Well, yeah, that's by design. What incentive does the government have to spend money on renewables? They can just make policies that incentivize everybody else to do it.

"Big Energy" is down with renewables because they are unreliable enough that the whole grid needs to be backed by oil and gas to 100% capacity. The high principle investment and parts/ repair turnover along with the plentiful eco-contracts to go around make for reliable revenue streams. Energy industry gets to have their cake and eat it too.

You know what doesn't make alot of revenue? Nuclear power. Because it's like 100-1000x more efficient than oil, gas or renewables. My point is if government didn't fund nuclear research nobody would, it's too cheap. Lots of people are willing to fund renewables because it makes them money.

Dude, there's been probably almost a trillion dollars spent on solar at this point.... Costs have barely been reduced in the last decade, when most of the money has been spent. Not to mention hardly applicable to half the world's climate.

If all of Europe had stuck with nuclear power they'd be energy independent right now. The $585 billion Germany spent on solar and wind infrastructure coulda been spent updating their nuclear plants, and Putin would have next to no chips to play with. You have your priorities mixed up.

Given how much effort Musk has put into solar energy, I'd consider him anti-nuclear by default.

Obviously world cup goals per game and world fertility rates are closely related. Call the press