Technology

59517 readers

3168 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

608

Solar modules now selling for less than €0.06/W in Europe (www.pv-magazine.com)

submitted 4 days ago by ArtikBanana@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world

160 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 days ago (2 children)

but 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

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 7 points 3 days 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.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Using the remaining 99% of the cost to bury batteries underground would seem reasonable.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days 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 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The underground suggestion was only to counter the argument of space usage.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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 1 points 3 days ago

For dual use, I'm particularly partial to the solar fence