undefined | Better HN

0 pointsThomPete7y ago0 comments

Of course they can't and of course it doesn't get cheaper unless you decide to frame it in a way that not at all realistic.

Solar is less then 1% and that's with 300% increase it's not even close to being able to deliver baseline anything regardless of how cheap it gets. It's a dream that's not even close to be realistic and frankly highly naive.

Again 47w per m2 vs. 1000w per m2 and with solar panels needing continous repeairs and no grid or fuel cells in sight plus reliance on coal, nuclear and oil for when the sun doesn't shine.

Good luck.

0 comments

ben_w7y ago

Your first sentence is missing a word. Can’t what? I gave you links to show my working.

I have no idea what you’re referring to with “47w per m2”, can you elaborate?

Ditto “needing continuous replairs“. There’s a rover on Mars that’s been running for about 15 years continuously on solar with no human maintenance.

From an engineering point of view (though not political), you don’t even need to worry about night time, because the earth is round and even planet sized grids don’t lose enough power to raise my example of 2.155¢/kWh to even as high as coal. And that’s if you refuse to use the fuel cell tech that already exists.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse