Will Solar energy replace traditional energy sources by 2023?

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Funny story, but solar thermal solves for both of those issues while being more efficient, applicable, and cleaner than photovoltaic in the long run.

PV production, even the safest and cheapest contemporary processes, still require rare-earths, caustic, and volatile chemicals and highly-controlled environments. Runs up the price, harms the environment twice over (producing rare-earths is incredibly "dirty"), and relies upon non-renewable and scarce resources. That's for something that has to be individually connected to a larger grid, which means infrastructure increases in direct proportion to the size and number of photovoltaic panels.

Meanwhile, solar thermal is versatile, requires basically none of that shit, and can be purpose-built to meet regional needs and limitations. They're just solar-powered steam turbines, for god's sake. Admittedly low-output thus far (the biggest solar thermal plant in the world only generates 510MW), but it's promising tech with lots of room for growth.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Funny story, but solar thermal solves for both of those issues while being more efficient, applicable, and cleaner than photovoltaic in the long run.

PV production, even the safest and cheapest contemporary processes, still require rare-earths, caustic, and volatile chemicals and highly-controlled environments. Runs up the price, harms the environment twice over (producing rare-earths is incredibly "dirty"), and relies upon non-renewable and scarce resources. That's for something that has to be individually connected to a larger grid, which means infrastructure increases in direct proportion to the size and number of photovoltaic panels.

Meanwhile, solar thermal is versatile, requires basically none of that shit, and can be purpose-built to meet regional needs and limitations. They're just solar-powered steam turbines, for god's sake. Admittedly low-output thus far (the biggest solar thermal plant in the world only generates 510MW), but it's promising tech with lots of room for growth.

My city tried solar thermal, but decommissioned it because it wasn't very efficient, supposedly.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

My city tried solar thermal, but decommissioned it because it wasn't very efficient, supposedly.

I'm no expert in it, but what latitude and did they go for troughs, dishes, or arrays and towers?

 

[Drathnoxis]

My city tried solar thermal, but decommissioned it because it wasn't very efficient, supposedly.

I'm no expert in it, but what latitude and did they go for troughs, dishes, or arrays and towers?

50 degrees and trough. Cost over 10 million and couldn't even manage the expected 1 megawatt.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

50 degrees and trough. Cost over 10 million and couldn't even manage the expected 1 megawatt.

I'm no expert on solar thermal, but that'd probably be it. I haven't read or heard of many, if any, successful trough installations that far from the equator. That far north, I'm pretty sure the only real way to go is dish or tower. But, why were your authorities screwing around with solar in the first place, that latitude should be ideal for wind.

 

[Agema]

When one can divorce the argument from climate change, one can make an entirely independent case for it based upon national security, energy independence, and plain economics, which Republican and Libertarian voters (up to and including climate change deniers) often find surprisingly palatable...

Some might find it surprisingly palatable, but it still won't gain political traction.

Oil and gas (and probably coal) are cheaper at the point of immediate power generation costs; they become more expensive when we factor in pollution and environmental costs. That cheapness is a powerful argument, particularly in a political group that tends to high disinterest or disbelief in pollution and environmental damage.

And it's not necessarily about just economics. Fossil fuels - oil particularly - isn't just an industry, it's a legendary part of the USA's historical development, and there's a lot of emotional attachment to it. Because of its power, the fossil fuel industry is intertwined with government (particularly on the right): oil money pours into politics and people with fossil fuel connections are spread all over political positions.

The simple fact is the US political right is substantially a dead zone when it comes to renewables. There's no point blaming anyone else, because they used the wrong arguments, or because they didn't like an unsatisfactory half-way house that some businessman dreamt up to line his pockets.

 

[Drathnoxis]

50 degrees and trough. Cost over 10 million and couldn't even manage the expected 1 megawatt.

I'm no expert on solar thermal, but that'd probably be it. I haven't read or heard of many, if any, successful trough installations that far from the equator. That far north, I'm pretty sure the only real way to go is dish or tower. But, why were your authorities screwing around with solar in the first place, that latitude should be ideal for wind.

I think it was a bit of an experiment to see whether it would be viable. We have a couple windmills too, like 3.

 

[immortalfrieza]

The entire concept of a "primary energy source" doesn't work in the case of green energy...They're all incredibly expensive and require access to very specific sites or resources.

