Because when you produce more energy than you need, you need to store it somewhere and if the cost is roughly equivalent for that place to be mobile vs a static construction, choosing the mobile one is superior.

But the cost isn't equivalent at all???

Is this thread being astroturfed? This defence for the Cybertruck ITT is one of the least rational threads I've seen on HN in the past few years and if the CT was actually valuable tech it wouldn't be one of the worst selling vehicles of all time.

Are you maybe a bit overreacting? The question of emergency power is a rational one and no one here said they thinj a cybertruck is awesome because of it. Just that this is a selling point.

I am certainly overreacting. I was just dumbfounded by the question I was responding too. If the concern is emergency power there are so many better alternatives than a cybertruck. If the concern is storing an abundance of solar power there are much better alternatives than a cybertruck. I don't want to come onto HN and be marketed products; I come to HN for tech news and to see cool software that people build, not to be marketed a cybertruck.

> The question of emergency power is a rational one

And the additional value of Cybertruck in this question is about $1000 - $1500. $1k of additional value for $60k purchase is still a selling point, but marginally small selling point.

Grid-tied solar systems that don't already have the storage built in don't work when the grid is down due to anti-islanding safety requirements.