you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Using the remaining 99% of the cost to bury batteries underground would seem reasonable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Batteries can be containerized in modules, with a turnkey connection that remains mobile. Solar can use those containers as support structure. Hydrogen electrolyzer/fuel cells can also be built in same containers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    Underground construction generally isn't cost effective. It costs way more to get dirt and rock out of the way than just building a frame upwards. There might be other reasons to do it, but you want to avoid it if possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The underground suggestion was only to counter the argument of space usage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    There's a million other ways to go. Solar on every parking lot, over every irrigation canal, and along every highway. Some farming can be done under solar panels, as well; some commercial crops prefer shade, such as strawberries.

    The US uses about 30% of its land for cows. One simple plan is that we all eat one less burger a week. Which would be a good idea, anyway.

    Land usage is so not a problem as soon as you open up the dual use possibilities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment