this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024
117 points (92.1% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] magiccupcake@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ehh it's still a rubbish idea, that money would be much better spent going after primary producers of energy, like solar, wind, geothermal, or nuclear.

Some napkin math and an equivalent area of solar, say over a road or parking lot would produce 3.5 million kwh in a year.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Those aren’t always a fit for everywhere. And getting energy from one place to another is an unsolved issue. Just because one option is cheaper than others doesn’t mean that particular option is the better choice. Diversity is very important.

[–] magiccupcake@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Diversity is important, but it's still better to go after larger sources of energy first. There's just not much energy to be recovered from falling rain or waste from cars.

Make the cars waste less energy, or the transit system in general is much easier and will actually save money long term.