This is the kind of argument I've had for ten years, and gotten nowhere with it least of all to pseudo-environmentalist liberals. Y'know, "there is no global panacea to energy production, solutions have to be regional and based upon comparative advantage balanced against need, and unified by a national smart grid".

This is one of those areas that get me seeing red. When one can divorce the argument from climate change, one can make an entirely independent case for it based upon national security, energy independence, and plain economics, which Republican and Libertarian voters (up to and including climate change deniers) often find surprisingly palatable...and the desired result (a green power infrastructure) is achieved anyways. Alas, no, "environmentalists" get so wedded to the climate change argument they develop severe myopia when it comes to being able to persuade others to their positions, and that failure triggers a built-in tribalist "circle the wagons" response that ends in them being more than happy for the planet to burn just so they can say "I told you so".

Look at the liberal response to the Pickens plan ten years ago. His plan was to phase out petroleum use for transportation in favor of CNG, as a stopgap for developing industrial-scale wind along the wind corridor, and building the infrastructure to support electric transport. Yeah, he's a natural gas man and heavily invested in wind, and therefore had a vested financial interest in his plan. It was still a cleaner plan than maintaining the status quo, relied on developing renewables, and provided a roadmap for the transitional period between now and 100% renewables.

But no, because it still relied upon fossil fuels, it was Literally Satan. No, it's better to externalize the cost of solar PV to former third world countries, stick solar PV panels on everybody's roof, and hope the energy economy underpants gnomes its way to sustainability.

This is because the vast majority of environmentalists (like most of humanity with problems that have existed for decades, centuries, or longer) have no real desire to do anything whatsoever to realistically actually SOLVE problems, they just want an excuse to feel superior and talk down to everybody else. This is why most aren't involved in any way with the research and development of green technologies and just spout off smug and empty platitudes, (conserve! Stop driving smog belching cars! Save our Earth! etc.) and raging against what they think will harm the environment even if in fact it actually won't. All of which that in all likelihood these people are putting no actual thought into and are simply parroting back what they've been told. Platitudes and raging that even if true realistically will never actually get the world especially those actually responsible for most of the environmental damage to do anything no matter how much or how loudly they do it.

Environmentalists with very few exceptions are nothing more than pretending like they're doing something in order to make themselves feel better so avoid the effort of actually doing something.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Environmentalists with very few exceptions are nothing more than pretending like they're doing something in order to make themselves feel better so avoid the effort of actually doing something.

While there is some truth in that, in my experience it's very common for environmentalists to make a positive contribution, it's just that a lot of them spend too much time patting themselves on the back to stop to ask exactly how big that contribution is. Parroting platitudes they don't bother understanding (and worse, getting angry when challenged) is a real problem, yeah.

 

[Kwak]

This is because the vast majority of environmentalists (like most of humanity with problems that have existed for decades, centuries, or longer) have no real desire to do anything whatsoever to realistically actually SOLVE problems,....

Environmentalists with very few exceptions are nothing more than pretending like they're doing something in order to make themselves feel better so avoid the effort of actually doing something.

What are you basing this on? Sounds like a caricature that doesn't exist.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Some might find it surprisingly palatable, but it still won't gain political traction...

And it's not necessarily about just economics. Fossil fuels - oil particularly - isn't just an industry, it's a legendary part of the USA's historical development, and there's a lot of emotional attachment to it.

Not to be flippant, but so was slavery and the corporate depravities of the Gilded Age. The current state of the economy compared to the unprecedented growth and prosperity of the '50s resembles a foot forward and a mile back, and part of the problem is liberals and progressives have a disturbing tendency to let conservatives derail the conversation each and every time, in the rare occasion conservatives get to be the ones to do the derailing to begin with. Liberals and progressives need to end their hubristic obsession with picking hills to die on, and refocus on winning battles.

In one of the threads in the now-defunct R&P, there was a decent conversation going about coal country and how people living in coal country have completely lost their identity in the span of fifty years. Essentially, how the people of coal country went from the hardest-ass, ride-or-die unionists who literally fought armed conflicts against all comers for their right to economic self-determinism, to some of the most broken, impoverished, and shamed people in the country. The entire area used to be death-before-dishonor blue, and it could damn well be again if Democrats would seize the right message, remind these people who they used to be, and harness their unmitigated rage against the system that led them to this point.

