5 ms·

Among those renewables are “biomass” which is just burning trees. If we burned all the trees in the country it would only be enough fuel for a year. This is rep

Among those renewables are “biomass” which is just burning trees. If we burned all the trees in the country it would only be enough fuel for a year. This is replacing one awful fuel source with another. Wind and solar rely heavily on fossil fuel infrastructure or directly—-solar panels are made with coal and mined quartz. And it has to be replaced ever few years. It’s looking more and more like nuclear is the only real option but that is another terrifying option because companies are greedy and will mismanage it and we can’t afford nuclear disasters.

Avicebron 6y ago
I agree that using biomass is a pretty shady metric unless there is strong side by side evidence that the mass is growing back at the same rate of consumption. Unlikely in the case of trees. I'm also a proponent of nuclear after my thermodynamics professor sat my class down and explained why solar is a dirty process to get up and running and biomass is not sustainable. I think the potential is in advancement of nuclear power plant tech. The US is working with pretty old 20th century technology and there isn't much movement in the space that I know of probably due to fear.
skissane 6y ago
> solar panels are made with coal You are talking about solar panel manufacturing being an energy-intensive process. It is true that over 50% of the global production of solar panels happens in China, and most of the electricity used in the manufacture of those panels comes from burning coal. But there is no reason in principle why solar panel manufacturing could not be powered by electricity produced by non-fossil fuel based power sources (nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal etc). China is going to move away from fossil fuels for electricity generation over time. Slower than it should, but it is going to do it. And just because China controls so much of that industry right now is no guarantee that it will continue to do so into the future.
- diogenescynic 6y ago
  Not just that, you have to melt coal with quartz to produce the silicon for the solar panels. The entire process relies on fossil fuels. The energy and environmental ROI is probably actually negative/worse than just using the fossil fuels themselves. https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt... It’s an illusion that renewables are replacing fossil fuels. The amount or renewables isn’t even replacing the amount of energy that demand is growing by, so we rely more and more on fossil fuels even as more “renewables” are trotted out as a distraction. This is just a sham death cult because people can’t accept reality. Conservatives have religion and liberals have technology they hope will save them. We are a species in denial.
  - topher515 6y ago
    Your cited link does not seem to support your assertion that you must "melt coal with quartz". I do not believe that's correct. The general idea you are referring to is the "life cycle greenhouse gas emissions" for an energy technology. This is a well studied field. Information from the IPCC and the DOE seems to indicate that photovoltaics and wind have something like 20 times lower green house gas emissions than coal plants over the entire life cycle. [1][2] And since the manufacture of PV and wind accounts for a majority of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the lifecycle, the emissions will improve for this tech as the blend of energy used to power the manufacturing becomes "greener". If you think that renewables "aren't even replacing the amount of energy demand is growing by", then you should advocate for additional construction of renewable energy rather than suggesting that they are a dirty technology—since the science we have suggests they are not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emis... [2] https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/life-cycle-assessment.html https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/life-cycle-assessment.html
    - diogenescynic 6y ago
      It’s used in the reaction process with the quartz: >silicon metal is made from the reaction of silica and carbon materials like coke, coal and wood chips https://www.workoutmilano.it/gold2/6774-silicon-metal-quartz-woodchip-coal.html https://www.workoutmilano.it/gold2/6774-silicon-metal-quartz... > In order to produce a single (1) metric ton (MT) of silicon metal, raw material inputs of 2.8 MT quartz, 1.4 MT coal, and 2.4 MT wood chips are required and represent a 6.6:1 ratio of process inputs to outputs. http://guntherportfolio.com/2010/03/making-silicon-metal-for-solar/ http://guntherportfolio.com/2010/03/making-silicon-metal-for...
ericcumbee 6y ago
biomass is a lot more than just trees. and even then its byproducts of forestry product production like saw dust.
- diogenescynic 6y ago
  That’s what they want you to think, but there aren’t enough byproducts to satisfy energy demands.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Biomass as an energy source is limited by net primary productivity. Humans already appropriate a large portion of this (~20%), and total fossil fuel consumption would roughly double this (inexact numbers, it's been a while since I've looked at this). Factoring in typical assumptions of population and economic growth, and the picture darkens further. We simply don't have available biomass to power the present economy, let alone one with more people of net higher average wealth. There are reasons humans switched from renewable to nonrenewable energy resources. Unfortunately the practice is unsustainable on several fronts. https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2cvap7/the_intractable_problem_of_biomass_for_fuels_is/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2cvap7/the_int... http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/153031/ http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/153031/ http://agroinnovations.com/blog/2007/04/27/the-photosynthetic-ceiling/ http://agroinnovations.com/blog/2007/04/27/the-photosyntheti... https://web.archive.org/web/20120810132407/https://environmental-issues.wikispaces.com/Photosynthetic+ceilings https://web.archive.org/web/20120810132407/https://environme... I especially recommend Jeff Dukes, "Burning Buried Sunshine" (2003): https://dge.carnegiescience.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange1.pdf https://dge.carnegiescience.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange1....

