You do have to determine where winds or sunlight will be regularly available. People that need solar power in Seattle will have to discover sunlight somewhere f

You do have to determine where winds or sunlight will be regularly available. People that need solar power in Seattle will have to discover sunlight somewhere first. This is precisely my point. I get the idea when people calculate "total system costs are the same" the calculations go like this: Current system costs: Fuel + Transport + Transmission + Environmental destruction + 1/3rd of all cancer costs + 1/3rd of every hurricane/flood + 1/3rd of Iraq war etc... Proposed system costs: Solar plants in Arizona + Wind Generators in Nebraska + Hydro on the mississippi Somehow I doubt the proposed system is considering the costs of the mines/foundaries for the solar panels, or the dead birds from the windmills, or the destroyed fisheries from the hydro. Additionally, consider that you still have to transport the electricity if not the fuel, and you lose a lot more on this side of the equation. Transmission losses are significant over distance. You can put a natural gas generator anywhere and it will produce power in a very dense footprint. Specifically when compared with acres of solar panels or windmills. So even if you can produce power at a similar rate it matters where you produce it. Anyone that's concerned about fossil fuel dependence and CO2 should be campaigning for more nuclear plants. Solar and wind can be used where feasible, but to say they can replace the whole system is overshooting.