JF, I'm just stating the way it is right now, according to the link you provided. I don't have data on trends, so I'll take your word that solar panels will soon become economically viable on a cost/benefit basis.
But that web site mentioned costs that are mitigated by rebates and tax breaks, and even then, it takes many years before the solar panels pay for themselves. I don't know where the rebates come from, but if they are also the product of tax breaks, then it seems like the government is doing one hell of a support job for solar technology. Granted, I'd rather spend the money on that than on, say, farm subsidies, but thus far it doesn't really seem like a self-sustaining alternative from a purely economic perspective.
What about the decrease in pollution and subsequent health costs?
I'm sure the decrease in pollution is measurable and worth going for, but the subsequent savings in health costs isn't very measurable to me.
What if, as was reported earlier, Saudi Arabia can't increase their oil output, and oil goes to $60 a barrel over the next 17.5 years (or $100 a barrel)? What if there is true tunrmoil in the ME, and the oil supply to the rest of the world decreases by 60%?
Well then that will pretty much answer the question of economic viability, no? Of course, the change and adaptation will be painful, but hey, we live in a fast-moving world, do we not?
Tenchusatsu |