That's the thing. Democrats don't want to tap into blue collar rage; they shy away from it. In the wake of that systemic, moral failure, Republicans step right in and deny, distract, and reverse that rage anywhere from those responsible. Because those responsible are the ones cutting the checks that "really" matter to both parties. Fossil fuels among them, and while it's true Republicans are overwhelmingly favored by oil and gas money, you're a goddamned idiot if you think that money doesn't make its way into Democratic coffers as well [https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2019/02/house-climate-panel-democrats-got-nearly-200000-in-fossil-fuel-industry-donations/].

What reframes debates and allows liberals and progressives to win? The fossil fuels industry is the biggest gaggle of welfare queens in the country [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fossil-fuel-subsidies-pentagon-spending-imf-report-833035/]. The fossil fuel industry is "the swamp" [https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01++]. The fossil fuels industry is the whiniest, bitchiest pack of whiny bitches [https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/fossil-fuel-group-whines-about-tax-credits-wind/] in the country. The fossil fuels industry supports radical islamist terror [https://www.nytimes.com/topic/destination/saudi-arabia].

In other words, it's everything the Republicans claim to stand against. The only thing keeping Republicans from having to answer for that, is Democrats won't budge off the climate change hill, despite the fact this is a fight they could win blindfolded and with both hands tied behind their back with the first iota of genuine fucking effort.

That's all shit we already know. That's all shit Democrats piddle-fart about, mentioning it here and there but never making a big stink of it, and run screaming for the hills at the faintest whiff of Republican pushback. That's all shit Republicans will go to the mats to avoid talking about by any means necessary. Start hitting Republicans where they're weak, don't let them change the subject or regroup, and keep hitting them until they have to answer for their own intransigence.

 

[immortalfrieza]

This is because the vast majority of environmentalists (like most of humanity with problems that have existed for decades, centuries, or longer) have no real desire to do anything whatsoever to realistically actually SOLVE problems,....

Environmentalists with very few exceptions are nothing more than pretending like they're doing something in order to make themselves feel better so avoid the effort of actually doing something.

What are you basing this on? Sounds like a caricature that doesn't exist.

How about the fact that "environmentalists" have existed for decades and yet for all the rhetoric we're still dealing with the exact same problems with protecting the environment with little to no actual advancement made to actually fix them. If environmentalists as a whole cared enough to put real effort into saving the environment these issues would have been solved a long LONG time ago.

 

[Trunkage]

This is because the vast majority of environmentalists (like most of humanity with problems that have existed for decades, centuries, or longer) have no real desire to do anything whatsoever to realistically actually SOLVE problems,....

Environmentalists with very few exceptions are nothing more than pretending like they're doing something in order to make themselves feel better so avoid the effort of actually doing something.

What are you basing this on? Sounds like a caricature that doesn't exist.

How about the fact that "environmentalists" have existed for decades and yet for all the rhetoric we're still dealing with the exact same problems with protecting the environment with little to no actual advancement made to actually fix them. If environmentalists as a whole cared enough to put real effort into saving the environment these issues would have been solved a long LONG time ago.

You know what really gets my goat. All these 'doctors' curing patients. People still get broken bones, cancer, heart disease, AIDS and diabetes. Clearly, they aren't doing their job. We spend so much money and there seems to be no advancement in outcomes for patients. They should have fixed it by now, they've had plenty of decades to get it right

Becuase, the problem clearly cant be harder than we predict or the economics aren't favourable or there is better information now or that sometimes its some else's fault, not the environmentalists doctors.

 

[Kwak]

This is because the vast majority of environmentalists (like most of humanity with problems that have existed for decades, centuries, or longer) have no real desire to do anything whatsoever to realistically actually SOLVE problems,....

Environmentalists with very few exceptions are nothing more than pretending like they're doing something in order to make themselves feel better so avoid the effort of actually doing something.

What are you basing this on? Sounds like a caricature that doesn't exist.

How about the fact that "environmentalists" have existed for decades and yet for all the rhetoric we're still dealing with the exact same problems with protecting the environment with little to no actual advancement made to actually fix them. If environmentalists as a whole cared enough to put real effort into saving the environment these issues would have been solved a long LONG time ago.

Errm, are the environmentalists the one rolling back regulations and allowing more pollution?
Come on, they're not the ones with the power. They're a small lobby group who gets ignored in favour of capitalists who pay off and put in power politicians who enable them to continue getting away with taking unsustainably from the earth because perpetual growth is prescribed economic law.

