Quote:
Originally Posted by wdfifteen
They have nuclear power, but India is still an emerging economy. Much of the country is still without an electrical grid. The fact that they still have to build a lot of transmission lines and build power plants makes local production via solar and wind more attractive. Coal isn't the solution for everyone and neither is solar. I don't think that's a bad thing.
|
AND THAT ^ is exactly the point - local generation that does not rely on a grid is much preferred in emerging economies that need to build a grid to get the power to the people. Coal is cheap, however, transmission is NOT. If you have to build a grid, then the centralized model the US is used to is out the window.
Further, in some parts of the US, it is impossible to get any more power into the population centers without transmission upgrades....the whole NE for instance. So local generation (solar, wind) makes a LOT of sense....much easier to site local solar production on rooftops than to get either transmission upgrades or a new coal gen facility sited.
One more fact - solar is already at par with other utility generation at certain rate structures, without incentives or gov't support. Mid peak in CA, solar is the winning generation source. Also, solar occurs very near the peak consumption of the day -
As technology increases in the storage biz, solar feeding batteries, or cars, that can thn be used off-peak will create some very interesting opportunities for us all.
td