Date: 15:14:03 on Sunday, June 25, 2017
Name: Looneytoons
Subject: Jane, you ignorant...

Not going to even comment on the elephant? Are you, for example, okay if average temperatures in the Tucson area go up by another ten degrees during the summer? Because I think that would make it unlivable there.

We can't only look at the directs costs of new ways of generating energy. We also have to look at the costs of doing nothing, and what it will cost to mitigate the effects of global warming (to the extent that it's even possible). I would be interested in hearing you address THIS CENTRAL ISSUE rather than continuing to duck it.

Sure; storage remains the bugaboo. But we are making progress. We're making steady incremental progress, and we're a breakthrough away from revolutionary progress -- and it could come from a number of different places.

In truth, there are many different ways to store excess electricity. The problem is that after storage and retrieval, you have lost so much of the original capture due to frictional and conversion inefficiencies that the economics no longer work out. But if solar continues the dramatic price drop that we're seen over the last couple of decades, those conversion losses won't matter, because core generation will become so cheap.

If the net cost of generation drops by another fifty percent, you can live with the friction losses, because it still ends up cheaper than any other source. And you know that this is true because of the amount of investment which is finally flowing into major solar expansion. If it didn't pencil out economically, the bucks wouldn't be there.

And batteries continue to improve:

Will this be the breakthrough? Maybe not, but we keep making gains on multiple fronts.

Then there's the fact that we're comparing a new, emerging field (where the bugs haven't been worked out yet, but where we still see double digit efficiency increases year after year -- certainly an indication that we're very early in learning curve) with the very mature power generation from fossil fuels, which has had a hundred years to work out the bugs.

Then there's a fact that solar in being plugged into that same fossil fuel transmission and usage infrastructure, and its not a good fit.

We are entering the worst part of the transition (and there's no telling how long it will last) where we haven't let go of an outmoded system of power generation, but we're not fully in a new model either. There's a lot of chaos, and I expect it will continue for some time.

You said: "...Solar systems generally have a 1-2% degrading factor per year..."

And..? This is factored into the overall cost and efficiency calculations. Again, it's like you are scanning the horizon looking for negative things to say about solar.

You said: I do not hate solar.

I didn't say you hated it, I said you appear to downplay the positive and focus on the negatives, and in doing so present an overly pessimistic picture. Nothing you have said here changes my view of that, and I stand by my original observations.

You said: With out attacking you personally.

Good. Then we're on a good footing, because I didn't attack you personally either.

Unfortunately for you, you're betting against the winning hand. Solar continues to out perform expectations, and is gaining ground faster than anyone had any reason to expect, even from when I first began to debate this with you. It's changing that rapidly, and all for the better.

Not only am I winning this debate (simply because I backed the right horse), but my lead is increasing.

Reply to this message

Return to Odd

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Return to Odd

Reply to message



Link URL
Link Title
Image URL