• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    If you generate the power where it is used without pollution, we should.

    Generators take space, require maintenance, and have a certain optimal capacity that isn’t necessarily hit on a given roof.

    For wind energy in particular, the bigger the turbine, the more yield per $ spent. If you go out to Corpus Christi you’ll see these enormous turbines - $10M to $50M / ea - that generate on the order of $24 to $75 per MWh, or $.024-.075/kWh. Home wind/solar don’t get anywhere close to that.

    Prime placement of units, distribution across a wide area, and a degree of storage capacity means you’re going to get better and more consistent yield.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      But people will always be interested in generating their own, just like we don’t use communal bath houses, or community heating, or unfortunately mass transit. Yes, group services can be a lot more efficient and more reliable but they’re also out of your control and become an ongoing cost

      • Krauerking@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Who is we? Lots of places do communal bath houses. Japan has an entire industry around it. Mass transit is also highly prevalent.

        Yes there will always be some level of individual desire to do things or need in some cases but communal projects are useful and common I don’t get the dismissal of that for energy creation something we long ago figured out was better to be done at scale and distributed after.

        This is neoliberalism and treating it like it’s the only way to exist. It’s a failure of consideration or imagination. Either way your take is not right for that.