Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Money is, among other things a measure of human effort expended. Therefore, when striving towards a goal that can be pursued in limitless paralel in the way power production can, directing any of it towards wastly less effective methods slows the process of achiving your goal down. Or put simply. Dont be an idiot. There is no upside to building a terawatt-per-year of solar and a terawatt-per-year of wind at a price of 11 trillion qialongs over just building 2 terawatts-per-year worth of wind for 2 trillion qualongs. Electricity is electricity, and either solution is going to need heavy storage anyway, so.
by Thomas on Fri Jul 22nd, 2011 at 05:47:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
or, even better, in case that was not clear; Building 11 tera-watts-per-year of wind for 11 trillion qualongs
by Thomas on Fri Jul 22nd, 2011 at 05:49:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Aside from the inherent insanity of monocropping your electricity supply, industrial capacity is not entirely fungible. If the state of your industrial plant only permits you to build one TW of wind in 2012, then no amount of throwing money at the problem will make it build more after you max out that TW. If, simultaneously, you are able to deploy a quarter of a TW from solar, then doing both is going to help more than doing only the one that gives you the cheaper kWh.

Ramp-up times on the order of an infrastructure lifetime is a non-trivial transient.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jul 22nd, 2011 at 06:16:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series