inari@piefed.zip to Climate@slrpnk.netEnglish · edit-21 day agoGas imports or solar panels?slrpnk.netimagemessage-square137fedilinkarrow-up1829
arrow-up1829imageGas imports or solar panels?slrpnk.netinari@piefed.zip to Climate@slrpnk.netEnglish · edit-21 day agomessage-square137fedilink
minus-squarePeppycito@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up9·edit-21 day agoAlso, that’s a year for the solar panels to get 1.5 TWh but the tanker probably makes that in a month.
minus-squareeleitl@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkarrow-up7·24 hours agoTheir argument is per unit of cost. But natgas and electricity is not fungible. Even electricity from renewable generation is not fungible with dispatchable generation.
minus-squarejj4211@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·20 hours agoWell the argument was about energy cost. 1.5 TWh is 1.5 TWh, however you choose to spread it out. You seem to be worrying about power, which is a fair but separate issue to be concerned about.
Also, that’s a year for the solar panels to get 1.5 TWh but the tanker probably makes that in a month.
Their argument is per unit of cost. But natgas and electricity is not fungible. Even electricity from renewable generation is not fungible with dispatchable generation.
Well the argument was about energy cost. 1.5 TWh is 1.5 TWh, however you choose to spread it out.
You seem to be worrying about power, which is a fair but separate issue to be concerned about.