In response to a pro-nuker feigning support for solar at first, and then bringing out his real party line
“Splendid....kudos for your conservation but how realistic is solar? Last I checked the technology was still well behind making it a cost effective, "viable" alternative for the average user. Granted the technology has been in place to do conversions for decades, but not for what the average user could consider a reasonable cost.
Its extremely realistic, there has been a sea change in the last 2 years.
Solar at 3 cents per kWH, fixed price for 30 years. You could imagine paying $1.50 for a utility kWH in 30 years? Sheesh, its 35 cents per kWH in Hawaii now.
Nukers are stuck in a rut, they have a very high cost of departure, so instead they keep running the clunker plants and they refuse to get new occupations
You heard of high cost to entry in a business model? Nuke is HIGH COST OF DEPARTURE.
- Climate, Earthquake, and Vulcanism Resources
- 2018 Update On Actual Global Warming Data -- HadCRUT Data from the UK Charted
- Videos, Fukshima Blew Up in a Prompt Criticality
- Why Shut Down Nuke?
- Radiation Removal
- Rad Prep Shelter in Place Checklist
- Uranium Aerosolized Into Atmosphere
- Gundersen Email / Theories
- Largest Lies of Nuke
- Baseline is Just One Of The Lies
- Nuke Accidents 101
- Hormesis Is a Lie
- Renewable Energy PV
- Carrington Event and Astronomy
- Rad Maps, Earthquakes, Nuke Bombs
- Chernobyl Documentary 500K
- Conversions / Safety Limits
- Pictures - High Quality
- Prepper/Survival Resources And Protection from Radiation
- ENENEWS Alt Discussion Page at NukePro