:3)
This will be true no matter what the technology currently is or will be.
But some technologies are inherently harmful, and some are only incidentally harmful. We can reduce much of the incidental harm, if not eliminate it. For example, solar panels are using less and less toxic material, panels made in civilized countries are required not to leach toxics if landfilled rather than recycled, large VAWTs are minimally harmful to wildlife as opposed to small[ish] horizontal wind turbines with fast-moving blades...
Re: (Score:3)
VAWTs don't really work. There is plenty of history on this; the highest capacity-factor units produced were at 12% at scale, and only survived 10-15 years. They are much more decoration than solution.
The physics is pretty straightforward. For high wind-speed survival they are generally limited to two blades in a common plane, but that design causes vibration issues when the blades are in shadow of the mast. Mast-less designs have been done but not successfully, and not at large scale.
But, that said the
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you haven't updated your statistics since the 1990s
Re:And my monthy electric bill... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.popsci.com/science/... [popsci.com]
2013 Solar Panels Now Make More Electricity Than They Use
And by 2020, the solar industry will have completely "paid back" the energy it took to produce the world's panels.
Also--- "rare" earth metals are "rare" at the current low prices. but there are vast quantities available at only slightly higher cost levels. One mine in california has more rare earth than all of china but it's shut down right now because the cost to extract means it isn't profitable right now (partially because of higher labor costs in the U.S. than china which will correct itself by 2045).
Some are stripmined- valid point. Some are conflict materials- a valid point you didn't make.
But that's a case of business externalizing their costs on society.
The future really is solar. Enough solar power to satisfy the globes needs would like like a a half dozen to a dozen little dots scattered around the globe. But even more exciting is decentralized solar power which is
a) Less likely to be stolen/destroyed by bandits.
b) Extends lighted hours (for education and business) far into the night.
c) Can drive laptops, wi-fi, fans, and small food cooler/heaters (for insulin and similar items more than for sodas).
And solar just keeps getting cheaper. Like the space program, solar power investment has a huge payoff for the startup cost the government funded.
And it has an interesting feedback loop with fossil fuels. It reduces their use by just a tiny amount- but that's enough to significantly drop the prices of fossil fuels because the price of all fossil fuel is set by the cost of the most expensive fossil fuel.
If it costs $90 to get out the last barrel, the $10 a barrel is sold for $90. If you destroy demand for oil over $60 a barrel, then all oil will be sold at $60.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You elected the environmental wackos and dope smokers that run your state. Now live with it.
Re:And my monthy electric bill... (Score:5, Funny)
Thats it! The dope smokers are running the state now! Everyone should stop moving here. The sun is too bright with the clear air and they make us walk through all the forests. It sucks. Stay in KS, TX and MO, your midwest havens of freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I live in North Carolina. If "environmental wackos and dope smokers" caused electric bills to increase, my electric bill would be about five bucks per month. Instead, it continues to rise.
Re:And my monthy electric bill... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the economics lesson. My inflation has gone up by 1.87x since the 90s, my electricity cost per kwh has gone up 3.4x
Re: (Score:2)
Inflation means your bills keep getting higher as a general rule. Typically, your income increases faster; the GDP-per-capita and the median incomes both increase faster than CPI or any other price inflation measure. That's why people spend a smaller percentage of their income on things like food, clothing, and housing today (caveat: they spend 18% more on housing in 2003 than in 1950, but bought a 2,300sqft house instead of a 983sqft house), and more on cell phones, streaming media, and other new consu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have people telling me their power costs 1/5 what mine costs, so my bubble sucks.
I've been paying for delivered generated solar power, which comes at a slightly-higher premium than my local coal and gas power. I also buy carbon-offset gas power, again at a premium. My heating bills have not increased by very much at all in 5 years.
My house has 66% of its wall-area exposed; 87% of that is un-insulated. I'm looking into adding rigid foam insulation to 25% of the exposed wall area in the short term an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Natural gas is currently the cheapest way to produce electricity. Your cost of electricity will soon be dropping.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And my monthy electric bill... (Score:4, Interesting)
Hydro isn't really interesting from a price comparison point of view. Most of the easy places to make hydro power are already tapped, so marginal cost for making a new hydro plant is very high -- if not directly in construction costs, then in damage to the local environment. The cost of power produced in an existing hydro plant is practically zero, but that is true for wind as well, and almost true for nuclear.
For new builds, wind and natural gas tend to fight it out for cheapest power, depending on where you build. Solar and coal win certain areas, as long as we ignore pollution for coal. Unless you happen to be in Northern Norway, where they can still expand hydro -- but no one wants the power there and conservation is hindering power line construction.
