3 ms·
I don't buy it 1. The technical solution relies heavily on fantasy. 2. It is not needed. We have no significant power transmission across the low lying fruit
by mousethatroared 1y ago
I don't buy it
1. The technical solution relies heavily on fantasy.
2. It is not needed. We have no significant power transmission across the low lying fruit of continental America or Eurasia, and those lines are built! Why bother crossing an ocean?
3. Why not cross Greenland and the North Sea and its islands? Under sea cables are expensive.
4. Why not cross the Bearing Strait?
- pstuart 1y agoIn Peace and Harmony Land™ I could see the value of shipping excess power from sunny/windy locations to those that are without, but I don't think the present world is ready to collaborate at that level.
- colechristensen 1y agoNukes and trade are the biggest bringers of peace.
- mikeyouse 1y agoTell that to Iran tonight..
- clort 1y agoIran doesn't have nukes.. (yet, I guess)
- jahnu 1y agoAnd the case for acquiring them as quickly as possible has been strengthened.
- rozab 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_... The US abandoned trade as a means to peace
- ceejayoz 1y agoIran is well aware of it. They see the difference in how we treat Iraq/Libya and North Korea.
- jimmySixDOF 1y ago>not needed There was a big solar project proposed in Australia's outback to supply Singapore but never got off the ground perhaps advances in glass / dc infrastructure could change the calculations. Same story for Sahara solar supply to Eu. A lack of need is not the problem here.
- mousethatroared 1y agoIn both those scenarios the sun and the consumer are relatively close, with the majority of the line being overland. Solar Sahara powering Europe makes sense. Solar Sahara powering the North East does not.