3 ms·

That article is from 1979. Wow. Probably best taken with a grain of salt given how much solar in particular has ramped up.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
philipkglass 8y ago
Some of those numbers are ridiculous even for 1979. Looking at Figure 2, the metric tons of materials numbers for fossil fueled plants exclude the fuel, which is by far the largest material input to fossil fueled power. Example: that figure shows material requirements of about 10 tons per megawatt-year for electricity from coal. A megawatt-year is 1000 * 24 * 365 = 8,760,000 kWh. Kentucky Coal Education says that it takes about 1 pound (0.45 kg) of coal to produce 1 kWh of electricity. The actual material requirements for a megawatt-year of electricity from coal are upwards of 3,900 metric tons. Even with the low-efficiency PV modules of 1979, PV electricity required less mined material than coal electricity. http://www.coaleducation.org/lessons/twe/ctele.htm http://www.coaleducation.org/lessons/twe/ctele.htm This discrepancy is ironic in a document that states in the introduction "If you calculate the risk of only part of a system and compare it with the corresponding part of another, by judiciously choosing the component you could prove that any energy system is riskier (or safer) than any other system. You would obviously be proving precisely nothing." This method of proving precisely nothing is employed by the author in Figure 2, only regarding materials requirements instead of risk.
starbeast 8y ago
Here is a 2012 piece from the same author - 'The Impossible Dream? Why Renewables Won't Reduce CO2 Emissions by Much' - https://www.energycentral.com/c/pip/impossible-dream-why-renewables-wont-reduce-co2-emissions-much https://www.energycentral.com/c/pip/impossible-dream-why-ren... Maybe it is just me, but I suspect he might just have a tiny little bit of bias.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

philipkglass 8y ago

Some of those numbers are ridiculous even for 1979. Looking at Figure 2, the metric tons of materials numbers for fossil fueled plants exclude the fuel, which is by far the largest material input to fossil fueled power. Example: that figure shows material requirements of about 10 tons per megawatt-year for electricity from coal. A megawatt-year is 1000 * 24 * 365 = 8,760,000 kWh. Kentucky Coal Education says that it takes about 1 pound (0.45 kg) of coal to produce 1 kWh of electricity. The actual material requirements for a megawatt-year of electricity from coal are upwards of 3,900 metric tons. Even with the low-efficiency PV modules of 1979, PV electricity required less mined material than coal electricity. http://www.coaleducation.org/lessons/twe/ctele.htm http://www.coaleducation.org/lessons/twe/ctele.htm This discrepancy is ironic in a document that states in the introduction "If you calculate the risk of only part of a system and compare it with the corresponding part of another, by judiciously choosing the component you could prove that any energy system is riskier (or safer) than any other system. You would obviously be proving precisely nothing." This method of proving precisely nothing is employed by the author in Figure 2, only regarding materials requirements instead of risk.

starbeast 8y ago

Here is a 2012 piece from the same author - 'The Impossible Dream? Why Renewables Won't Reduce CO2 Emissions by Much' - https://www.energycentral.com/c/pip/impossible-dream-why-renewables-wont-reduce-co2-emissions-much https://www.energycentral.com/c/pip/impossible-dream-why-ren... Maybe it is just me, but I suspect he might just have a tiny little bit of bias.