I'd prefer they use cheap and available renewables rather than accelerating climate change. But to each their own I guess.
(And to head it off at the pass: if that can't be done then this should be done at all)
(And to head it off at the pass: if that can't be done then this should be done at all)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
We could have cheap and available renewables, but we instead destroy them in bureaucratic hell that nobody cares about.
Is that not perfectly reasonable? Someone doing half the job and dumping the rest on everyone else seems like exactly the sort of thing a regulator exists to prevent.
Reading between the lines, it sounds like the issue is that solar would be located somewhere remote, the backhaul to get that electricity where it needs to be requires significant upgrades, and that takes time. Which is unfortunate and indicates historic mismanagement of said infrastructure but nonetheless the present day policy of "fix the problem first" seems perfectly reasonable.