Thanks.
I would take issue with two things there.
It's certainly true that what the Germans did was extraordinarily expensive and produced little obvious benefit. There were literally tens of billions spent developing solar PV technologies in Germany, which had a minuscule impact on actually cutting emissions.
By many measures, that was an extraordinarily ineffective way even to get to cheap solar. Many observers of global energy innovation regard that German program as a real failure. Indeed, of course, Germany and other places are now backing off.
But it is not true to say, simply not remotely true by any kind of estimate from major EPC firms or major energy companies, that you would have to increase the cost to consumers by factors of anything like four.
The costs of decarbonizing the electricity supply, if you did it in a cost-effective and simple way, are...increase the busbar costs by less than a factor of two, and that means increasing the cost to consumers by something more like 20% or 30%. If you do that slowly over 20 or 30 years, that effect is quite small. It's in the order of 1% of GDP, comparable to the kinds of costs we incurred from the U.S. Clean Air Act, which had benefits that enormously exceeded costs.
So if we focused on things that were actually cost-effective in a simple way, it is simply not true that we need to make enormous, unaffordable increases in the cost of energy to solve this problem.