4 ms·
I don't like it when people sell renewable sources of energy as "the cheapest source of energy available". If it were actually cheap then why do you need a com
by larrydag 9y ago
I don't like it when people sell renewable sources of energy as "the cheapest source of energy available". If it were actually cheap then why do you need a community funded project? The problem with solar is storage but hardly anyone discusses that in the total cost of energy consumption.
These projects need to be transparent up front. To achieve the "cheap" objective you need benchmarks such as existing technology vs future technology. For instance, i believe they should state "our goal is to achieve $X/Kwh compared to $Y/Kwh of existing technology". That way you can see something measurable, scientific, and objective oriented.
I like the project so don't get me wrong. I just think they've worded it all wrong as what they are trying to achieve.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- sp332 9y agoLots of things are cheap if you can amortize a large capital investment made upfront. You might need a lot of people to fund the project upfront so it can be cheap later. I agree transparency would be good though.
- ZenoArrow 9y agoI think that's a fair criticism. However, it's probably too early to give a price per KWh just yet.
- TaylorAlexander 9y agoYour first question: “If it were actually cheap then why do you need a community funded project?” Seems a bit daft to me. They need $5000 to buy materials for their university research. If the project is successful the energy they store will be cheap. But doing the research and acquiring the energy are totally different things, so even if the latter is free the former is not.