8 minutes ago, elmer wrote
Planning, Funding and Construction are separate limitations.
Ivanpah was obviously in Planning/Funding for the period before construction commencing in 2009. You don't suddenly get to a point and say - oh s**t we need a new power-station... let's start thinking about it. All govts are constantly planning for the future. In the case of California, it is part of their 33% renewable target for 2020, and they have multiple solutions in the mix.
If developed nations want developing nations to use renewable energy, the solution is pretty simple - subsidise it for them.
I don't think you get it. They wont start thinking of a new plant right after the first one complete. After plant is built, they will rejoice for a year or two. And they some analysis come screaming, hey, it can't handle the projected demand 8 years later. Now, they will think that's BS because they still have plenty of energy. That's prevent they are screaming on terror at the report. They will start debating what to do. Tons of media coverage on why the first is so weak. And debating how to get money. Then they finally say, now lets build another one. Then, it starts your timeline picture.
It is not a far fetched scenario here.
subsidise? You mean unfair competition right? Because if you are fare, both clean and polluting proposals should have given the right to subsidise.
Anyway, no point to discuss anyway. Guess what, you don't live there and you have zero influence in there. So, they will do what they believe is BEST for THEM. And most likely, not your green tech...