291–300 of 309 posts
This is the only scalable way out of current energy crisis. It must be done, we have no choice (longterm).
Utterly wrong. Renewables scale just fine.
Renewables are not even close to others in for example energy density.
Covering half the country with expensive and costly solar panels is not a scalable option.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Utterly wrong. Renewables scale just fine.
Utterly ignorant. Renewables are not even close to others in for example energy density. Covering half the country with expensive and costly solar panels is not a scalable option.
Energy density doesn't matter, cost does.
It would not be necessary to "cover half the country", as you would know if you had done the arithmetic.
Any other easily debunked points you'd like to bring up?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Utterly ignorant. Renewables are not even close to others in for example energy density. Covering half the country with expensive and costly solar panels is not a scalable option.
You repeat some of the nonsense talking points. Energy density doesn't matter, cost does. It would not be necessary to "cover half the country", as you would know if you had done the arithmetic. Any other easily debunked points you'd like to bring up?
At face value, how is this sentence not implying something like that a car battery that gives 10 miles of range and takes up most of the weight and volume of the vehicle would be perfectly okay, if it cost $10 (including installation), and could be fully charged for 10 cents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Utterly wrong. Renewables scale just fine.
Utterly ignorant. Renewables are not even close to others in for example energy density. Covering half the country with expensive and costly solar panels is not a scalable option.
Given the U.S. consumes about 4 petawatts hours of electricity per year, It would take about 13,600,000 acres or 21,250 square miles of solar panels to meet the total electricity requirements of the United States for a year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Utterly ignorant. Renewables are not even close to others in for example energy density. Covering half the country with expensive and costly solar panels is not a scalable option.
Given the U.S. consumes about 4 petawatts hours of electricity per year, It would take about 13,600,000 acres or 21,250 square miles of solar panels to meet the total electricity requirements of the United States for a year. That's roughly the size of Lake Michigan.
You mean 4 petawatt HOURS per year, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the U.S. consumes about 4 petawatts hours of electricity per year, It would take about 13,600,000 acres or 21,250 square miles of solar panels to meet the total electricity requirements of the United States for a year. That's roughly the size of Lake Michigan.
> 4 petawatts of electricity per year You mean 4 petawatt HOURS per year, right?
Does that increase the required land area to half the United States?
As aristofun claimed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 4 petawatts of electricity per year You mean 4 petawatt HOURS per year, right?
Google misquoted https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf via Quora. Does that increase the required land area to half the United States? As aristofun claimed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You repeat some of the nonsense talking points. Energy density doesn't matter, cost does. It would not be necessary to "cover half the country", as you would know if you had done the arithmetic. Any other easily debunked points you'd like to bring up?
> Energy density doesn't matter, cost does. At face value, how is this sentence not implying something like that a car battery that gives 10 miles of range and takes up most of the weight and volume of the vehicle would be perfectly okay, if it cost $10 (including installation), and could be fully charged for 10 cents.
"Energy density" is one of the canonical nuclear bad faith arguments. Do you think he was talking about putting a nuclear reactor in your car?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Energy density doesn't matter, cost does. At face value, how is this sentence not implying something like that a car battery that gives 10 miles of range and takes up most of the weight and volume of the vehicle would be perfectly okay, if it cost $10 (including installation), and could be fully charged for 10 cents.
Because I'm talking about supplying energy to the economy, not powering your car. "Energy density" is one of the canonical nuclear bad faith arguments. Do you think he was talking about putting a nuclear reactor in your car?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You haven't shown that "many countries" are building large-scale battery grid storage.
Last quarter Tesla deployed 4GWh of battery capacity, this quarter it is 9.4GWh. Where do you think that is being deployed?