The impact of Starship is underestimated beyond measure

[FloridaSun]

I see your point now. Wow. This NREL study from 2013 has a number that has 1 MWac on 5.8 acres for fixed tilt utility scale solar. Of course, this study is older and may doesn't incorporate the average efficiency gains in mass produced PV panels since 2013, but it's still closer to what you have. I had done the math on this several years earlier but completely forgotten what I had. lol It will be interesting to see how the technology improves over time. The acres per MWac should be lower now because of efficiency gains, but i'm too lazy to look that up. I've never believed that 100% renewables without majority hydro is really possible - starts looking more like an expensive Rube Goldberg machine than it does a functioning electrical grid. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf

Oh, I also agree that mandates and taxes won't help things out either. It would be a terrible idea to cripple the economy to deal with climate change. I'm still frustrated that nuclear is effectively banned in the US because of ridiculous regulations. Random question. Do you agree with Austrian Economics?

I got that number from googling the space requirement for solar. I do agree with the core of Austrian Economics.. (I'm Austrian by birth but have been in the US since 1997).

 

[FloridaSun]

'Southerndude' To live with yourself given other people own you, you'd have to be a conservative nut job or con-tard right? Listen to any Limbaugh lately? Notice, there was no name calling there just your fun little schizoid game of implication. But nice little ball pass to BK on: those numbers couldn't be real? Of course they're not, the numbers BK proffered are off by orders of magnitude.

BK- more talking points. Ah, no! solar doesn't take up a bunch of land! Spoke to a Fuji solar engineer about 10 years ago on this. It would take covering about %13 of US roof tops with solar (even prior to battery back up and with old panel much lower efficiency rates) to replace all forms of US energy and fuel consumption. Here is your counter factual: Buffet's new distraction from his NG pushing is a 11 sq mile solar and battery installation that will supply 30% of LA City's energy. And its 1 megawatt per acre that falls on average for most of the globe. You're trying to push 1/10 numbers. It is much cheaper to rip out existing natural gas or coal and replace it with solar and battery and the pay off is close to instant and must be passed on to rate payers to help accelerate the bankrupting and permanent replacement of the rest of the hypersubsidized ng rent seeking scam. What you're trying to push is Austrailians paying $600 a month for natural gas for a mobile home on retirement income when it should be $6 a month and zero emmissions solar. Yep. Luckily Tesla has been disrupting that utter bs- AU probably has rolling black outs too as part of energy terrorism- their energy terrorist could have even been setting the fires to distract from their pilfering. See their PM trying to force himself on people while their houses burned while advocating coal? I think even Black Rock didn't have the stomach for that bs- they didn't like watching displaced blonde haired blue eyed whites- not their idea of how climate injustice is supposed to work. Not the group unnecessary rent seeking is supposed to make losers of.

Well, you can only consider south or eastern facing rooftops.. Then there are many houses that have shade or are in an are with insufficient sunlight for parts of the year. Furthermore, you can't force anyone to install solar on their rooftops or to force them to allow someone else to install solar on their private property. Of course, I hope that more and more people will go solar.. I will go solar myself is my power company will reduce their demand charges on their required net metering plan that they have for solar households. I'm not going to go with a battery system as it takes way too long to pay for itself..

 

[101101]

"Oh, I also agree that mandates and taxes won't help things out either. It would be a terrible idea to cripple the economy to deal with climate change."

More fossil fuel shill talking points and lies.

1. You wont have an economy if don't address climate change. 2 The economy will be destroyed by sticking to radically over priced fossil fuels which are already destroying the US's place and standing in the world- an obsolete fossil fuel based economy cannot compete on cost of goods. You unlock the economy that fossil fuels destoyed (crippled) by getting rid of fossil fuels.

But you are a paid shill. And people aren't stuck with what utility companies want. And batteries make it possible to cut the utility company out and save you a bunch of money.

Getting rid of fossil fuels is about getting rid of idiot oligarchy and saving democracy before it is about addressing climate change.

This thread it about Starship and you're attempting to derail it with your fud talking points.