> ... but you didn't have to go against the rules with your response. Do you mean this one? "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people'

> ... but you didn't have to go against the rules with your response. Do you mean this one? "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work." So the answer to the question 'why are they doing what they spent so much effort working out what was the best thing to do?' is self-evident, I would have thought. A combination of market need, feasibility of technology, timing, cost, etc. Losing much more of the product (power), to go twice the distance, to a place with a comparable geography / climate arrangement (ie. cloudy / short day in the north, access to mostly clear / consistently long days to the south) might make commercial sense, but given no one's doing it, one has to assume that it does not. > Marocco to US minimum is 4700km. So difference is comparable. First, where are you getting 4700km from? Playing with google maps a bit here, and the closest I can get is 5100. Second, Morocco to UK minimum distance (by sea) is 1900km - so those numbers can definitely be compared, but they're certainly not similar. > p.p.s. I did LCOE maths for this before, but since you're an asshole I'm not bother to look for it now. Well okay then. Perhaps you should share it with xlinks. It's a $21.9 billion project, but they may be able to change the route now if it makes more sense to go to a different country.