Retail prices incorporate ALL costs. Most of the net-zero cheer squad want to just look at the costs that suits their world-view.

Retail prices include many costs, mhaze. That's precisely the point.

They bundle generation, transmission, distribution, retail margins, hedging, regulatory charges, network upgrades, fuel volatility, and short-term market shocks. That makes them a poor instrument for isolating technology learning curves, even if they matter to households.

As I've had to remind you in multiple other threads discussing costings, no one is denying retail prices. The disagreement is about what question they answer. Retail CPI tells you what consumers paid in a particular period. It does not tell you whether generation technologies are getting cheaper, more efficient, or more deployable over time.

If you think there are specific generation-level costs, integration constraints, or system expenses that invalidate claims about declining technology costs, name them. That's a substantive discussion.

But waving at "ALL costs" while refusing to disaggregate them isn't realism. It's just aggregation used as a shield.

The technology is at about 10% efficiency currently. I can buy solar panels with about 25% efficiency and a twenty year life from under $300 per kw.

Great for rooftop solar, but what is needed is a safer battery with a longer lifespan for lower cost. Once electricity becomes cheaper off-grid, consumers will vote with their feet.

The commie wind and solar energy grid scam will end one way or another, but it will never be economically viable, especially when people don't have to take part in the con.

Thorium is still the gold standard for energy storage with a half life as old as the universe, although it lacks the versatility of fossil fuels currently.

Trumpster,

The rise in retail electricity prices was due to government subsidies state and federal coming off, and prices returning to normal. A bit like happy hour at the pub, the $7 schooner drops to $5 at 4pm then go back up to $7 at 6pm. I'll get Indy to explaing that to you, he's very familiar with Happy Hour down at God's Waiting Room. What about you?

You're mixing several different things together there, Fester.

First, efficiency. A lab result at approximately 10% for an emerging material isn't meant to compete with mature commercial silicon today. It's about cost, stability, materials abundance, and manufacturability. Silicon didn't start at 25% either. Comparing early-stage materials research to finished retail products is just a category error.

Second, batteries. Yes, storage is critical. That's not a revelation and it's not something renewables advocates deny. It's why grid-scale storage, demand management, interconnection, and diversified generation are all being deployed in parallel. Falling storage costs are already changing system economics, even if challenges remain.

Third, "off-grid voters". Most consumers don't leave grids because grids are "a con". They leave when grids are unreliable or overpriced. Ironically, rooftop solar plus storage is already one of the pressures forcing grids to modernise, not evidence that renewables are a scam.

Fourth, calling wind and solar a "commie scam" isn't an argument. They're built because, in many contexts, they're among the lowest-cost sources of new generation. That's why private capital keeps deploying them globally, including in markets with no love for government mandates.

Finally, thorium isn't "energy storage". It's a potential nuclear fuel, still facing unresolved engineering, regulatory, and cost hurdles. It may play a role in future generation, but invoking it doesn't magically solve grid storage or make current renewables uneconomic.

If you want to argue about system-level costs, integration limits, or where storage still falls short, that's a serious discussion. But bundling lab efficiency, retail panels, batteries, ideology, identity, tribalism, and speculative nuclear into one narrative doesn't get you there.

John

Really, you are a complete moron.

"Finally, thorium isn't "energy storage"."

Yes it is. Thorium is effectively stored energy from supernovae, some even from larger stars before their lives end. Where did you think all the energy from radioactive decay came from? And your other comments don't get any better.

"They leave when grids are unreliable or overpriced."

Yep, and that will start to happen when battery costs drop enough.

"Fourth, calling wind and solar a "commie scam" isn't an argument."

Did I claim it was? It was getting s off my liver, like saying you are boring, obnoxious and ungraciously verbose.