• themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Sure, but neither will be fixed with voluntary action. Both will point to the other as a reason to do nothing.

    We need legislation and regulation to require energy efficiency and clean energy production. If that means kWh get more expensive, then that is the true price of energy. Cheap, deregulated energy is writing checks our grandchildren will have to cash.

    • DMBFFF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      100 sq meters of solar cells per house (with batteries and inverters) should do a lot of good.

      • Thorry84@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        How big is your house? My roof is covered where it’s practical and efficient to do so and I only have about 10 sq meters.

        • Thorry84@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          For energy generation, being close to the point of usage prevents waste from energy transport. For energy storage it’s probably more efficient to do this at larger scale, which means centralized systems.

          So I think it’s more complicated and depends on a lot of factors. Stating “Centralization is more efficient and less wasteful” as a hard fact is misleading at best.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          Though the rooftop solar isn’t optimal from an efficacy standpoint, it has other selling points. You have residential solar and a battery? Congratulations, you don’t have to worry so much about power outages. This is particularly a selling point for rural living, where outages happen more often and last longer.

          The abstract “it’s greener” is a less potent sales pitch than “your fridge, heating, and a/c can still work even if the grid is gone”.

        • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          It could just be the same thing. Total houses in community. Apply solar cells to already owned government land or near where the current plant is anyway like most already have been doing. Just scale up and add wind in. Salt batteries all over. Bam.

        • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          The beauty of solar is it scales up/down without much fuss whereas you can’t just run a coal fire plant for your home. We can build what makes sense for each community/home.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Sure, but it’s more efficient to have the number of panels necessary for the community (neighborhood, city, etc) than having everyone get what they need for their individual peak…

            • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Depending on the housing density, probably but not always. Again, we don’t have to determine this from the beginning. We can adapt the scale and approach to each circumstance. I imagine buy and large having one central array of solar panels feeding several properties/communities makes the most sense. But how many properties (and their average draw) per sq/km or sq/mi very much impacts what that translates into.