SSD’s also have a much lower carbon footprint than HDD’s. The electricity it takes to keep the hard disk platters spinning dwarfs the footprint of the NAND, including manufacturing.
I don’t think global NAND manufacturing is anywhere near the same storage capacity as disk or tape, yet, but I wonder when those curves are set to cross.
Some of the data center grade SSD's have rated data retention of 3 months at 40°C if unpowered.
Having to keep the archival media powered to retain the data does not sound too attractive.
For what I could find, Samsung 970 EVO Plus (1 TB) consumes 40 mW when idle. This means that a 100 TB array would have to spend about 40W on idling, or 350.4 kWh a year.
Even at $0.50 / kWh, it would cost $175, a trivial price to pay for having your data instantly available.
The price per TB is not great though, about $50, while an 45TB LTO9 cartridge is about $110, or $2.44 pet TB.
So it's not the price of the power.
45TB is the 'compressed' capacity, the actual capacity is 18TB for LTO9, for $6.11/TB - still an order of magnitude cheaper than SSD, mind you!
I want to be there. I'm told they run hot, so incur much the same cooling issues HDD do. I am told if you don't recharge them periodically, they are not reliable offline storage disconnected from power for various reasons.
And of course, there's price.
it's already possible to get a 2.5 ssd with 8tb for $350
m.2 sata is available at similar prices too, but many fewer choices. mSata seems to have topped out at 1TB