"As a result of this intensive modeling effort, the researchers say they've discovered that a carefully designed combination of renewable sources – wind and solar – with batteries and fuel-cell electricity-storage systems could by 2030 supply enough power to keep a large electrical grid fired up 99.9 per cent of the time, and do so at a cost comparable to today's not-so-renewable energy grid."
The one thing that worries me is the word 'comparable'. With no prices listed one Congress's 'comparable' is another Congress's 'unaffordable'. Granted prices for renewable energy sources should trend downward, as has been the case, but I'm not sure if lower costs in the future have been accounted for.
More than anything I want this to be true and enough to convince governments to invest in these technologies. More than that I want people advocating for renewable energies to speak with more confidence. The article says, "could provide," why not "CAN provide"? If the ultimate issue is swaying public opinion why are such things not discussed with more confidence? Granted I know this seems a little nitpicky but I believe every word counts. Additionally I'm curious what other people have to say about this.
The one thing that worries me is the word 'comparable'. With no prices listed one Congress's 'comparable' is another Congress's 'unaffordable'. Granted prices for renewable energy sources should trend downward, as has been the case, but I'm not sure if lower costs in the future have been accounted for.
More than anything I want this to be true and enough to convince governments to invest in these technologies. More than that I want people advocating for renewable energies to speak with more confidence. The article says, "could provide," why not "CAN provide"? If the ultimate issue is swaying public opinion why are such things not discussed with more confidence? Granted I know this seems a little nitpicky but I believe every word counts. Additionally I'm curious what other people have to say about this.