In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 22 May 2006 09:55:20 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >>Not quite true. Wind is still slightly more expensive than coal or >>gas, Solar thermal more expensive than wind. > >Only when you ignore the social cost of pollution and mining.
While true, that's exactly how it's calculated. Those costs to society *are* ignored, not just by government, but by society itself. Solar needs to be cheaper than the *current* cost of fossil fuel based power. Then, and only then, will it see widespread use. [snip] >>We have both. Believe you me, if Solar were cheaper than coal or >>gas, there would no holding the utilities back. :) > >I disagree. History shows that the utility companies were happy to >join regulators and coal companies to drive LUZ out of business. That's because they weren't doing it themselves. >If >the cost of electricity falls to a penny or less per KWH, the utility >companies will make a lot less money. Yes they would. However that isn't what I said. What I propose would drive down the cost of energy *to the utility companies*, not necessarily the cost of electricity to the consumer. Eventually due to competition, that would fall too, but initially the utilities would walk away with windfall profits. >Efficiency and progress is not >their best interest. If cold fusion emerges, you can darn sure they >will fight it tooth and nail, until the day it bankrupts them. It isn't going to bankrupt them if they are the ones making the profit. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
