Krugman's article is not very interesting (at least not by HN standards). It's clear he has his biases. But the HN comments here contain some pretty cool link

Krugman's article is not very interesting (at least not by HN standards). It's clear he has his biases. But the HN comments here contain some pretty cool links, which is why I upvoted it. I worked in the renewables space for a little bit and my conclusion was that far too many companies were making political bets, not technological or business bets. Specifically, a lot of business models depended on an extension of Kyoto to the US, which did not happen and is unlikely to happen any time soon. Without that the business models were interesting,but not compelling. Personally, I do believe renewables can replace a significant fraction of fossil fuels, but they have to do it based on cost, not political correctness. I'm not saying that as a normative statement, but as an observation of American politics. There was a brief window of time when carbon could be priced the way environmentalists wanted it to, but that's not going to happen again any time soon.