|
|
|
|
|
|
by pfdietz
1598 days ago
|
|
|
It's good because it means there's another cost decline for PV that will occur even after the manufacturing cost per watt stops declining: simply make the modules last longer. Nuclear has already shot its wad on that one. It also means PV is less at risk right now from obsolesence. The shorter the time span needed to justify a PV installation, the less motivation there is to delay and wait for better technology. |
|
|
Given that it still ends up the best from a cost perspective (solar doesn't come close) if extended marginally i wouldn't say so.
There is one core difference. Those extensions, investments and even proper use need political will given the size and scope of such projects. Those politicianse are subject to stupidity and lobbying. Hell the US bans fuel rod recycling at the behest of oil and gas companies to give one such example.