9 thoughts on “December 29, 2018

  1. How the heck do they measure efficiency?
    Solar cells already convert in excess of 15% of solar power they catch to electricity, and you can’t get over 100%.

  2. They’re trying to sell it wrong. No corporation is going to spend millions of R&D dollars for the sake of climate change.

    They might spend it for the purpose of selling better quality/lower cot panels than the competition in order to corner the market.

    They might also spend it for the purpose of producing electricity cheaper than traditional power plants in order to take substantial market share away from established electric utilities.

    Either of the above might be able to convince Ms. Trellis.

    • It’s always nice to see someone who gets it. Idiot conspiracy theories about how corporations are somehow suppressing technology drive me crazy, because these people clearly have no idea how markets work. If auto companies had had some magic 100mpg carburetor back in the seventies, they would have been desperately racing to be the first to get it into production.

      • What corporations do (by way of “suppression”) is buy out the makers/inventors of competing products (especially if the other product is better/more efficient)…and then *never produce it themselves* because they don’t want to spend the money to retool their infrastructure to make that other product. Corporations never do what is right (except by accident), they do what is expedient.

  3. She’s not necessarily a “denier” — she may agree that climate change is happening — it’s just that no one has come up with any new good Economic Reasons why we (the US in general, or Ms. Trellis) should spend additional money to “save the world”. Per latest stats, the US decreased its emissions by 0.5% last year, while Europe increased by 1.5%, and the rest of the world is up also. (And that’s with us NOT IN the Paris accords — it seems we can meet our goals by not being part of the accords, while everyone who is part of the accord can’t seem to meet them, or it was written in that they’d not decrease for a while longer, which makes no sense whatsoever). We’re doing our part, it’s the rest of the world that’s not doing their share, and it’s NOT up to US to save the rest of the world. Oh, by the way, in the global scheme of things — the World itself will go on for millennia. the true question is how long will humanity continue existing, and humans are good about changing circumstances to meet the available conditions. Global Climate change just doesn’t even enter into that.

    • The same thing was true last time around, too. The US was just so awful for not signing onto the Kyoto Protocols, yet we somehow managed to lower emissions more than most of the countries that did sign on.

  4. Mrs Trellis almost certainly believes in climate change. I think you mean that she is sceptical about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, which is quite another thing. This strip falls completely flat because she does not have to Believe to be commercially interested, she only have to believe that enough *others* Believe to constitute a viable market. And having a Mars expedition to her name , she will *certainly* be aware of the market for better solar panels to the various space agencies like the ESA. Nor will she be unaware of the use of solar panels in remote sensing and precision agriculture. The commercial possibilities are dizzying, even to a CAGW sceptic.

  5. Solar cells that are more efficient would mean SMALLER solar cells, less ugly. If price isn’t out of touch (hah), they would be popular.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.