Cornergrinders, it may just be on my copy but the right side of that article was chopped off.  If you would send it again and check to see that the entire article is posted it would be appreciated.  Lots of articles now available that essentially claim that the move toward alternative energy is a false pretense and that the "True Cost" of such a move are more than continuing to use fossil fuels.  I have no doubt that the same thing happened in th 1890's when livery stables and owners of 4 legged transportation protested that the "True Cost" of switching to internal combustion engine transportation was far in excess of maintaining hay burners that traveled at speeds that were  only a fraction of the speed of ICE transportation as roads were slowly developed and improved along with improvements in engine efficiency and better quality  gasolines. 

"Dumping" on the new kid on the block is a game that has been popular for thousands of years when any new technology came on the market. 

No doubt someone thousands of years proposed that the "True Cost" of using round wheels for wagon transport was way much more than using some sort of wheeless travois apparatus.  I can almost hear it now: 

"Dragging supplies with a travoi has been around for centuries and has worked just fine.  Why go to all the effort and EXPENSE to add wheels to the cart when the TRUE COST of doing so will never compete with the far less expensive and more easily available arrangement of hooking two logs together and using branches as cross beams to make a dragging platform.  Well, duh!"

There isn't much new under the sun as far as human resistance to technological advancement.  There is always resistance to new ideas and the rate of acceptance can be variable from fast to interminably slow depending on how long it takes to work out the bugs in the new technology.  As alternative energy solutions and energy storage solutions team up by both small and large improvements over time then the naysayers volume that is currently a loud cacophony will eventually be damped down to the single digit decibel level and become below the threshold for hearing by the human ear.  It won't happen overnight, but it will happen because those small and large improvements in the new technology of alternative energy and energy storage continue to be made simultanously as the advocates of the travois keep bleating against the advocacy of the wheel.

One recent "Opinion piece" illustrates the advocacy of the travoi group quite vividly:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/trillions-in-taxpayer-subsidies-haven-t-made-wind-and-solar-power-cheaper-or-better-for-americans/ar-BB1llpmd?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=aa9fdc3fbfc147d6b266588d0c14db8d&ei=72

His basic attack is on the high cost of energy storage that must be part of any alternative energy solution according to his argument.  This is an "all or nothing" sort of approach that suggests that either fossil fuels can be used OR wind and solar can be used for energy production but not both.  One has to choose.  This type of false reasoning denies that one can easily use both according to the advantages of both in order to come up with a hybrid solution as a bridge for the present time until alternative energy and storage solutions have sufficiently advanced sometime in the future to become a true dominant solution, not necessarily exclusive to fossil fuel use, but occupying the catbirds seat nonetheless. 

Obsitinate insistance that "It is my way or the highway" positions aren't unique to those chained to fossil fuels as the true path to energy utilization.  There are plenty of alternative fuel advocates who do the same thing:  "My way or the highway" and they are just as blind to the reality of the situation as those fossil fuel advocates who would have advocated for the travois over the wheel tens of thousands of years ago had they lived in that epoch.

The author of the article that ridicules taxpayer subsidies ignores all of the fundamental improvements in efficiency that have come in the development of more and more efficient and lower cost wind, solar, wave and geothermal basic science as applied to generating alternative energy AND in developing increasingly better and more novel ways to store that energy.  He would nail us to the cross of fossil fuels for the next thousand years if possible and ten thousand years ago he would have tried to do the same as the leader of the Anti-Wheel forces while he spent all of his effort regurgitating the same old "True Cost" tirade against the wheel that in the present moment where he now resides he spits out his "True Cost" false argument ad nausem against wind, solar, wave and geothermal energy along with energy storage.

One gaping hole in his presentation is in regards to the waste of spent solar panels, batteries and the blades of wind generators.  Remarkable headway has already been achieved in the field of recyling these instruments of change and the significant improvements already achieved are not static since recycling technology for all aspects of alternative energy and energy storage will continue to have major improvements in the future.  Alternative energy and energy storage are concepts that will do nothing but get better and better as time move forward.

In the meantime while progress moves forward the advocates of the travois, like the author of the hit piece above against altternative energy and energy storage, will continue to have his feet remain fixed in cement and bleat out his pathetic "True Cost" pontifications.

JMO

Okiedo