Which of course has nothing to do with the big picture, the true
cost and viability of solar.

I didn't claim that solar worked for everyone. I said it's a useful
source of energy if you have the means to harness it. He does, so...

The discussion wasn't about if it made sense for
one guy, the discussion was about the true cost
of solar installed across the country to supply
energy and whether it's economically viable,
absent subsidies.



I understand that there is some benefit to a distributed
generation system with distributed storage.

But what about economy of scale?
If we took all those rooftop subsidies and applied
them to BIG solar farms, would we be getting more watt-hours
for the buck? Maybe you use mirrors and steam instead
of PV. And maybe a nuke on site to even things out.
When you have a LOT of energy, it opens up alternative
storage methods. Pumping water uphill would never make
sense for average joe. For a utility company, maybe it does.

The problem with all this is communication. When everybody
sees everything that goes on, there's so much opportunity
to disagree that all you get is arguing. Maybe we should
nuke twitter and get on with doing stuff.
You can fix most any bad decision. You can't fix inaction.
It appears that inaction costs more than actually doing something.
What we have is INACTION.