|
|
|
|
|
|
by pjc50
460 days ago
|
|
|
> why didn't progress in solar and batteries happen sooner? The rate of progress in cost reduction has been astonishing. It's unlike anything except Moore's Law. This catches people out. As well as the usual suspects: cheap fossil fuels, failure to take global warming seriously, belief that nuclear power would see similar exponential cost reduction rather than opposite, and of course anti green politics. But if 95% cost reduction is the result of not taking it seriously, would taking it seriously earlier have been even better? Hard to say. |
|
|
We have silicon solar modules in the 1950s, Moore's law in the 1960s. Another take on the question then: today we use Moore's law to describe progress in solar modules, to what extent was that realization possible in the 1960s from the fundamentals, or "first principles"?
If it was clear, why did we not see rapid prioritization of solar and energy storage technology research? Or did we and I don't know the actual history? Or what influences am I undervaluing or not recognizing?
If it wasn't clear, why not? Gaming out many positive impacts of solar technology feels easy today in a way it appears was not easy in the past. Why wasn't it clear in the past?