4 ms·
This is described as "green" but as a portable the panel will never produce as much energy as it took to manufacture it. Taking this deficit into account plus
by thinkcontext 9y ago
This is described as "green" but as a portable the panel will never produce as much energy as it took to manufacture it. Taking this deficit into account plus the energy and other environmental harm embodied in the battery, which will also likely be sparsely used, and its doubtful you beat diesel by much.
To truly be green you would either do without or not go.
- therealdrag0 9y agoEspecially if one is flying there. Just not flying there would be a huge exchange in carbon footprint.
- albertgoeswoof 9y agoJust drop dead to minimise your carbon footprint the proper way
- mac01021 9y agoAre you dismissing as absurd the notion that a person might want to alter their lifestyle in order to reduce their carbon footprint?
- edkennedy 9y agoI've always wondered about this logic... Seems like the greenest thing a human could do would be to decompose underground.
- mac01021 9y agoThat's probably true, if you don't want to count your influence on the carbon footprints of other people when calculating your "greenness". You should probably count it though. So then, the very greenest things you can do probably involve mass murder and industrial sabotage. Further down the list, after those, you have leading an ascetic life of minimal consumption and minimal travel while devoting yourself to the right sort of political advocacy. A bit further down is dying underground as soon as possible. But it's important to note that a small amount of advocacy, sabotage, or murder per year can make it a net positive for you to continue living. Way below all that stuff that nobody wants to do (and who can blame them) are (a) living as a hermit in the woods eating only berries and mushrooms or (b) living a normal life with a normal career and making consumer choices like buying solar panels and electric cars when other people might buy various combustion machines. If you're not counting your effect on other people, (a) is a clear winner. However, people's consumer choices do have an effect on the direction of the economy. And, if you take those effects into account, I honestly don't know how to decide whether (a) or (b) appears higher in the greenness ranking.
- thinkcontext 9y agoI commented because of the claim from the article that this "personal power plant" was green. The people that read that shouldn't be misinformed, it could cause them to make choices that are counterproductive if being (relatively) green is their goal.
- outworlder 9y agoI am skeptical of this claim. Maybe standard rooftop solar panels lifetime is too short as they are exposed to the elements all the time. But as a general rule? Seems wrong. Solar panels will generate power for as long as there are cells still alive. Both are recyclable, but batteries are specially so. Therefore, how can't they beat diesel, which also has to be extracted, processed, transported and finally burned (at low efficiency)?
- thinkcontext 9y agoPortable panels will only be used a tiny fraction of the time that a dedicated roof install will be.
- nikodunk 9y agoThe embodied calculations are here, but they are based off an optimal scenario – http://gridlesskits.com/2017/02/12/Financial-Payback.html http://gridlesskits.com/2017/02/12/Financial-Payback.html
- thinkcontext 9y agoI looked at this more closely, you linked to a portable Burning Man scenario. Using this in an apartment as you describe (especially for 4+ years) is a significant hazard. Alligator clips and no enclosure? Non-outdoor rated cable running free down the structure through a window? Panel with no mounting sitting on the roof? Show this to a landlord and see what their reaction is.
- thinkcontext 9y agoThis is if the setup is producing power 365 days a year for 4+ years. Its extremely unlikely these systems will be used in that fashion.