2 ms·
> What you will then get is an unsustainable set of shortcuts that threaten your energy supplies at crucial times. I like the idea of solar energy, but I also
by sva_ 5y ago
> What you will then get is an unsustainable set of shortcuts that threaten your energy supplies at crucial times.
I like the idea of solar energy, but I also wonder about how safe it is to use. I'm thinking of events such as the 1815 volcanic eruption of Mount Tambora[0] which reportedly caused a "year without summer[1]".
Presumably, something like this would have a major impact on solar cell energy output, and if we'd significantly depended on solar, would have catastrophic consequences for our society. Unless, of course, I overestimate the effect that volcanic ash could have on solar cells.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
- HPsquared 5y agoYou "just" need to maintain a redundant backup fossil-based energy supply system that is not used 99% of the time, simple!
- vanattab 5y agoSimple to say. Not simple to implement in practice and in a competitive environment. It is very hard for CEO to justify massive spending on something that has oy a 1:2000 chance or something in any given year.
- sva_ 5y agoI believe the person you replied to was being sarcastic
- hackernudes 5y agoWhat about nuclear instead of fossil fuel and Bitcoin mining for the redundant time?