In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:39:24 +0000 (UTC): Hi, >Back in 1975 and continuing on for another generation, engineers in the energy >sector almost never gave solar a second thought as being a major contributor >in the big picture. Too expensive and large fortunes were lost by early >pioneers. > >In fact solar panels cost $100 per watt then, and although it was recognized >that the price would drop fast with increasing demand, there were few who >expected the price to drop so dramatically to below $1 per watt today (without >subsidy). That's what the graph on this page demonstrates - a 100-to-one drop >(or more). This massive reduction in installed price still has not sunk into >the minds of all decision makers - some of whom still embrace coal. > >https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/11/20/18104206/solar-panels-cost-cheap-mit-clean-energy-policy?utm_source=MIT+Technology+Review >The drop in cost has been ... well, ludicrous, to paraphrase Elon. > >Of course comparison to other energy technologies has to include the lower >availability of solar over the full day, but nevertheless, when everything is >considered, solar is probably the best value option for the USA in 2019 - at >least until (let's hope) something like LENR comes along. [snip] Mills rolled up the email group. That may indicate several things:- 1) They have finally made a serious breakthrough that means they can go into production. or.. 2) They are planning on going public sometime soon, or both? or.. 3) The board told him to back off on the public comments, which could damage their IP. or .. 4) They have discovered a major flaw that implies that it will never work.
I think there is too much evidence already for 4 to be a serious contender. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
