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.
Comment on Solar modules now selling for less than €0.06/W in Europe
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 11 hours agoUsing the remaining 99% of the cost to bury batteries underground would seem reasonable.
frezik@midwest.social 9 hours ago
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
The underground suggestion was only to counter the argument of space usage.
frezik@midwest.social 8 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.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
For dual use, I’m particularly partial to the solar fence
humanspiral@lemmy.ca 9 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.