Note that dirt cheap natural gas is mostly a North American thing. The rest of the world does not have that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And my monthy electric bill... (Score:4, Insightful)
Get solar! If you own your roof it will lower your bill no matter how you do it (pay cash, lease, solar installer becomes your power company). We get a ton of sun in CO so you're almost certainly a prime candidate for solar. My total energy bill (gas + elec) hasn't gone above $70 in the 2 years I've had solar. Summer months I have negative bills. If you own your house you will absolutely save money on energy and your rates will never increase!
Re: (Score:3)
Get solar! If you own your roof it will lower your bill no matter how you do it (pay cash, lease, solar installer becomes your power company). We get a ton of sun in CO so you're almost certainly a prime candidate for solar. My total energy bill (gas + elec) hasn't gone above $70 in the 2 years I've had solar. Summer months I have negative bills. If you own your house you will absolutely save money on energy and your rates will never increase!
That is not enough information. You could be losing money and all those statement still true. I am not claiming you are losing money, but please provide the critical facts..
What was your bill & total household energy usage before? What are they now? What was the total cost to you, and taxpayers? What size system was installed? What is the guaranteed feed-in rate and term?
Re:And my monthy electric bill... (Score:5, Interesting)
Fair enough. Total install cost for a 7800W array in 2014 was $19k and I got back around $6k total in tax credits. Xcel lets you bank electricity with no expiration so what extra I produce in the summer carries over to Jan and Feb. The first year I lived in the house my total electricity bill was around $1100 so my break even point is around 11 years assuming rates don't go up (which they have already). I'm planning on an electric car in the next few years which cuts down the payback period even more. The panels are guaranteed to retain 80% capacity at 20 years and will likely output substantial power for at least 40. Throw in a few replacement panels and an inverter or two over that time and I'm still looking at 30-40 years of electricity for the cost of about 10 from the grid.
That said, I just saw that Xcel has proposed a grid use charge for new solar installs that will change the math somewhat. But when it goes into effect in 2 years, prices for solar will likely have fallen enough to still make sense in most cases. Cheap, effective whole house batteries that will get you through a week of rain aren't far behind.
I should stop there but....the nice thing about the tax benefits I received is that many more people can now benefit from them since they helped drive down the cost of solar by a huge amount in just a few years. One of the reasons so many solar companies went out of business is because if they held any inventory, it was pretty much unsaleable because next month's panels were better and cheaper. I know talking about such things is a can of worms but in my opinion, this is exactly what the gov is supposed to do: solve the chicken and egg problem by incentivize promising new tech resulting in new markets for average consumers. And now I'll hand it over to ./ for all the free market backlash.
Re: (Score:2)
Look into the PV trackers as well; going off-grid is starting to become viable. By my math it takes batteries around $300/kWh and a "minimum bill structure" that results in over $600 annual charges, although high heating loads can kill it.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like there is no subsidy, just a reduction in the tax payable. In other words it costs the taxpayer nothing, they just collect less tax on something you might not have bought otherwise.
Re:And my monthy electric bill... (Score:4, Interesting)
My experience with solar in the mountains of California is this:
- 4kw system
- generated $1256 worth of electricity last year (76% of my use)
- ROI of 7.3 % (I borrowed money at 2.2% to pay for the system so this is a good return)
- I'll be installing another 2kw this year
- this year it should give me a better ROI since the power company is raising rates by 7%
Re: (Score:2)
"We get by with a little help from our friends"
Compared with the public subsidy of fossil fuels ($5 trillion a year), renewable subsidies are a rounding error. (Google it)
If you're worried about your money going to waste, take a look at the fossil fuel companies. That's where it's going.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Lots of energy sources get subsidies, but only with renewables to individuals get the money directly. And for comparison's sake, renewables get many times the subsidy of conventional sources if you calculate it on a per MWH basis. Its not even close. No energy has ever gotten subsidized as heavily as renewables.
Re: And my monthy electric bill... (Score:2)
I thought I did thank you in the first line of my post.
I will take this opportunity to thank you directly and personally for your support of solar energy and the $7000 tax credit I received.
Thank you, good sir. You are a gentleman.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, good sir, I applaud your good natured support of solar energy.
I should also thank you for the $10,000 subsidy I received for buying my electric car.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"You can't always get what you want... but if you try real hard, you get what you need."
Re: (Score:2)
Compared with the public subsidy of fossil fuels ($5 trillion a year), renewable subsidies are a rounding error. (Google it) If you're worried about your money going to waste, take a look at the fossil fuel companies. That's where it's going.