 

[Hawki]

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/21/18700741/oregon-republican-walkout-climate-change-bill

Don't worry, the Republicans and right wing militias will stop that nasty solar being set up.

Yes, MILITIAS.

 

[Silent Protagonist]

Along with many of the issues with solar already listed in this thread, those who are interested may want to look up the "Duck Curve" problem that arises from an over reliance on solar power(and wind to a somewhat lesser extent). I find it fascinating (but I'm known for finding boring things fascinating so take that with a grain of salt. One of my favorite books is about the evolution of the fork across history.) It turns out that the seemingly cheeky "the sun doesn't shine at night" issue is actually a far bigger and more complicated problem than it would appear to be at first glance when it comes to electrical infrastructure.

I also want to second photovoltaics being garbage as a source of "green" energy that are largely implemented as a virtue signaling or marketing tool to make supposed environmentalists feel better about themselves rather than actually helping the environment as was mentioned by others above

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

To the people who are saying Solar isn't completely environmentally clean as people say... Of course not. The second you dig into the earth and use chemicals to treat something, it becomes dirty. That's the same for crude oil and nuclear waste.

But to act like it's a Zero-Sum game is disingenuous.

While you dig for crude, refine it, use crude for logistics, and consume it for energy, every step of that is emitting something that's harmful for this planet.

While you mine rare minerals for solar panels, refine it, use them for energy, and discard them... You're creating harmful emissions for the planet in only two steps. Most of the solar panel can also be recycled. And let's not forget that 30 year time frame when they are not producing waste or any harmful emissions. Can we compare the two and says "Well, the new solution doesn't a hundred percent solve the problem, so might as well stick with the more harmful one because the other one wasn't a grand slam"?

Oh, and by the way [https://www.rdmag.com/article/2019/05/new-ingredients-could-take-solar-panels-higher-energy-efficiencies]

Scientists are working toward creating a new and improved solar panel, which offers a more affordable and efficient way to generate renewable energy.

A team of researchers from the University of Toledo, the University of Colorado and the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has found a way to increase solar energy efficiency by implementing a tandem perovskite solar cell in a full-sized solar panel.

Perovskites are compound materials that include a special crystal structure that is formed through chemistry. The researchers believe it could replace silicon as the most efficient solar cell material to convert sunlight into electrical energy.

While all-perovskite-based polycrystalline thin-film tandem solar cells could potentially reach the 30-percent efficiency threshold, they have been limited by the lack of high-efficiency, low-band gap tin-lead mixed perovskite solar cells.

The key to overcoming this limitation was guanidiunium thiocyanate, a chemical compound that significantly improved the structural and optoelectronic properties of the lead-tin perovskite films.

A mixed tin-lead organic-inorganic material containing a small fraction of guanidinium thiocyanate has a low bandgap, long charge-carrier lifetime, and efficiencies of around 25 percent, an increase from the 18-percent efficiency currently seen in silicon-solar panels.

"We are producing higher-efficiency, lower-cost solar cells that show great promise to help solve the world energy crisis," Yanfa Yan, PhD, a professor of physics at the University of Toledo, said in a statement. "The meaningful work will help protect our planet for our children and future generations. We have a problem consuming most of the fossil energies right now, and our collaborative team is focused on refining our innovative way to clean up the mess."

The new study is the culmination of several years of research, including the discovery of the ideal perovskites properties in 2014. Since then, Yan's team has attempted to create an all-perovskite tandem solar cell that can combine two different solar cells to increase the total electrical power, which is generated by using two different parts of the Sun?s spectrum.

The researchers continue to work towards improving the quality of the materials, as well as the manufacturing process to drive down the costs.

"The material cost is low and the fabrication cost is low, but the lifetime of the material is still an unknown," Zhaoning Song, PhD, a research assistant professor in the University of Toledo Department of Physics and Astronomy and co-author on the study, said in a statement. "We need to continue to increase efficiency and stability."

According to Yan, the researchers are also working with the solar industry so that they can ensure that the solar panels made of lead, which is considered a toxic substance, can be recycled so that they do not harm the environment.

The researchers will continue their attempt to harness this type of energy thanks to a $1.1 million grant the DOE awarded in April.

