> I wish you would expand and clarify the point you are trying to make.
The problem with people enthusiastically proposing renewables as the cheap solution to our energy needs is the thousand "little" details like the one above. Whose only mention is in the comments like "your math is wrong, invest in insulation".
No. The math isn't wrong. Bo, the consumption is correct and shouldn't "should be lower". Because it's directly indicative of the reality.
Yes, you have a couple of enthusiasts who can sink another X kiloeuro into rebuilding their house. For the absolute vast majority of users it's not a viable option.
So yes, the answer to "PV energy is almost enough in summer and not nearly enough in winter" isn't a dismissive "you're doing insulation wrong".
I think they're trying to say that insulation (and probably other factors) is not just one person's problem but an issue of a huge scale, which is true. If solar works for you, then that's great, but for a lot of people (the majority?) it wouldn't work, or at least not without spending a very large amount of money to retrofit your house for it.
I think it's a good point even if stated quite poorly.
Let me put it this way: is me having solar panels making things worse for "the majority"? If so, how?
Because it sounded like the usual trope that if a solution does not fix all problems for all humans everywhere, than it it sucks and the person doing what they can is a naive fool, if not a straight up villain.
As for cost effective - subsidies. Big fat subsidies, especially for the poor countries. There are more important things than cost effective. We're all in this together
Cost is not really a valid reason not to pursue renewable. We need to switch to renewables no matter the cost, so as many people can survive as possible, and limit mass extinctions
> Cost is not really a valid reason not to pursue renewable.
If you have a money printer in the basement or free materials and slave labour, sure. In every other case it quite simply is.
> We need to switch to renewables no matter the cost
All true, but not relevant - we live in the real world where we make practical decisions. One of the aspects of that is not spending more than you have (for example so you can still eat).
The problem with people enthusiastically proposing renewables as the cheap solution to our energy needs is the thousand "little" details like the one above. Whose only mention is in the comments like "your math is wrong, invest in insulation".
No. The math isn't wrong. Bo, the consumption is correct and shouldn't "should be lower". Because it's directly indicative of the reality.
Yes, you have a couple of enthusiasts who can sink another X kiloeuro into rebuilding their house. For the absolute vast majority of users it's not a viable option.
So yes, the answer to "PV energy is almost enough in summer and not nearly enough in winter" isn't a dismissive "you're doing insulation wrong".
Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32201039