Quote:
Originally Posted by Otter
NZ to trial world-first commercial long-range, wireless power transmission
|
The charge [npi] that wireless was killed because it couldn't be metered is cynical. It's other biggest drawback is losses/inefficiency.
If your criticism is the overall level of energy production and the byproducts of said production, wireless means you are producing more for convenience sake, and just releasing it back into the 'ether' through transmission losses.
This is less of a problem with renewables, because you are essentially rounding up energy available around you [wind, light, water], directing it for potential useful purpose, and whatever doesn't get used or gets wasted is just released back to nature.
Think of it like this loose analogy. Suppose you lived by a lake and wanted access to water in your little village. Wireless is somewhat like putting a big pump in the lake and spraying water over the village, so it's just perpetually 'raining' throughout the village. All you need to do to get water is set a pot outside your house and wait, and supposedly the excess will return to the water table and eventually the lake. It's more convenient than plumbing and sewers for every house, but it's also less efficient.