Well, the first time that certainly seemed to be the case. The spent a ton of money building the plant then turned around and immediately de-commissioned it.
The current path (of keeping the plant going as a low level so that they are not as vulnerable to drought) makes a lot more sense. It's accepting a higher long term cost to do away with periods of extreme fluctuation.
But, what I was really saying is that the carbon capture technology that was described in the article in the initial post shouldn't be viewed by itself as a true "solution" to the problem of CO2. It can be part of a solution, maybe. But, the economics of it likely prevent it from being a realistic MAJOR player in the solution.
If you ignore the economics of your proposed solution, then you are inefficiently allocating your resources. If you ignore the economics of other partial solutions because they are imperfect and don't check the right political boxes (e.g. nuclear), then you're putting your idealism over practicality and are likely destined to fail.
Sorry, I was asking rb1957 what he was going on about.
Future planning is just like trying to cover all the spots on a roulette table with limited resources and the table is getting larger these days. Basically those in charge are forced to make difficult decisions from too many possibilities and will be damn lucky if they get very much right in the end. One thing for sure is that everyone will find fault, because no matter how successful they might be addressing one concern, there are not enough resources (taxes) to cover all bases, so plenty of potential for failure. Apparently people are fine with that approach, keeping tax rates low, right up to the point where failure occurs and they conveniently blame the planners for their lack of foresight.
My point was like Josh's ...
Australia had a very severe drought, water levels were getting very low, so they built a desalination plant. Soon after the rain came and now the plant is idel.
Yes, you (and Josh) are right. There came a future need (in Josh's case, and there will be in Australia's) and so they were ready. Unfortunately I'm sure that in both cases someone made political mileage out of the "waste" (build a plant only to not need it). I'm certain too that people (politicians) will spend tonnes of time talking over whether to keep funding the plant's maintenance (to have it ready if needed) or to mothball it, or to sell it (to someone's crony).
another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?
OK, now I understand. Yes, unfortunately the world's supply of crystal balls has always been lacking, especially the ones that work. All we can do is make the charts and see what range of future values look like, then count the money available to see how to best get us there.
As has been quoted many times,
" It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." ― Yogi Berra.
