Originally Posted by Dutch
Originally Posted by RufusG

You're completely wrong, as usual. You continue to compare the cost of inherently not reliable energy with that of historically proven very reliable energy. You just need to stop it before we're back in the 19th century. You ignored everything said in the article.


What, specifically, in that post was wrong, in your opinion?

What, specifically, contradicted the original article, in your opinion?


Your delusion that solar is "cheaper". You are comparing apples and oranges. Coal and nuclear plants run at a historical (read, not hypothetical) capacity factor of 90% and higher. That's reliable enough to be the backbone of 24/7/365 electricity delivery. Renewables, divide that number by 3. For solar in many parts of the country, more like 4 or more. That's just not in the same universe reliability-wise. A direct cost comparison that ignores that fact is disingenuous at best.