Anyway here’s some actual science on why going vertical makes a big difference.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-022-19171-5
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-022-19171-5
That you point to the Mars rover, a mission with extremely budgeted power requirements, as proof of how soiling doesn’t pose an impediment to mega scale desert solar farms, only underscores the flaw in your reasoning.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22131...
> Not the proven solution
Yet you quote a paper saying it can work. “This impact can have a positive or negative effect depending on the climatic conditions and the surface properties.”
I have no interest in debating with you because I don’t believe you are capable of a honest debate here. The physics doesn’t change and the physics is what matters.
> doesn’t pose an impediment
Nope. I said it beats “space” not that soiling doesn’t exist. That’s what you have to demonstrate here and you have provided zero evidence whatsoever supporting that viewpoint. Hell they could replace the entire array every 5 years and it would still beat space.. Even if what you said was completely true, you still lose the argument.
Repeating unsupported claims and declaring yourself the winner does not, it turns out, actually help you win an argument.