I Googled it, and even the most liberal estimates I found are nowhere near $5 trillion/year.
In any event, GP asked you the amount of the subsidy for your installation. You disclosed some of your other figures, perhaps you'd care to answer GP's question and share the amount of tax break you received?
I very pro-renewable, BTW.
Re: And my monthy electric bill... (Score:2)
I received a $7000 tax credit. I thank you and all the taxpayers for your support of solar power.
Re: (Score:2)
The International Monetary Fund has done several studies of fossil fuel subsidies.
The latest update is here:
https://www.imf.org/external/n... [imf.org]
"Energy subsidies are estimated at US$5.3 Trillion for 2015, or 6.5% of global GDP."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People don't count 2 to 3 trillion and 4000 lives lost fighting over oil as a "subsidy" but it is.
People don't count toxic site clean up of fossil fuel sites as a subsidy but it is.
People don't count free right of way land as a subsidy but it is.
I'd still like to see the source for your $5 trillion figure. That's pretty high.
Solar power is reaching a point where a subsidy isn't needed.
However- the network effect of power companies is being lost and they will be forced to charge higher rates as their fixed
Re: (Score:2)
The International Monetary Fund has done several studies of fossil fuel subsidies.
The latest update is here:
https://www.imf.org/external/n... [imf.org]
"Energy subsidies are estimated at US$5.3 Trillion for 2015, or 6.5% of global GDP."
Re: (Score:2)
The International Monetary Fund has done several studies of fossil fuel subsidies.
The latest update is here:
https://www.imf.org/external/n... [imf.org]
"Energy subsidies are estimated at US$5.3 Trillion for 2015, or 6.5% of global GDP."
Re: (Score:2)
Did you include taxpayer funded portion in that? How much help are we giving you?
That depends, did you include the tax payer funded portion of your car today? People who complain about subsidies for green energy as being unfair need a massive reality check.
Guess what. It's a sunk cost. If someone gives me a subsidy I don't need to exclude it in my total cost of ownership. All I need to do is say "ha ha" and have a smug smile on my face if I qualify for the subsidy but you don't.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Get solar! If you own your roof it will lower your bill no matter how you do it
> If you own your roof it will lower your bill no matter how you do it
I'm in favor of solar -- I might be getting some for my property this year -- but despise this kind of willfully ignorant rah-rah-ing. There are plenty of reasons why solar might not lower your bill:
Re: (Score:2)
People like Warren Buffett are trying like hell to kill it.
The power companies absolutely hate homeowners with rooftop solar and are fighting it tooth and nail.
That just tells me people with rooftop solar are doing the right thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see solar roofing that actually replaces shingles. Kind of like the new vinyl roofing but with built in solar cells.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on how they are trying to kill it. If they forbid solar inverters from touching the grid, well, the inverters get replaced by battery chargers, and one uses a battery bank that is fed by the panels, or if there isn't enough solar to keep them topped off, then mains power.
Rooftop solar is a "why not", rather than a "why". Yes, it has a high initial cost, but once in place, the cost for upkeep is relatively low, and it benefits everyone involved.
Re:And my monthy electric bill... (Score:4, Insightful)
What if:
You don't own your own roof.
The roof is inadequate.
Your location on the globe is inadequate.
The tax-breaks and subsidies are taken away from you because there is no cheap alternative and everyone jumps onto solar?
"Rates will never increase" is a dubious assertion too, maybe if you have a direct system but not if you're counting anything like pushing back to the grid (negative bill would suggest that).
And not everyone has the ability to do one massive outlay now to save energy for the next 10 years (if the gear lasts that long and you get totally free servicing and replacements in the cost of your system throughout that time - what if the company goes bankrupt, maybe because they relied on subsidies or didn't account for product returns, or they just get priced out of the market?).
It's honestly not as simple as "get solar".
Hell, in my country, solar is just laughed at. An installation capable of running an ordinary house costs more than a house extension or a brand new car, and only "saves" while it's being subsidised.
And just the extra legal cost of who technically owns it if you move house has caused people an awful lot of people to have a lot of unexpected bills (you're leasing? Then you sell the house? And the next guy doesn't agree with the transfer of that lease? Now you have an unsaleable house, or have to buy out the lease, or legal costs to argue the toss, and you can't really remove the system in the meantime, and mortgage companies don't want to touch it as you've effectively rented out your roof to the solar company).
Nothing is that clear-cut when it comes to that amount of money in a system.
Re: (Score:3)
Agree 100% that it's not for everyone. My post was in response to someone who lives in CO, USA where there are ~300 days of sunshine per year with a sun that's more intense than sea level and most houses are on plains where there is minimal shade. But prices have come down so much that even if solar didn't make sense 2 years ago your area it might be worth another look.
