3 ms·

Electricity from solar photovoltaic generation has life cycle emissions 90-95% lower than fossil-derived electricity, per median figures in the IPCC's 2014 tabu

Electricity from solar photovoltaic generation has life cycle emissions 90-95% lower than fossil-derived electricity, per median figures in the IPCC's 2014 tabulation of global warming potential of selected electricity sources. Geothermal, concentrated solar power, nuclear power, and wind power have even lower life cycle emissions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#2014_IPCC,_Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emis... Displacing fossil-derived electricity with enough low-carbon electricity to supply an air conditioner is more effective than raising the AC temperature one degree or planting a tree. The key issue is to reduce emissions. Sometimes that necessitates reduced consumption of energy services [1]. But reducing consumption is not sufficient and often not necessary to deeply cut emissions. If 3 tons of CO2 per capita per year is a sustainable emissions rate, then the US emits at about 550% of the sustainable rate. Even Cuba emits at 107% of the sustainable rate. No polity is going to voluntarily reduce their material standard of living below that of Cuba. And even a super-emitter like the US could reach the sustainable rate with a combination of more efficient energy use and non-fossil (renewable and nuclear) primary energy production substituting for fossils. So I think that "stop burning fossils for air conditioning" is a prescription closer to solving the root problem than "endure a little more discomfort in the air conditioning season." [1] For example, there is no foreseeable technology that will enable trans-Atlantic passenger flights without burning chemical fuels. Long distance flights could burn synthetic fuels made using non-fossil electricity, but that would raise fuel prices. Whether by fiat or by pricing, long distance air travel will necessarily become less common if/when aviation faces pressure to reduce CO2 emissions.

Retric 7y ago
Those emission numbers are based on other carbon sources. Move to electric trucks etc and solar panels represent much lower emissions on their own.
Robotbeat 7y ago
Lithium-air is one technology that would easily enable transatlantic flights. Even lithium-sulfur/metal/etc (which are much nearer term and can be had in small batches now if you call around) you could get you transatlantic (Canada to Ireland) with a very efficient airframe and even with lithium-ion with a very efficient airframe if you hop over Canada, Greenland, and Iceland.
aresant 7y ago
I 100% agree. I originally started banging out a comment saying forget the trees, build more nuclear power but didn't want to invite a downvoting brigade, which I effectively walked into anyways :)
- philipkglass 7y ago
  Introducing nuclear power in climate discussions tends to cause flamewars because it's often introduced by someone making extreme blanket statements, like "humans cannot be trusted with nuclear power" or "nuclear is the only available solution to climate change." Just mention it as one of the low-emissions alternatives to fossil power. Cite climate-focused organizations for support rather than industry-specific organizations. The aim is to reduce emissions, not to promote one specific technology toward that end. I wish that we just had carbon tax-and-dividend instead of a thousand different regulations and tax code incentives mandating or nudging toward specific kinds of efficiency measures and fossil replacements. At the same time I understand that carbon taxes face enormous popular opposition while tax credits and CAFE standards don't, so I'll accept having 3 different kinds of federal tax incentives to separately promote nuclear power, wind power, and solar power (plus a myriad of differently structured state level incentives) as the best the US can currently do.
  - Retric 7y ago
    The problem with Nuclear is it needs huge subsides to be cost competitive with battery backed Wind / Solar or Hydro, even more if you want it to load follow. With just a carbon tax and no specific Nuclear subsidies, Nuclear is rarely a good option. In theory it seems like a great idea, in practice with decades of 10’s to 100’s of Billions in R&D it’s unlikely to improve that much within the next 5-10 years. (106 Billion and counting from the US government alone: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/07/09/nuclear-fossil-fuels-have-dominated-federal-energy-rd-spending/#46b33c4b3105 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/07/09/nuclear-...)
    - Robotbeat 7y ago
      It's probably needed in northern countries for COMPLETE decarbonization. And basically all large infrastructure has some level of subsidy, definitely including wind, solar, and hydro.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Retric 7y ago

Those emission numbers are based on other carbon sources. Move to electric trucks etc and solar panels represent much lower emissions on their own.

Robotbeat 7y ago

Lithium-air is one technology that would easily enable transatlantic flights. Even lithium-sulfur/metal/etc (which are much nearer term and can be had in small batches now if you call around) you could get you transatlantic (Canada to Ireland) with a very efficient airframe and even with lithium-ion with a very efficient airframe if you hop over Canada, Greenland, and Iceland.

aresant 7y ago

I 100% agree. I originally started banging out a comment saying forget the trees, build more nuclear power but didn't want to invite a downvoting brigade, which I effectively walked into anyways :)

philipkglass 7y ago
Introducing nuclear power in climate discussions tends to cause flamewars because it's often introduced by someone making extreme blanket statements, like "humans cannot be trusted with nuclear power" or "nuclear is the only available solution to climate change." Just mention it as one of the low-emissions alternatives to fossil power. Cite climate-focused organizations for support rather than industry-specific organizations. The aim is to reduce emissions, not to promote one specific technology toward that end. I wish that we just had carbon tax-and-dividend instead of a thousand different regulations and tax code incentives mandating or nudging toward specific kinds of efficiency measures and fossil replacements. At the same time I understand that carbon taxes face enormous popular opposition while tax credits and CAFE standards don't, so I'll accept having 3 different kinds of federal tax incentives to separately promote nuclear power, wind power, and solar power (plus a myriad of differently structured state level incentives) as the best the US can currently do.
- Retric 7y ago
  The problem with Nuclear is it needs huge subsides to be cost competitive with battery backed Wind / Solar or Hydro, even more if you want it to load follow. With just a carbon tax and no specific Nuclear subsidies, Nuclear is rarely a good option. In theory it seems like a great idea, in practice with decades of 10’s to 100’s of Billions in R&D it’s unlikely to improve that much within the next 5-10 years. (106 Billion and counting from the US government alone: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/07/09/nuclear-fossil-fuels-have-dominated-federal-energy-rd-spending/#46b33c4b3105 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/07/09/nuclear-...)
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    It's probably needed in northern countries for COMPLETE decarbonization. And basically all large infrastructure has some level of subsidy, definitely including wind, solar, and hydro.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]