Lots of stuff here, and thanks for the engagement! I&#x27;m going to take these paragraph-by-paragraph for clarity:<p>1) I think Gates&#x27; point was that what works for Arizona midday doesn&#x27;t necessarily work for Pennsylvania or Washington. While the math might pencil out in the ideal case, he&#x27;s concerned that the focus will leave R&amp;D in more efficient solar before we get a universally cost-efficient solution for photovoltaic. I think he&#x27;d agree with you that the goal is to have people motivated to go solar for selfish reasons (to save money). I think he&#x27;d disagree with you that you can price based on removing existing subsidies and market bias towards fossil fuels, since those subsidies are in place and the externalities aren&#x27;t yet priced.<p>3) Problem is, we can&#x27;t just shut down the coal stations without eating an enormous cost in terms of lost power production. For most energy planners, the goal is to let existing (massively expensive) infrastructure age-out and transition to renewable&#x2F;carbon-neutral infrastructure on the new installation side. Otherwise the costs are untenable.<p>4) While negative pricing should incentivize investments in storage, I think Gates is looking at the imbalance in the incentives that led Germany to that point. A negative price indicates that there was over investment in infrastructure, and they&#x27;re still stuck with the coal plants for base load. Similar to my comment on #3, you can&#x27;t just shut off existing coal&#x2F;oil&#x2F;natural gas without hitting someone with the bill. Making that the taxpayer&#x27;s problem is not going to go over well, and the companies are going to lose tons of money if their investments in those plants can&#x27;t pay off over their 30-60 year projected lifespan.