"Our UToledo research is ongoing to make cheaper and more efficient solar cells that could rival and even outperform the prevailing silicon photovoltaic technology," Song said. "Our tandem solar cells with two layers of perovskites deliver high power conversion efficiency and have the potential to bring down production costs of solar panels, which is an important advance in photovoltaics."

Advancements are at least being made in the realm of Solar Power. The "Sun doesn't shine at night" problem becomes less of an issue with the more productive solar collection media we produce. If you have a media that's more productive, you can have more batteries that charge quicker making it more viable for what you throw at it.

Does Solar need a crutch while it's growing? Absolutely. Wind Power where you can, Geothermal where you can. But that's literally no different than these houses that are using coal burning for electricity, and oil for heating said houses. Well, other than having less of a footprint than the latter solution.

 

[Schadrach]

No. Solar energy is a terrible idea because you wouldn't be able to power your house and watch Netflix during the night.

I don't think that is how Solar Energy work.

The only thing less efficient than transport of electricity is storage. That's really the fundamental problem with "replacing" traditional generation with wind and solar - production is fundamentally tied to current weather conditions. Moving to primarily wind/solar and using fossil fuels or nuclear to make up the shortfalls is probably doable, but not within 5 years. I'd point out that in many places hydro is also doable and tends to be less variable than solar/wind and is another option to tap.

Funny story, but solar thermal solves for both of those issues while being more efficient, applicable, and cleaner than photovoltaic in the long run. Industrial-scale photovoltaic is a high-cost boondoggle that'll never, ever work.

Ironically it's also been around for over a century. As in, the first plant was built before WWI to pump water for crop irrigation, and the war and low oil prices made developing solar thermal a less attractive option than just burning oil. Which makes industrial scale photovoltaics an expensive flashy solution that isn't really an improvement over a very old alternative that's largely an application of tech we've had forever and improved upon.

It's like using "group ubers that follow a set route" instead of the damned bus.

In one of the threads in the now-defunct R&P, there was a decent conversation going about coal country and how people living in coal country have completely lost their identity in the span of fifty years. Essentially, how the people of coal country went from the hardest-ass, ride-or-die unionists who literally fought armed conflicts against all comers for their right to economic self-determinism, to some of the most broken, impoverished, and shamed people in the country. The entire area used to be death-before-dishonor blue, and it could damn well be again if Democrats would seize the right message, remind these people who they used to be, and harness their unmitigated rage against the system that led them to this point.

Haven't you listened to some of the farther left folks on these forums, clearly what happened is that right about the time Democrats started talking about trying to kill coal everyone in coal country suddenly and unexpectedly became drastically more sexist, racist, and homophobic. Because being sexist, racist and/or homophobic is the only conceivable reason you wouldn't vote for the Democrats. It couldn't possibly be that you stop being able to tap into the union vote when you start trying to dismantle the industries those unions represent, and it's not like coal is a massive sector of the economy in coal country (say, the largest export from the region by a huge margin), right?

Of course, I'm old enough to remember being in elementary school and a kid getting beat up because he mentioned his daddy was a Republican. In WV. That was in the late 80s.

At this point someone undoubtedly wants to point out that Clinton had an exceptionally poorly sold plan to transition the region out of the coal industry. Unfortunately, that plan could be described as "lose your job, go on welfare while you do retraining, then relocate for a new job that pays half what the old one made" which isn't exactly a desirable plan, even less so when you're someone making 6 figures with little education but tons of specialized experience and you're supporting a family (literally describing my future brother-in-law here).

I work for a company where I really should vote Republican for my own benefit (our customer's plans are very sensitive to government policy and GOP policy tends to favor us getting more new work, while Dem policy tends to hurt us), but I generally don't because so many of their other policies are god awful.

 

[Silent Protagonist]

Advancements are at least being made in the realm of Solar Power. The "Sun doesn't shine at night" problem becomes less of an issue with the more productive solar collection media we produce. If you have a media that's more productive, you can have more batteries that charge quicker making it more viable for what you throw at it.

Does Solar need a crutch while it's growing? Absolutely. Wind Power where you can, Geothermal where you can. But that's literally no different than these houses that are using coal burning for electricity, and oil for heating said houses. Well, other than having less of a footprint than the latter solution.

