Link is no good
I did

The Answer in this case is not a single thing, like a Miata.

It is a combination of things we will do. Paul will make a fortune selling UAVs, there will be barriers. There will be changes made to how we deal with immigrants, both at the border and after they have entered the country illegally. There will be changes made to how immigrants who commit crimes are handled.

It is not one thing, like a wall, it is everything.

Regarding boots on the ground in the Sonoran desert. My best friend seriously looked at it, but he was not going to take his daughter down there for the second half of her high school years. Inexpensive place to live, he would have been hard pressed to spend what he would have gotten for his place in California. The feds are trying to recruit people to go down there, offer bonuses and incentives to move to Black Rock, AZ, or Nogales, but it takes the right person to take the job. It is not by mistake that the population density is so low in that part of the world.

Thanks.

Business
Xcel Energy receives shockingly low bids for Colorado electricity from renewable sources
Solar and wind generation with storage now competitive with coal power

The Denver Post file
This is a file photo of Xcel Energy employees working on a utility pole on Stanford Avenue in Englewood.
By Aldo Svaldi | asvaldi@**********.com | The Denver Post
PUBLISHED: January 16, 2018 at 8:13 pm | UPDATED: February 1, 2018 at 3:13 pm

Renewable-energy developers have offered to supply Xcel Energy with electricity at the lowest prices quoted in the U.S., including solar and wind options with energy storage priced below what coal-generated power in the state costs.
ADVERTISING

“The response was amazing.The world is our oyster. It was like walking into a Las Vegas buffet,” said Erin Overturf, chief energy counsel for Western Resource Advocates, one of several environmental groups that want the utility to reduce its dependence on coal.

Xcel last year estimated it would need 450 megawatts of additional generation to meet future demand under its 2016 Electric Resource Plan.

In August, Xcel and several other parties reached an agreement known as the Clean Energy Plan to shutter two older coal plants in Pueblo, but only if lower-cost alternatives could replace their 660 megawatts, including the added costs involved with shutting the plants down 10 years early.

Backers of the plan estimated Xcel’s Colorado customers would save $175 million if wind bids came in at $20 megawatt hour (MWh) and solar at $30/MWh, Overturf said.

What they didn’t count on was how many bids would come in from the Nov. 30 solicitation, more than 430, with 350 just for renewables, or how low they would come in. Wind-only bids had a median price quoted of $18/MWh, meaning half of the bids were below that. Solar only came in at a median price of $29.50/MWh.

Wind costs less than coal, and solar has more recently become cost competitive. But both sources are intermittent, meaning they either need storage, such as batteries, or more reliable generation sources such as coal and natural gas to fill in the gaps.

What stands out about the response Xcel received is that wind sources with storage are now cheaper than coal generation, and solar plus storage is now cheaper than about 75 percent of coal generation in the state, according to CarbonTracker.

“As far as we know, these are the lowest renewables plus storage bids in the U.S. to date. The previously lowest known solar plus storage bid price was $45/MWh in Arizona in May 2017,” wrote Matt Gray, a senior utilities and power analyst with Carbon Tracker.

Not if you take away all the tax incentives that have funded the government teat these technologies need to avoid being cost prohibitive. Akin to the real price of an EV when the tax incentive goes bubye.

According to this...your article is quite inaccurate.

https://i2i.org/xcel-lies/

It almost sounds like you are saying the petroleum industry does not benefit from a smorgasbord of incentives that helps it avoid being cost prohibitive?

Intangible and tangible drilling costs amount to a nearly 100% deduction of those costs, plus depletion allowances, domestic manufacturing allowances, survey allowances, to name a few.

There are more.

The difference is they provide reliable abundant energy with a proven track record.

It only makes fiscal sense because they "cook the books". As a Colorado taxpayer and Xcel customer, I believe the only rational course is to retire the coal plants as scheduled (when it is cost effective) to do so...not because company executive and politicians want CO to be CA.

Here are the numbers in chart form. In the article above they mention coal, solar, solar wirh storage, wind, and wind with storage. Wonder why there was no mention of natural gas when discussing costs?

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/12/worlds-largest-batteries-hiding-in-colorado-bids/

Wind with storage 21/MWH
Solar with storage 36
NG with storage 6.20 (combustion gas turbine )

Another thing to keep in mind is that they are comparing modern wind and solar plant costs to two coal plants costs that went in service in 1973 and 1975. Modern efficiency isn't in their design.

Oh really?
https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-natural-resources/coal-a-long-history-of-subsidies/
http://fortune.com/2018/12/04/clean-coal-subsidies-profitshttps:/
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Subsidies-For-Coal-Nuclear-In-The-Latest-Federal-Budget.html
And then we can get into the health costs. https://e360.yale.edu/digest/coal-costs-us-half-trillion-annually-in-hidden-costs-study-says

Georgetown, Tx. goes 100% renewable! Yeah! !!
https://georgetown.org/2018/06/29/georgetowns-energy-100-percent-renewable-with-solar-plant/

Georgetown, Tx loses nearly 7 million on energy deal. Trying to renegotiate contract. Boo...
https://communityimpact.com/austin/georgetown/city-county/2018/12/10/georgetown-will-renegotiate-renewable-contracts-after-energy-price-drop-costs-city-6-84-million/

I am not trying to knock wind. I can see towers if I stand on my roof :). I came within a gnats hair of buying a turbine cleaning business (platforms ) though the miles of steel cable involved and varying state standards chased me off. Oklahoma is one of the leaders in supplying green energy to it's residents. Oklahoma has been a leader in % of capacity increase over the last 10 years.

When it comes to production costs solar and wind are still far more expensive as the Colo data suggests.

Hard to imagine living in a small town in energy rich Texas and your city utility losing almost $7M per year because city officials were so clueless that they bought the farm...literally. Somebody is gonna pay.

Us ins in Okiehoma ain't as edumencated as dose Colo wizz kids.

We uns only generate 8 mw of da wind inergy which is 32% of total state lectric production.

Colo has somehows managed 3.7 mw of da wind for 17.6% of production.

Us redneck hillbillies in a flyover state just don't git it.


https://www.awea.org/resources/fact-sheets/state-facts-sheets

Almost as heart wrenching as watching 20% of your town's coal miners suffering some good ol black lung disease right?
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/updates/upd-07-20-18.html
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1553057689.jpg

Coal stinks.

Most of the coal plants are old as the hills and are being shut down as they near 50 years of age. Those two you are shutting down were scheduled to be closed within 5 years due to age.

That article you posted chaps my butt. They are making is sound like solar and wind production costs are as cheap or cheaper than carbon based fuel. That is not the case. That is easily seen in the bid data. They compare modern solar and wind to an antiquated coal plant. They ignore the NG costs entirely. Why is that? Shouldn't they supply all of the facts of the bids and not just the bid "facts" that support their cause?

I imagine that those miners preferred the known risk of black lung to the known risk of starving. How does your overpriced wind or solar power feed their families?

Of course the materials used for solar cells have to be mined...just like coal:
Chemicals used in Manufacturing Solar Panels

That mining has health hazards as well.

You do realize that during manufacture and after the disposal of solar panels, they release hazardous chemicals including cadmium compounds, silicon tetrachloride, hexafluoroethane and lead such as Cadmium Telluride, Copper Indium Selenide, Cadmium Indium Gallium (Di)selenide, Silicon Tetrachloride, etc.? I bet the Chinese folks that manufacture those cells have some pretty sick looking organs as well.

The only way we will ever know for sure is to try it and apparently the current administration is attempting to do so . Time will tell if successful or not .

Good thing we figured out a new source before we ran out of Whales.