That's too easy. Use coal to make steel but not to heat water into steam in order to spin a turbine, like the wind does.
The underlying logic that seems to defy some here is that steps have to be taken for progress to be made. Subsides have to be shifted in order to do so.
Lots of R&D and time will bring costs down, like in any endeavor.
No one likes to admit it and they always leave out the military costs of securing and protecting oil resources and reserves. That's one hell of a subsidy but when you honestly factor it in, renewables look like the cheaper way to proceed.
Everything needs something else to be made. It doesn't come to us wrapped in a bow. It's a matter of policy and priorities and some sane minds to figure it all out, not some bottom line of a profit driven corporation, answering to it's shareholders, which, the last time I looked, aren't mentioned in the Constitution.
All the best,
Nonoise
The underlying logic that seems to defy some here is that steps have to be taken for progress to be made. Subsides have to be shifted in order to do so.
Lots of R&D and time will bring costs down, like in any endeavor.
No one likes to admit it and they always leave out the military costs of securing and protecting oil resources and reserves. That's one hell of a subsidy but when you honestly factor it in, renewables look like the cheaper way to proceed.
Everything needs something else to be made. It doesn't come to us wrapped in a bow. It's a matter of policy and priorities and some sane minds to figure it all out, not some bottom line of a profit driven corporation, answering to it's shareholders, which, the last time I looked, aren't mentioned in the Constitution.
All the best,
Nonoise