Avicebron 6y ago

I agree that using biomass is a pretty shady metric unless there is strong side by side evidence that the mass is growing back at the same rate of consumption. Unlikely in the case of trees. I'm also a proponent of nuclear after my thermodynamics professor sat my class down and explained why solar is a dirty process to get up and running and biomass is not sustainable. I think the potential is in advancement of nuclear power plant tech. The US is working with pretty old 20th century technology and there isn't much movement in the space that I know of probably due to fear.

skissane 6y ago

> solar panels are made with coal You are talking about solar panel manufacturing being an energy-intensive process. It is true that over 50% of the global production of solar panels happens in China, and most of the electricity used in the manufacture of those panels comes from burning coal. But there is no reason in principle why solar panel manufacturing could not be powered by electricity produced by non-fossil fuel based power sources (nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal etc). China is going to move away from fossil fuels for electricity generation over time. Slower than it should, but it is going to do it. And just because China controls so much of that industry right now is no guarantee that it will continue to do so into the future.

diogenescynic 6y ago
Not just that, you have to melt coal with quartz to produce the silicon for the solar panels. The entire process relies on fossil fuels. The energy and environmental ROI is probably actually negative/worse than just using the fossil fuels themselves. https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt-always-as-green-as-you-think https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/solar-energy-isnt... It’s an illusion that renewables are replacing fossil fuels. The amount or renewables isn’t even replacing the amount of energy that demand is growing by, so we rely more and more on fossil fuels even as more “renewables” are trotted out as a distraction. This is just a sham death cult because people can’t accept reality. Conservatives have religion and liberals have technology they hope will save them. We are a species in denial.
- topher515 6y ago
  Your cited link does not seem to support your assertion that you must "melt coal with quartz". I do not believe that's correct. The general idea you are referring to is the "life cycle greenhouse gas emissions" for an energy technology. This is a well studied field. Information from the IPCC and the DOE seems to indicate that photovoltaics and wind have something like 20 times lower green house gas emissions than coal plants over the entire life cycle. [1][2] And since the manufacture of PV and wind accounts for a majority of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the lifecycle, the emissions will improve for this tech as the blend of energy used to power the manufacturing becomes "greener". If you think that renewables "aren't even replacing the amount of energy demand is growing by", then you should advocate for additional construction of renewable energy rather than suggesting that they are a dirty technology—since the science we have suggests they are not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emis... [2] https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/life-cycle-assessment.html https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/life-cycle-assessment.html
  - diogenescynic 6y ago
    It’s used in the reaction process with the quartz: >silicon metal is made from the reaction of silica and carbon materials like coke, coal and wood chips https://www.workoutmilano.it/gold2/6774-silicon-metal-quartz-woodchip-coal.html https://www.workoutmilano.it/gold2/6774-silicon-metal-quartz... > In order to produce a single (1) metric ton (MT) of silicon metal, raw material inputs of 2.8 MT quartz, 1.4 MT coal, and 2.4 MT wood chips are required and represent a 6.6:1 ratio of process inputs to outputs. http://guntherportfolio.com/2010/03/making-silicon-metal-for-solar/ http://guntherportfolio.com/2010/03/making-silicon-metal-for...

ericcumbee 6y ago

biomass is a lot more than just trees. and even then its byproducts of forestry product production like saw dust.

diogenescynic 6y ago
That’s what they want you to think, but there aren’t enough byproducts to satisfy energy demands.
dredmorbius 6y ago
Biomass as an energy source is limited by net primary productivity. Humans already appropriate a large portion of this (~20%), and total fossil fuel consumption would roughly double this (inexact numbers, it's been a while since I've looked at this). Factoring in typical assumptions of population and economic growth, and the picture darkens further. We simply don't have available biomass to power the present economy, let alone one with more people of net higher average wealth. There are reasons humans switched from renewable to nonrenewable energy resources. Unfortunately the practice is unsustainable on several fronts. https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2cvap7/the_intractable_problem_of_biomass_for_fuels_is/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2cvap7/the_int... http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/153031/ http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/153031/ http://agroinnovations.com/blog/2007/04/27/the-photosynthetic-ceiling/ http://agroinnovations.com/blog/2007/04/27/the-photosyntheti... https://web.archive.org/web/20120810132407/https://environmental-issues.wikispaces.com/Photosynthetic+ceilings https://web.archive.org/web/20120810132407/https://environme... I especially recommend Jeff Dukes, "Burning Buried Sunshine" (2003): https://dge.carnegiescience.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange1.pdf https://dge.carnegiescience.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange1....