10-07-2016, 11:36 AM
quote:
Originally posted by imemine
Wouldn't having an energy source that doesn't produce CO2 as a byproduct have a greater value than the savings of dollars alone? In other words; couldn't we reason that even though solar or wind (or other ideas not listed) might not be dollar for dollar competitive with coal or oil the benefit of not creating greenhouse gases outweighs the potential savings gained by continuing to burn fossil fuels? If not, what is the value of the Paris Agreement?
Geothermal is more than competitive vs oil unless the cost has been tied to the "avoided cost of oil" as it was here in Hawaii. We could have had electric bills at less than half the cost of what we pay now.