Leaderboard

As Jerry points out, the financial balance must be separated from the political and media (vested interests). The big players are voting with their dollars against fossil fuel power stations. They don't give a rat's about environmental issues. Their investments are based upon best return for dollar. And they don't see value in fossil fuel, or nuclear energy.

Reliable comparison costs are available if you seek them Out.. Each country has different circumstances. Distance and sparse population is a feature of ours. The concept of a GRID has to be Justified in my view.. It's prone to failure and expensive. we have Plenty of Sun and it doesn't mean the Land can't be used for Grazing or cropping at the same time There's a lot of Buildings yet to have it installed to full capacity .Nev

They should be called WEE's Wind Energy Extractors, NOT Windfarms. . They don't need water or grow winds. NATURAL GAS is a Misnomer too. Why is it NOT Natural COAL or Natural OIL? That would be CRUDE would it not? Nev

I'm have got to stop starting posts with headline-like sentences. They are always misinterpreted. What I was trying to say was that it was a good thing that domestic solar installations were being done at a great rate and that the battery subsidy was a big help. It was my belief that the inability to store excess electricity was holding back the adoption of solar. That disability now seems to have been overcome That's good. An aside: I was nearly going to write that solar installation rates were going through the roof, but I didn't want to pun.

The construction of a wind turbine blade is extremely complex, and no doubt very costly. They don't lend themselves to re-usability very readily. Fibreglass is their major constituent. It seem to be the height of stupidity to just bury them.