• prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I mean no, because it probably wouldn’t ever need to be done.

      But I’m not sure why it would be any worse than trucks full of oil.

      • stickly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        It wouldn’t be done because the energy density of a battery is atrocious compared to oil, something like 100x worse. Half of the input spent in burning oil comes for free in the air around us, so batteries will never likely beat it.

        • budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          it probably wouldn’t ever need to be done.

          As the parent commenter said, the energy itself wouldn’t need to be delivered. You just deliver the panels once.

      • GreenShimada@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Why be just as bad as the old system? And while I’m not sure, I would expect it would be hugely more inefficient in terms of energy produced compared to energy delivered to the end user.

        • budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          You don’t need to drive electrons around constantly - just drive the panels there once and you have power there for 20 years.

          • GreenShimada@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Michigan is cloudy or overcast most of the winter. It’s a lake-effect thing, it starts once you get over the border from Indiana. Why use panels 4 or 5 months out of the year?