4 ms·
Yeah, I tend to agree with you here. The difference I see is that solar has already been heavily invested in and developed recently, so it's probably near the l
by johnmorrison 7y ago
Yeah, I tend to agree with you here. The difference I see is that solar has already been heavily invested in and developed recently, so it's probably near the limit of today's material science.
My personal philosophy about technological progress is based heavily on the idea that material science is the principle barrier to what we can accomplish. That's why humanity's progress is recounted in "ages" named by material.
So, I think solar panels can get maybe 2-10x more economical, whereas other options like new hydrocarbon sources, fission, and fusion can probably all get at least 10x more economical than the maximum possible with solar, purely due to the physical limitations of the technology.
- philipkglass 7y agoI can believe significant price improvements to come for solar, fission, and fusion since their fuel costs are zero or tiny. What new hydrocarbon sources could be 10x cheaper than coal or natural gas?
- johnmorrison 7y agoWell, I'm not really supposed to talk about this but we're working on a hydrocarbon byproduct of our fission reactors. Can't extrapolate but point is, there are unconventional ways to make hydrocarbons that become economically viable when they are a byproduct of an already profitable process.