3 ms·
Go further. How many batteries would it take to supply stable energy for the entire/majority of U.S. grids (and how long will those panels/batteries last)? How
by rglover 5y ago
Go further. How many batteries would it take to supply stable energy for the entire/majority of U.S. grids (and how long will those panels/batteries last)? How much energy will be produced relative to the number of solar panels that need to be installed? Is land conservation taken out of the equation in favor of panel installation?
This line of questioning was my "mind blow." It turns out, there are technological solutions, but they don't scale to meet demand (and if/when they do, it's inconsistent). And to boot, they're an aesthetic nightmare.
- nate_meurer 5y agoEverything humans build is accused of being an "aesthetic nightmare". Houses, roads, farms, feed lots, cities, etc. This is not a good argument against building important infrastructure.
- rglover 5y agoWhen you consider the number that are required to supply our entire grid reliably (if even possible), it is. The only way to do it and maintain capacity is to use renewables alongside things like nuclear (or stay with fossil fuels and adapt our living habits). Don't forget about the turtles, too: https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/environment/477567-building-the-largest-solar-farm-in-the-us-would https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/environm... It's not a question of morality, but of mathematics. Can we sustainably and consistently produce enough energy using those methods long-term? If the answer is "no," fooling ourselves into believing it's "yes" for the sake of ego/emotional pacification is setting us up for failure. I do believe the answer may be yes eventually, but on the current doomer timeline (always shifting but afaik the current doomsday is in ~12 years), the answer will remain "no." Edit: rough solar panel efficiency stats https://archive.ph/Vh1Qj https://archive.ph/Vh1Qj