Natural gas isn’t a solution. It’s an overpriced supplement.
Why do you consider this successful?

Reality: natural gas and new wind have provided the vast majority of the nations new generating capacity for at least the past three years. Solar has decreased in price by 170% over the past 20 months and will continue to fall. Changing the target of criticism shows how out of context over the top blanket statements, unfortunately, will continue to be one of the largest sources of biased rhetoric.

Of course the Sun doesn’t shine 24/365, no one suggests that it does. But people like Andrew like to harp on that in an attempt to downplay the rising role that solar has in our grid supply.

It’s a common technique used by friends of fossil fuels. Point out the fact that the Sun does not shine all the time or that the wind does not blow all the time and then try to use that to insist that we must continue to use fossil fuels. It’s bogus, and I’m sure even Andrew realizes it’s bogus.

PV is on route to becoming “dirt cheap”. Very rapidly. Does that mean that we will build our future grid on solar plus storage only? Of course not. What it means is that solar will be a major supplier in the mix that includes wind, geothermal, tidal, hydro, biogas/mass and possibly wave. A wide reaching mix of inputs makes for the most reliable grid and requires the least amount of storage and backup generation.

1GW of PV is not the same as 1 GW nuclear or fossil fuel plant. My 3.24 kW DC PV system is rated at 2.7 kW CEC AC watts and will generate about 5000 kWh / year, giving it an average output of 570 W over the course of a year or a capacity factor between 17-21% depending on what you are using as “nameplate” capacity.

Unless grid storage and PV gets to be dirt cheap, PV will never provide 100% of our electricity, but that’s never been the goal anyway. There is no silver bullet – we need all the tools in our arsenal to de-carbonize the grid and solar is one of them.

Here, in the US, we are having to deal with a large amount of ignorance sponsored by the fossil fuel industry and championed by a major political party.

So, after celebrating the success of the CSI program, we should be figuring out what new policies, programs and lessons we can learn from Germany.

Because it’s an easily recognizable point when an extra digit gets added. Just like when you watch your car go from 999,999 to 1,000,000 miles.

Now, please tell us who is talking about the US getting 100% of our electricity from solar?

As far as I can tell, only the ‘friends of fossil fuel’ who are attempting to hold back the transition away from oil and coal.

And who is getting their bloomers all in a bunch about the modest amount of subsidies that renewable energy has received and saying nothing about the billions and billions and billions in subsidies that fossil fuels have received over the last 100+ years?

As far as I can tell, only the ‘friends of fossil fuel’ who are attempting to hold back the transition away from oil and coal.

Finally, Andrew, are you aware that at one point in time coal produced less than 1% of our electricity? Coal was a good way to generate electricity at the time (since we were ignorant of the problems of fossil fuels) and it’s role grew. Now the role of coal is declining and being replaced by renewable energy.

California uses 300 GWh of actual electricity. Solar accounts for less than 1%.

Despite spending billions in public subsidies, this new solar power didn’t keep up with increases in demand. It won’t solve our energy problem.

If the US wanted to make Solar our primary source of electricity, it would cost $25 trillion. Of course, we’d still be in the dark – at night.

Solar isn’t a solution. It’s an overpriced supplement.

Why do you consider this successful?