These critiques and the silly book's premise that since solar/wind might not break even from an embodied carbon standpoint, that somehow burning actual carbon molecules in their place is "better" are just politically correct denialism.
These critiques and the silly book's premise that since solar/wind might not break even from an embodied carbon standpoint, that somehow burning actual carbon molecules in their place is "better" are just politically correct denialism.
I don't mean to say I have the absolute truth, I want to see if they've even considered sun availability for different regions. It seems solar proponents really haven't analyzed it from that point of view, AFAIK.
What I mean is, I haven't seen those calculations. Have you, or are you just hoping they have done the math? I wouldn't put any faith on any politician doing any hard math on this whatsoever.
Exclude the tax exemptions and subsidies given to those companies and then check if they're profitable or not.