[goneri]

Solar is nowhere near to be a dominant source of energy and will never be.

[jaggederest]

> and will never be.

Why do you think that? Absent some other primary power source like fusion, solar energy is the upstream producer of all the energy we currently use. Using it directly seems like the most obvious answer, especially when replacing e.g. all the earth's energy usage would only take, say, the size of Arizona

[lukan]

To quote Wikipedia for further context:

"The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 122 PW·year = 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year. In 2002 (2019), this was more energy in one hour (one hour and 25 minutes) than the world used in one year."

[vlovich123]

Saying solar is the upstream of fossil fuels is a technicality. Fossil fuels are more like a battery that’s stored millions of years of solar energy (+ the earth itself contributed a lot of energy). Solar cells are more like plants and cannot be used to replace batteries and our current battery tech can’t improve fast enough to supplant fossil fuels in the time frames needed.

Interesting that you mention fusion though considering fission is available today and provides a substantial amount of power (not to mention actually reduces the amount of fossil fuels whereas solar has a negligible impact on fossil fuels and at best is only absorbing energy growth).

[bastawhiz]

Unfortunately there's zero metrics from any reputable sources that would agree with you. Solar deployment is accelerating massively (0-8% of utility scale production in just a couple decades) while all nonrenewables are decelerating.

[goneri]

You ignore the short daylight period during the winter, when the electricity consumption is the most important. There is no practical why to store the energy for the nights. At the end we end up with a cheap source of energy that covers only a fraction of our needs, and we have to maintain a second source of production for the rest of the time. We pay two times to keep the two system operational.

Nuclear is also cheap and doesn't have this limitation.

[pyrale]

> while all nonrenewables are decelerating.

2023 is the year we burned the most coal, the most gas, the most oil, etc... So far.

[pfdietz]

Solar is looking to be the ultimate winner for powering the world. Your contention seems without sense to me.

[andybak]

Well on a certain level, all energy sources are "solar but with extra steps" so make of that what you will.

If you think I'm being silly, well... I'm not the one using the word "never"

[dymk]

It's all fusion with extra steps, but your point stands.

[dymk]

That's not what I said, try reading my comment again. Also, based on the current rate of solar adoption, you're likely wrong about it never being the dominant form of energy generation.

[joak]

Solar is the cheapest and the one that grows the fastest. So eventually it will become dominant.

[yesbut]

Eventually is a long time from now.

[jjtheblunt]

Is solar the only source of power on long spacecraft journeys, like that of Voyager and so on?

[lukan]

No, Voyager uses a radioactive battery. The sun is already way too far away for Voyager, to provide enough energy.

[thinkcontext]

Voyager doesn't use solar power since its incredibly faint as you get further from the Sun. It uses the heat from the decay of radioactive plutonium to generate electricity.

[icehawk]

Define dominant.