From the right, I routinely read material saying that alternative energy, particularly wind, is uneconomical and only keeps going because of government subsidy. I don’t know where the truth lies. In the past I have supported wind-power, and solar power, but am aware that there are counter-arguments against both.
My neighbor has a roomful of solar photo-voltaic panels on his garage roof, and is selling the power back to BC hydro. He is putting up another array now as well. He has no storage capability. This makes it cheaper and more environmentally benign, but few technologies are completely benign, and certainly solar is no different.
What I don’t see is unbiased, cradle to grave, full life cycle environmental and other cost accounting for any such technology. Maybe it is too hard?
Why is the right so biased against alternative energy? Why is the left so blindly enthusiastic? Why are both so unwilling to consider all aspects of the case – pro and con? Group-think abounds. Each group selectively reports facts to confirm their own biases. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Storage should become cheaper as should solar cells. Also, the technology continually improves in all respects. There are other designs for wind apart from the giant windmills. These have appeared pretty good to me, but I have not read that they have made it out of the development labs.