Thanks, to me wind and solar are quite diffuse, and therefore very expensive to transform. Geothermal and hydro seem more concentrated forms of energy, and therefore feasible to transform. Kinetic energy in moving water to electricity might be less efficient than the heat of geothermal to heat a home?
There have long been areas where hydropower works. And some places where wind power works - windmills have been around for a long time. And even some geothermal locations. In a relative sense they only produce a few percent of needed production. So, they are not a "solution" to our energy needs. What I was getting at is they should be viable without any subsidies or they should not be operated.
With my engineering work I have been involved in wind power, solar thermal and PV. There is a ton of snake oil in the industry. Know what's always been mostly missing? Engineering. Many of those who push these systems don't care about engineering and wouldn't understand it anyway. I've seen many a person get glassy-eyed as I've gone over the material...haha...
All subsidies or regulatory preferences are corrupt. Renewables are viable in certain places. They can compete on their own merits. Government interference distorts and makes things worse. Essentially always.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
And even some geothermal locations.
In a relative sense they only produce a few percent of needed production. So, they are not a "solution" to our energy needs.
What I was getting at is they should be viable without any subsidies or they should not be operated.
Renewables are viable in certain places. They can compete on their own merits.
Government interference distorts and makes things worse. Essentially always.