OK, I've been touting the coming solar energy revolution as a natural by-product of the computer revolution, in it's post but parallel emergence from materials science/chemistry/physics, both in converting raw solar to electricity and in storage technologies. And I don't think I'm going to abandon that over one article, especially one that includes the same whopping big logical fallacy all solar-deniers (if I can use that term) make: the fallacy that proclaims the computer revolution didn't happen because it's too expensive and difficult to keep changing those damned vacuum tubes. But I've also learned that one ignores economists at one's peril. So, without further introduction, here is ...
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and
Read more (11 lines)http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and
SUBSIDIES for renewable energy are one of the most contested areas of public policy. Billions are spent nursing the infant solar- and wind-power industries in the...
