solar energy is a supplement at best. I don’t see it being viable in all but a few areas. I’m sure Arizona could run entirely off solar, but somehow I doubt it would work out for Canada or Norway, or even New England, and we don’t want to just pile all the power in one place and transmit it elsewhere. That’s very inefficient and in the USA for instance would grossly exacerbate what’s already one of their biggest Achilles’ heals for national security: the power grid.
For a lot of places, nuclear fission sounds like a much more viable option. It already gives a far better kwh/$, afaik. Whether it’s thorium or uranium doesn’t fundamentally matter. It works well either way.

The substitutability question is important, indeed. Especially overseas where renewables make up less of their energy generation. With solar picking up pace as a potentially cost effective option (it has a wee way to go yet, especially regarding storage), and with the impression that the technology could be there, isn’t incorporating price signals a way of helping push the process along?

New Zealand won’t develop these things, so that is a mute point here. But I wouldn’t be quite so negative on the energy front 🙂

Indeed – I mean there is more discussion to be had about where the revenue goes, but yes a carbon tax is something that makes a lot of sense to me!

All good!

It is hard to judge the appropriateness of a price without action in the big countries – let’s see how the US-China accords end up panning out!