Yes there are some issues with leasing panels and selling houses. However, the real estate industry has caught up quickly and has developed
ROI on solar (Score:3)
If you own your roof it will lower your bill no matter how you do it (pay cash, lease, solar installer becomes your power company).
It may lower your monthly bill but that doesn't mean it's cheaper to you. I've done the math and for what it would cost me to cover my roof in solar panels I would break even in somewhere between 8-12 years. That's presuming that the panels still work at the same efficiency and require zero maintenance and that I'm still living there a decade from now, none of which is certain.
Don't get me wrong I'm a big fan of solar but the ROI for solar is anything but simple and certainly isn't quick. Its a big up f
I went solar, but not so impressed .... (Score:2)
Out here in Maryland, I'm not convinced that going solar makes a whole lot of financial sense. We're one of the states where it's pushed heavily, but we have quite a few days that are cloudy, rainy, snowy or just partially overcast, where panels just don't generate much power.
I purchased a 7.84 KWh PV system with a combination of South and East facing panels (all SunPower branded equipment which does cost a premium, but also means I've got panels with a little greater efficiency per square foot and hopeful
Re: (Score:2)
Plus replacement of the whole system at the expiry date of the service warranty (no, "expected life" is no good - if it's not warrantied you're still going to have to find the money to replace it while you fight that in court at great expense).
Re:And my monthy electric bill... (Score:4, Interesting)
It looks like the price has gone down in real terms, accounting for inflation: http://www.statista.com/statis... [statista.com]
Colorado is cheaper than average, especially for gas and considering how little renewable energy it has: http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=... [eia.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. Meanwhile my electricity company is going to be giving its customers a small refund because fuel costs weren't as high as they forecast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Has never been higher.
Mine has never been lower. I replaced all my lights with LEDs, added insulation to my attic, and installed timers and motion detectors. I cut my electricity use by a third, and in less than a year saved enough to pay for all the improvements. Last time I was at Lowe's, they had LED light bulbs for under $1. At that price, the pay back is just a couple months.
Re:And my monthy electric bill... (Score:4, Interesting)
States with higher percentage of renewables (wind and solar) have lower electric costs. Nevada electric prices have been dropping so much that Warren Buffet's owned Nevada Energy had been sabotaging solar by bribing the governor and the state's PUC. Seven of the largest casinos in Las Vegas are threatening to leave NV Energy and rely on much cheaper solar and wind energy. The PUC wants to charge them $127 million to leave.
Texas now offers free electricity at nights because they have excess wind power.
Colorado is good to get rid of coal but stupid to not install wind and solar.
Re: (Score:2)
Has never been higher. Additionally because my state (Colorado) has decided to replace the coal plants with natural gas, increasing the price to heat my home as well.
I don't believe studying a perceived problem and producing voluntary goals for the future has significant effect on the current market.
Colorado used to enjoy cheap natural gas (and lower power bills) because we produce more NG than we use by a large margin and there was limited ability to transport it out of state.
Recently, several new interstate pipelines were built to export the gas. Instead of a constant glut, we now get to enjoy a more regional market where a 10% supply "shortage" nets a 300% change
Re: (Score:2)
If electricity prices were at all a burden to most Americans, they'd be doing far more to cut back on its use than they do. That's not to say that there aren't people for whom paying for electricity isn't a real pr
Re:Wait (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I never thought I would call Newt Gingrich "the reasonable one"!
Re: (Score:3)
The vast majority of new oil production added to the global market over the past 10 years is from the US. Saudi production is up 7%. US production is up 60%.
Thanks @sierraclub (Score:2)
Nuclear FUD (Score:2)
But..it's still growing (Score:2)
Make it part of the cellphone bill (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hopefully they'll be smart and go for sustainable energy alternatives rather than turning their countryside upside-down in search of fossil fuels.
The latecomers to the modern energy economy have the advantage of other nation's experiences... Hopefully they also have the wisdom to exploit it.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
With 7+ Billion people and a large chunk of them in China and India in poor areas with little to no electricity, what happens when they start demanding access to the conveniences of the modern word?
I think a dictionary would be in order.
it's working (Score:2)
large and powerful companies can buy off some of the people in congress, enough to block any real reform. so the new tactic is to fight them everywhere which companies are not prepared to fight because it means you have to buy off all the little people which would be quite expensive and the little people can't always be bought. i think you will find that after much of the coal industry has fallen, only then will congressional reform be possible.
First sentence makes no sense (Score:2)
Even if electricity demand were growing very quickly, capacity additions don't have to exceed retirements by much in order to keep the grid functioning.
