You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ChristianKl comments on What are your contrarian views? - Less Wrong Discussion

10 Post author: Metus 15 September 2014 09:17AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (806)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ChristianKl 19 September 2014 08:03:22PM 1 point [-]

I hear them saying things about how a small increase in solar panel efficiency is going to completely and rapidly "cure us of our fossil fuel addiction."

We have roughly doubling in solar panel efficiency every 7 years. That's not what I would call "small increase".

Comment author: moridinamael 19 September 2014 08:13:25PM 2 points [-]

Even if solar panels were 100% efficient it would not change the overall picture very much. Solar panels are expensive and do not use space efficiently.

Comment author: ChristianKl 20 September 2014 01:31:57AM 1 point [-]

With efficiency I meant the amount you pay per kilowatt hour. It's a variable that has seen consistent doubling every 7 years over the last two decades.

Space on top of most buildings is unused and there are huge deserts that aren't used.

Comment author: Azathoth123 20 September 2014 01:58:30AM 1 point [-]

Does the include the subsidies many governments have been providing to solar?

Comment author: ChristianKl 20 September 2014 03:41:35PM 0 points [-]

Subsidies per kilowatt hour didn't raise exponentially. I'm not sure to what extend they are factored out.

Solar is also not the only form of energy that get's subventioned. In Germany we used to pay billions per year in coal subventions.

Comment author: Azathoth123 20 September 2014 06:58:54PM 0 points [-]

Subsidies per kilowatt hour didn't raise exponentially.

They started from zero, so it's technically super-exponential.