And wind and solar power are generally more expensive than the fossil fuels they are meant to supplant. If carbon dioxide penalties made coal power more expensive, as some environmentalists argue is inevitable, the relative cost of renewable energy might decrease. But consumers will still pay more. Full Story »
Posted by Mike LaBonte
This makes it's case at a high level, but also delves into territory it is not prepared to take on. For example it talks about pricing without mentioning subsidies, and it does not give the big picture with regard to backup supplies.. More sources are needed, and attribution for facts.
A general article about how more expensive alternative energy faces an uphill battle to be developed in a recession. More stakeholders need to be represented, and quotations from those mentioned could be more substantial. Anonymous sourcing throughout (e.g., "Some experts", "organizations", "Democratic leaders") makes the piece seem a bit unbelievable.
All the cost numbers in this article are suspect and generally make wind look more competitive and nuclear less competitive than they really are.
Nuclear is the only proven and practical non carbon technology. CO2 sequestration is purely theoretical. Wind and solar are massively impractical because they are unpredictably intermittent among other problems. Nuclear is expensive only because the environmentalists have put so many roadblocks in the way of building nuclear plants and because research has been starved, also due to environmentalist influence.
Retrieving Comments
