>>13200904>are his numbers taking into account that solar power will need to built out to something like 4 times its nameplate capacity to account for its abysmal 25% capacityI already factored that in, you god damn idiot. I said "you can double or triple that number to account for capacity factor". Batteries actually reduce long range transmission needs since you can have energy distributed closer to the source but I can easily factor that in as well since lithium ion battery contain about 200 kg of copper per MW. 2 terawatts worth of battery capacity would just be 400,000 metric tons of copper. Again, you can triple that number and it's still barely anything compared to global copper production.
>I guarantee that this man has no formal scientific education and no involvement in the solar industry.You'd be wrong but go to Reddit if you want to pretend to be a scientist despite not knowing anything about this subject and having to constantly resort to fallacy arguments.
>cheap solar exists on the back of literal slaves and mountains of state subsidiesFalse. Once again unsubsidized solar is still one of the cheapest sources of power. See Lazard 2019.
>ruinous environmental practices that poison millionsCitation needed. Solar panels are almost completely recyclable and that has to be done by law in places like the EU. They're just mostly glass, aluminum, and copper.
>kniferape your anus while you watch your carcinogenic faggot panels being demolished by a proper patriotic government.Take your medication.
>>13200937It's a false comparison. Nuclear has only gone up in cost over time and plant operating costs are tremendous. Nuclear doesn't see nearly as many iterations as solar or wind which have much better economies of scale and have prices that follow Wright's Law.
>you also argue that it's impossible to build rockets better, faster, or cheaper than SLSNo I wouldn't. I was arguing against SLS and for reusability before you even came to this site.
