- Joined
- 21 April 2014
- Posts
- 7,956
- Reactions
- 1,072
The $5billion tag is the construction cost......Th supply of coal is a production cost which is passed on to the consumer.
Cheaper solar panels means a cheaper and perhaps inferior quality to meet competition.
Once a solar plant is built it becomes less reliable if the Sun does not shine for one day or more.
There is lots of R and D taking place to reduce pollution from coal power and in time will be perfected.
Coal is 35% efficient as opposed to solar at 15%......Then, as I have said before solar panels have a life span of 25 years and their efficiency drops even further than 15%.
So the cost of the coal will be passed onto the consumer? Together with the costs of building the plant, running it, maintaining it... Wouldn't that mean more expensive electricity to consumers? And that's ignoring the costs to those who live near coal mines, did the mining, or breathing in the fumes.
I'm sure engineers know where to put the panels. We're quite lucky in Australia that we got a massive outback with plenty of Sun. So it can spread across regions. But yea, idea is to have a mix. It doesn't need to be just solar farm and those massive roof panels. They're already incorporating solar roof tiles and wall tiles in some European country.
An average car now is pretty cheap yet it's definitely much safer and more luxurious than way back when. So when there's high demand, things will get better and a lot cheaper too.
Solar panels powers the International Space Station up there. Sure they use more efficient (and expensive) material in a cloudless environment... but solar tech barely got off the ground until maybe 15 years ago. It's been discovered since the 50s or 60s, but the oil cartel was too powerful.