Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:infrastructure (Score 1) 14

"...don't have as much sunk costs for solar to compete against."

Why does solar, or anything else, have to compete with sunk costs? Do you know what sunk costs are?

Sunk cost is a cost already incurred that is not subject to variation or revision and that is usually represented by a fixed asset purchased and in use. (The term is often used as part of tthe phrase "the sunk cost fallacy", where it represents cost already spent, but it is also applicable in other contexts.)

In this particular application, it means that in industrialized countries, the electrical grid is already paid for (or, in the language of the definition above, it is "a fixed asset already purchased and in use"), while solar and other new technologies are not yet paid for.

Is there any particular point in your post other than nitpicking? Or is it that you are actually not able to understand that a technology that has to be paid for is at a disavantage competing against a technology that is already paid?

Comment Re:Heat storage [Re:Devil you know?] (Score 1) 53

This is insanely inefficient as a way to store energy for any use except low-grade heat.

The sand is really hot. Hundreds of degrees C.

That's not a particularly high temperature by thermodynamic standards.

While the thermal battery in Finland is presently used for district heating, it absolutely can supply high-grade heat or steam for industrial purposes. Presumably you could use the steam to generate electricity too, but if it's electricity you want, you're probably better to charge a big battery or pump some water up a hill. https://www.iflscience.com/the...

Yes, this last statement is accurate. Storing electrical energy by heating a thermal mass is a terrible way to store electrical energy.

Slashdot Top Deals

The most important early product on the way to developing a good product is an imperfect version.

Working...