Ironically more productive solar actually makes the "sun doesn't shine at night" problem even worse because of the duck curve problem I mentioned above. Solar doesn't work when the energy demands on the electric grid typically peak. This creates a huge Delta between the demands on the grid at its lowest( during the day with the solar working) and at its highest (in the evening when solar doesn't work). This causes all sorts of problems of which I'll only mention a few. One is that we can't store energy for crap, meaning the grid needs to produce energy at the same rate it is consumed at the time it is consumed, and the grid producing too much or too little energy causes everything to break. This further means that solar can't actually replace any energy production infrastructure, as you will still need to have enough capacity from your non solar sources to cover the entirety of your peak demand. The high demand Delta caused by solar combined with its highly inconsistent output due to weather conditions also means your other sources have to be highly and quickly throttleable and you need a lot of feedback from your grid to figure out how much more power it needs.

My comment about photovoltaics (as opposed to thermal solar power) has more to do with my experience in the engineering of building systems. I actually implement these supposed green systems sometimes for my job. In my experience people don't care about going to green unless it is very visible. Things like insulation, efficient HVAC, or not making the entire exterior of your building f-ing glass all go out the energy inefficient windows in favor of spending money on solar panels and green roofs despite being far worse returns on investment in both terms of being green and saving money on energy costs. It's far more important to look green than actually be green. It's about marketing. I also frequently have to disillusion people of the very prevalent belief that going green will save you money in the long run. This is far from a guarantee, and frequently the lower operating costs won't offset the higher upfront cost over the life of the system.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Ironically more productive solar actually makes the "sun doesn't shine at night" problem even worse because of the duck curve problem I mentioned above. Solar doesn't work when the energy demands on the electric grid typically peak. This creates a huge Delta between the demands on the grid at its lowest( during the day with the solar working) and at its highest (in the evening when solar doesn't work). This causes all sorts of problems of which I'll only mention a few. One is that we can't store energy for crap, meaning the grid needs to produce energy at the same rate it is consumed at the time it is consumed, and the grid producing too much or too little energy causes everything to break. This further means that solar can't actually replace any energy production infrastructure, as you will still need to have enough capacity from your non solar sources to cover the entirety of your peak demand. The high demand Delta caused by solar combined with its highly inconsistent output due to weather conditions also means your other sources have to be highly and quickly throttleable and you need a lot of feedback from your grid to figure out how much more power it needs.

My comment about photovoltaics (as opposed to thermal solar power) has more to do with my experience in the engineering of building systems. I actually implement these supposed green systems sometimes for my job. In my experience people don't care about going to green unless it is very visible. Things like insulation, efficient HVAC, or not making the entire exterior of your building f-ing glass all go out the energy inefficient windows in favor of spending money on solar panels and green roofs despite being far worse returns on investment in both terms of being green and saving money on energy costs. It's far more important to look green than actually be green. It's about marketing. I also frequently have to disillusion people of the very prevalent belief that going green will save you money in the long run. This is far from a guarantee, and frequently the lower operating costs won't offset the higher upfront cost over the life of the system.

The difference between wasted Sunlight and wasted crude? That crude is gone. Sunlight will always be replaced.

The actual problem that you cite exists in all power solutions. If you don't have enough oil to heat your home, your home won't get heated. If you don't have electricity reaching your domicile. you won't have lights on. Coal, oil, gas? Infinitely more finite than Solar, Wind, and Geothermal.

But to your point about people's disillusions, I'm a hundred percent with you. When I was a personal trainer, I had people ask me how many crunches would it take them to have a six pack forever. Not joking, not being funny at all, in a good deal of people's minds, there was a set number of crunches that will just change their dna into rippling muscles that will never break.

But the people you're talking about are like the same people who get married because of the tax benefits. I've priced solar systems myself, and I know this isn't about any long term savings. In fact, to have a system that meets my requirements, it would probably cost the same as buying a new house. Panels, Power Storage, Wiring and all.

I have no problem with that. This, to me, is about self sufficiency as much as possible. If a wind turbine has to be added to it and I get more energy efficient appliances, all the better. In life, there is no one stop shop for every problem associated with a subject. If that was the case, there would be such a thing as perfection in this world. There is not. But there is having a limited and dwindling supply of resources who are controlled by people who don't have my best interests at a heart that is vastly cheaper than another solution, and there is that actual other solution that has a high cost of investment, a different way of living my life than I do now... with the possibility of never having to have my resources controlled by another person on this planet again.

To me, the cheaper system costs more of me than I'm willing to pay.