Comment by locallost
7 hours ago
Citation needed.
I will save you the trouble because I already know where your numbers come from: the Quadrennial Technology Review by the US Department of Energy from around 10 years ago. These numbers have been thoroughly debunked [1]. They are simply wrong, likely out of laziness more than malice.
But the people that spread this around do it out of malice to dupe people and influence opinions. You've been duped.
[1] https://xcancel.com/simonahac/status/1318711842907123712
> I already know where your numbers come from: the Quadrennial Technology Review by the US Department of Energy from around 10 years ago.
That turns out not to be the case.
Even if it were the case: an official study by the DOE was "thoroughly debunked", in your esteemed opinion, because some random Australian twitter user claims to have talked to a friend.
Right.
He claims no such things. Instead he goes deep down the rabbit hole, brings back receipts and takes no prisoners.
Citation still needed. Real one will not come as it's nonsense.
> He claims no such things.
Literally: "i asked a solar developer."
https://x.com/simonahac/status/1318711817502302209
> Citation still needed. Real one will not come as it's nonsense.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243512...