why not thorium? It strikes me as odd

If it is economical. I see no reason why not...Economics is what stops it.
Economics is not a factor when you post about Solar and Wind, why is it here?

Matthew again showing his level of intelligence. Great post, keep up the contradictions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

The price of wind is about one half that of dirty coal right now. Solar is within about one half cent per kilowatt, and the price is dropping as we post. And the two states that are going big time on both are those ever so liberal states of Oklahoma and Texas.

Yes, it is about economic, and the renewables are winning on that issue. President Obama was completely correct on that issue, and his insistance on investing in research in those two areas will save homeowners a lot of money in the near future.
 

Forum List

Back
Top