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind, it didn't say what I thought it said
The case for optimism on climate change (Score:2)
New TED talk
http://www.ted.com/talks/al_go... [ted.com]
Starting at 13:40 he shows graphs of the exponential growth of wind, solar, and batteries that are driving the move to renewables.
Thanks @algore (Score:2)
What?!? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree, but this doesn't really affect the Kochs all that much. They're in oil and gas, not coal. It may even be helping them: a lot of the capacity shifts to gas plants, which they supply through fracking.
The drop in oil prices may be hurting them, and some of their fracking operations have as they're no longer profitable. So you can take that as a bit of cheery news.
Seriously? (Score:2)
It's hard to take the Koch haters seriously when they can't do basic research or differentiate between the different kinds of "energy". Hint: It
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing the Kock bros do is for the Greater Good(tm), they are in it for themselves alone.
Even if that were true, their interests do overlap with poor people and small businesses.
If the Kock empire were to vaporize overnight, I would be shocked if a statistically measurable number of "the poor" or "small businesses" had any negative change in their lives.
Depends how it were vaporized. Nuclear weapons, for example, would leave a mark on those other groups too.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends how it were vaporized. Nuclear weapons, for example, would leave a mark on those other groups too.
Drone strikes, limited casualties.
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't be able to take them out of the equation without hurting some people who don't deserve it.
The real question isn't whether you will be hurting people by doing that. The question is whether you will be hurting fewer people over a longer interval than if you just left them there.
Note, I don't think the Koch brothers are the evil genius behind the Illuminati that is running the US. That's just bogeyman in the closet sort of bullshit. The problem with the country is how it is run, and while the K
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that supposed to be a joke?
Renewable energy is more reliable than Nuclear, Hydroelectric, and Natural gas plants? Since when? How do you define reliable to twist that statement into being anywhere close to correct?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I think you might have a reading comprehension problem. How does a national power grid making power cheaper even come close to supporting your assertion that somehow renewable energy is more reliable or cheaper? The article you linked has nothing about relative prices of "renewables" vs nuclear, hydro, natural gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the idea is that the others will gradually be moved to backup the solar and wind generation. It makes sense as you need build no more nuke or gas plants since the majority of the load will transfer to renewables. It's a gradual process which is what drives the tree huggers insane. They want it all now and the other side wants to stay on coal forever but the truth is that we will move to renewables at a slow, steady rate because that's the most economical way to do it. The biggest threat to the p
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, but trying to claim that solar or wind is more reliable is very suspect. Hydro could be called reliable, but even that has its reliability issues as Lake Mead's current state should show.
http://www.livescience.com/519... [livescience.com]
But solar and wind, or even the two combined have nothing on nuclear for reliability.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear and hydroelectric plants are large and when they go offline, it's a big shock for the grid.
Solar and wind are widely distributed, small installations and a single point of failure has little effect. It's pretty much impossible to have a large scale failure of wind and solar (renewables are a distributed network kind of like the Internet). Much more reliable and predictable.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a large scale failure of solar every single day...it is called night. Wind is a bit better about this, but having to build out 2-3 times the needed capacity to handle times when parts are not running increases the cost considerably.
Nuclear goes offline for maintenance all the time without issues, even sudden shutdowns of nuke plants are handled without issue. However, powering everything when the wind is not blowing, or the sun is not shining would be kind of hard with just renewable.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need a better understanding of "reliability".
Re: (Score:2)
"Night" is no more a failure of solar power than a scheduled shutdown is a failure of any other type of plant. The problem is when it goes offline unexpectedly, and in that respect solar is extremely reliable.
(Most people are not surprised by nightfall.)
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Offline unexpectedly? You mean like when a cloud covers the sun?
Re: (Score:2)
No, offline unexpectedly as in the whole plant goes down for three days because of some errant bird poop [cnn.com].
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Which is a risk with any power generation system. The transformers went offline, that can happen with Solar Thermal, Coal, Natural Gas, Hydro, (depending on setup) even solar and wind.
Every large scale power generation uses transformers, in power plants they are generally out in the open to allow air cooling. Then the transformers go offline, the plant shuts down to prevent damaging the electrical infrastructure further. This happens in solar installs to when there is damage to the inverter, so how is th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we learn to store energy better then we can harvest all of the energy we need for the night during the day.
Fossil fuels are basically stored solar energy after all...
I agree that solar doesn't make sense everywhere and that a variety of production methods are necessary but I can't see solar going away.
Grabbing some of the energy that the sun is blasting us with just makes too much sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)