So - called dispatchable solar farms would in theory allow utilities to avoid spending billions of
dollars building fossil fuel power plants that are fired up only a few times a year when electricity demand spikes, like on a hot day.
Not exact matches
And if that's the case it makes little economic or ecological sense to spend billions of
dollars building new
fossil fuel infrastructure and increasing capacity, particularly when that infrastructure has a working life span and expected financial return that well exceeds thirty years.
They involve billions of
dollars of subsidies of
fossil fuel industries, of airport expansion and of road
building, regulations which favour dirty technologies over clearn ones, granting planning permission for coal fire stations but refusing it for wind turbines, etc..
GM has decreased its manufacturing emissions by 60 percent since 1990, recycles 90 percent of its manufacturing waste, has made reductions in water and
fossil fuel use, and invested hundreds of millions of
dollars to
build fuel - efficient vehicles like the Chevy Volt.
They know that a
dollar invested in renewable energy generates three times as many jobs as one wasted on
fossil fuel, but the union that
builds pipelines has fought so tenaciously to avoid change that the AFL - CIO came out for
building the Dakota Access Pipeline, even after guards sicced German shepherds on native protesters.
Meanwhile, infrastructure to produce biofuels - costing tens of billions of
dollars - will have to be
built, biofuel imports must become available, and
fossil fuel use will have to decline dramatically.
Through taxing carbon and eliminating
fossil subsidies, trillions of
dollars can be freed for
building the global clean energy infrastructure of tomorrow.