3 ms·

I'm not asking how long it can keep accelerating. You keep making things overly-complicated. We (per the estimates above) need to be installing about 800 MW of

by SamBam 3y ago

I'm not asking how long it can keep accelerating. You keep making things overly-complicated. We (per the estimates above) need to be installing about 800 MW of new renewable power generation every week every week for the next 30 years. We're currently at about 400 MW installed every week. So we need to grow to somewhere around or above that target, and then sustain that same rate for 30 years. (Or possibly fewer years if we are installing way above that rate.) My question is simply, given that large rate of installation, can we actually sustain that rate for 30 years? Presumably we will eventually be hitting that target rate, at least, and hopefully we will continue to do so for some time. But if markets don't continue to support installing solar at that same pace in 10 or 20 years, we won't hit our targets. That's all I'm saying.

marcosdumay 3y ago
So, you are asking if solar can technically replace all of our energy needs? In a time independent fashion? That one has plenty of stuff written about. Yes, it can. One other good question to ask is how much of it will be replaced on the next 5 or 10 years. That's where all the discussion is, because if it takes 30 years, we'd better also invest in alternatives, like nuclear. (And wherever the price of electricity goes, the cost structure doesn't automatically change. Thus if the market stops supporting investing in solar in 10 years, everything except for natural gas and wind will be already bankrupt. Oh, and if the current changes on the cost structure continue for 10 years - there's some reason for them not to - you can cut wind from that list too. In other words, if you concern is about the cheapest form of generation becoming unprofitable, that automatically means we just don't really want more energy.)
- SamBam 3y ago
  > One other good question to ask is [...] if it takes 30 years, we'd better also invest in alternatives, like nuclear. Yes. That's been my question from the very beginning of the thread. Glad we got there.

by SamBam 3y ago

marcosdumay 3y ago

So, you are asking if solar can technically replace all of our energy needs? In a time independent fashion? That one has plenty of stuff written about. Yes, it can. One other good question to ask is how much of it will be replaced on the next 5 or 10 years. That's where all the discussion is, because if it takes 30 years, we'd better also invest in alternatives, like nuclear. (And wherever the price of electricity goes, the cost structure doesn't automatically change. Thus if the market stops supporting investing in solar in 10 years, everything except for natural gas and wind will be already bankrupt. Oh, and if the current changes on the cost structure continue for 10 years - there's some reason for them not to - you can cut wind from that list too. In other words, if you concern is about the cheapest form of generation becoming unprofitable, that automatically means we just don't really want more energy.)

SamBam 3y ago
> One other good question to ask is [...] if it takes 30 years, we'd better also invest in alternatives, like nuclear. Yes. That's been my question from the very beginning of the thread. Glad we got there.