There is little or no solar energy in North Dakota, but there is tremendous potential wind energy. There is no potential wind energy in Georgia, but lots of solar.
See the NREL wind map of the U.S. Wind resources are concentrated in the center of the continent:
https://www.nrel.gov/gis/image…wind/USwind300dpe4-11.jpg
It makes no sense to erect on-shore wind turbines in places like Georgia or Florida. That would be like building a hydroelectric dam in the desert where there is no river and no water. Whereas the wind in the purple areas of this map stretching from Texas to Canada could easily generate all of the energy in the world. That would not be cost effective with today's technology, but it could eventually be made cost effective with enough investment. It could never be as cheap as cold fusion, but it is already cheaper than coal or fission. But it is only cheaper in the purple areas!
Decades ago, and even 10 years ago, people were saying that wind or solar could never compete with coal and other conventional energy, so there was no point to subsidizing it. Such statements are shockingly ignorant of history. Since 1750, nearly all major large-scale technology started out more expensive than existing systems, and gradually became competitive, usually after years or even decades of government subsidies, and government sponsored R&D. For examples, see the history of canals, steam engines, steamships, railroads, paved roads, electricity, airplanes, computers, semiconductors, integrated circuits, and the internet. Only a few innovations paid for themselves from the start, such as oil from wells rather than whales. Automobiles did not pay for themselves. They have received the largest government subsidies of any technology, in the form of roads and highways. No technology and no industry is more beholden to the government than automobiles, so it is ironic that many people in love with cars consider themselves rugged individualists who owe nothing to the government.
In the 1820s, when ocean-going steamships were first developed, the British government gave them lavish subsidies, officially to carry mail, but actually to develop the technology. As I recall, the U.S. government also subsidized them. This caused howls of dismay from the sailing ship companies and from conventional economists. Their arguments were very similar to those in the 1990s opposed to subsidizing wind power. "Steamship are inefficient. They will never compete with sails. It is unfair to the industry. Steamships are unreliable and dangerous. Steamship companies are sponging off the taxpayers. Sailors should stick to the sea, mind their ropes, and not play politics." All of these arguments were technically correct. Steamships were far more expensive than sailing ships. They were not fully competitive in most markets until the 1860s, and it wasn't until WWI that sailing ships were finally put out of business by steam. Without the subsidies it would have taken longer, and England and the U.S. might not have led the world in steamship construction. The lesson is clear: governments have to play an important role in big-ticket technology. It has to be planned for, subsidized and brought to fruition with tax money. That upsets the economic purists, but that's how things work.
Seriously, that is what he said, and with a straight face. Hypocrisy runs rampant among those who boisterously profess allegiance to the environment.
