Hacker News Reader

Comment by SoftwareMaven | Hacker News Reader

So you are saying solar power isn't reasonable, then point to a project using solar power to generate power from solar energy cheaply? And, fwiw, I wouldn't consider wind turbines to be using solar power (every non-nuclear source would be if I did), but the tower is specifically concentrating the heat from the sun to drive the turbines.

View on HN

My point was that people take an idealized view of solar power that causes them to see it as purely good, rather than as it really is: a mix of good and bad, like any real-world technology.

In response, you call me out for attacking solar power (pointing out bad parts), and being inconsistent about it (pointing out good parts).

So this reply looks like an example of the black-and-white thinking about solar power that I was complaining about above. I say "looks like" because I don't understand your second sentence. I agree with the all the facts you brought up, but I don't see the point of mentioning them. Please correct me if I'm missing something.

In the linked article, a 200 MW solar updraft installation is projected (by to the company that wants to build it) to cost $700 million.

That works out of $3500/kW, which seems to be on par with construction costs for recent nuclear power plants (according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_...)

Of course, limiting the comparison to construction costs is silly.

Minor point, but tidal sources are also not solar-derived.

And an advantage of tidal compared to most (all?) other renewables is that it is completely predictable.

There are downsides, especially to do with ecological effects/damage during construction and operation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com