That being said, free electricity is free electricity. There are so many use cases for distributed small power systems, particularly in rural areas. I would bet that early solar could have found widespread use while yes, fossil fuels would still have dominated.
SimplePhysics@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
I did not read any of your linked articles, but the answer is yes, fossil fuels most certainly would have dominated the 20th century because they are:
- Cheap
- Stable, you don’t have to depend on sunlight
- Nobody really cared about climate change back then, they were estimating a few centuries and humans… aren’t that forward thinking.
PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 8 months ago
rbesfe@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
It’s not free though, solar panels back then would be prohibitively expensive to get any amount of useful power out of them
PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Coal required someone to dig the mine, build the railroad and powerplant, not to mention build the electricity infrastructure. That was a huge expense and made a lot of people rich.
We do t have a cost information to judge these by, but the infrastructure costs were certainly far lower for solar panels.
SimplePhysics@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
I fully agree. In cities and places with a grid, fossil fuels will absolutely dominate, while rural grids/independent homeowners could use solar. However, I do think the cost of acquiring such panels could be prohibitively expensive for some rural homeowners.
PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Yes, but in 1909 they didn’t have a grid yet.
luthis@lemmy.nz 8 months ago
LOL sorry bro