4 ms·
They don’t even necessarily need to be cheaper than all existing methods. They only need to be cheaper than (IMO inevitable) carbon tax penalties plus the cost
by distortionfield 2y ago
They don’t even necessarily need to be cheaper than all existing methods. They only need to be cheaper than (IMO inevitable) carbon tax penalties plus the cost of these bricks compared to current methods, which is a rapidly falling curve.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago>They don’t even necessarily need to be cheaper than all existing methods. That doesn't make sense. Why would anyone use them instead of the more efficient alternatives? For artistic reasons?
- dimask 2y agoIt should be enough to be cheaper if you include the environmental cost that fossil fuels cause to society and planet.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoSolar thermal energy storage isnt fossil fuels and carries no major environmental cost.
- szvsw 2y agoyou omitted the immediately following sentence... >They only need to be cheaper than (IMO inevitable) carbon tax penalties plus the cost of these bricks compared to current methods, which is a rapidly falling curve. this clearly indicates OP suggests they will become de facto cheaper once the traditionally externalized costs of environmental impact are accounted for.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoThe alternatives are also carbon free, which is the point of the parent post. The comparison is between this and carbon free solar-thermal for energy storage. Saying it doesnt have to be cheaper than solar-thermal simply isnt true.
- szvsw 2y agoFair fair. Unlike traditional solar thermal though, this can just function as regular node on the electric grid (or even a prosumer) so it is decoupled from the attendant variability. As such they are not quite comparable IMO.