sapphi_snake said:
I think Scottie already answered this point. |
Eh.... unconvincingly at best.
He mentioned what worked best in a lab... which is somewhat irrelevent considering there is lots of stuff we've been able to do in labs for decades that aren't possible to do now.
Used average spots as a substitute without doing the math with how much would be lost via energy transfer.
Ignored where solar roof panels would go since you'd have to force property owners to use and maintain them.
Ignored that (6 (kW·h/m2)/day) is the average oritented towards the sun... and does not take into account tilting or even things like clouds.
For example... England gets like half of that. Russia and Canada worse then that... not sure how you sell the idea of Solar and wind power in countries like that with ample energy and no decent renewable options. Espeically when global warming actually benefits those countries.
Not to mention the security risks required to have giant long distance transmission lines. Take for example, solar panels in the mid west providing a large amount of power the entire urban east coast in the US. Think what one lucky hacker or terrorist could do... or one tornado for that matter.
Ignores the rare supply of mateirals that makes solar panels. (and some parts of wind turbines) Extremely expensive.
Also, the rare matierals needed to make batteries that can handle the energy for cars and such. Apparently not enough in the entire world to make cars 100% electric.
In otherwords... he's ignoring a ton of real world factors.
And don't get ? You think Russia will be willing to go from me started with Russiaenergy exporter to heavy energy importer?
I'd say MacKay isn't the one who came up with the conclusion before the data... it was the Bachelors student who's career will revolve around the popularity of said energies.
