Using the remaining 99% of the cost to bury batteries underground would seem reasonable.
Comment on Solar modules now selling for less than €0.06/W in Europe
pastermil@sh.itjust.works 22 hours agobut at 1% of the cost, why are we still talking about nuclear
Sure… the reactor will go 24/7 (between maintenance and refuelling down times, and will use less land
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
humanspiral@lemmy.ca 11 hours ago
Batteries can be containerized in modules, with a turnkey connection that remains mobile. Solar can use those containers as support structure. Hydrogen electrolyzer/fuel cells can also be built in same containers.
frezik@midwest.social 10 hours ago
Underground construction generally isn’t cost effective. It costs way more to get dirt and rock out of the way than just building a frame upwards. There might be other reasons to do it, but you want to avoid it if possible.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
The underground suggestion was only to counter the argument of space usage.
frezik@midwest.social 10 hours ago
There’s a million other ways to go. Solar on every parking lot, over every irrigation canal, and along every highway. Some farming can be done under solar panels, as well; some commercial crops prefer shade, such as strawberries.
The US uses about 30% of its land for cows. One simple plan is that we all eat one less burger a week. Which would be a good idea, anyway.
Land usage is so not a problem as soon as you open up the dual use possibilities.
wewbull@feddit.uk 13 hours ago
The land thing isn’t anywhere near enough of a concern for me, especially when dual uses of land are quite feasible.
24/7 is just about over commissioning and having storage. Build 10x as much and store what you generate. At those sorts of levels even an overcast day generates.