3 ms·
> so you are assuming this whole tech is literally free. No I'm not. I'm assuming it's commercially viable, or else they wouldn't be trying to put it into prod
by coldpie 2y ago
> so you are assuming this whole tech is literally free.
No I'm not. I'm assuming it's commercially viable, or else they wouldn't be trying to put it into production.
The context of the post you're being weird about was a reply to someone saying "Do we need [solar panel] efficiency gains?", I wasn't specifically talking about the numbers of this tech in that post.
- itishappy 2y agoI assumed they were talking about the numbers of this tech in that post. I assumed everyone was talking about the numbers of this tech. You quoted the next bit about land use in the US: > > Do we need efficiency gains? Like more is better, but in the US, land is cheap in many areas. > Yes. Anything that lets us offline coal plants faster will save lives. Assuming all else is equal, it's literally free energy. Why wouldn't you want that? What a bizarre question. I'm sorry if I'm being weird. It really looks like you're arguing efficiency is something standing in the way of saving lives.