• BlackLaZoR
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 days ago

    Nah, solar power just needed time to be viable. As the science progressed, the costs of solar power dropped by half every few years. Now its viable. Back then it really, really wasn’t.

    Having a solar panel to signal intentions was nothing but cringe waste of taxpayer money at the time - costs were like two orders of magnitude too high. I’d remove that shit same as Regan did if I made the decisions.

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 days ago

      Even ignoring the fact that adoption spurs development of technology, once they were already installed it cost nothing to leave them there. Wouldn’t removing them also be a waste of taxpayer money?

      Let me guess, the symbolism suddenly becomes worth it when it’s your side.

      • BlackLaZoR
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        11 days ago

        encourage adoption

        Bruh, at that cost there was NOTHING to encourage.

          • BlackLaZoR
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 days ago

            That only happens with investments in that development.

            No. This is an interdisciplinary issue, where semiconductors, manufacturing tech, automation, and ton of other tech had to come together at scale to make that product viable. No amount of money in 70s would bring you affordable solar panels. It’s like asking medieval craftsman to produce a nuclear weapon. It’s not going to ever happen without entire economy and all disciplines of science maturing enough to deliver