4 ms·
As a reply to your "edit": You don't know how to bloody read. Claiming renewables emit CO2 in their construction and maintenance is not saying that they don't
by cmehdy 6y ago
As a reply to your "edit":
You don't know how to bloody read. Claiming renewables emit CO2 in their construction and maintenance is not saying that they don't decrease emissions in comparison to gas-oil-coal, only that they do produce emissions. Unless you want to state that for a fact renewables are leading to no emissions for their construction or maintenance, you can't possibly be denying that. And by the way nuclear involves CO2 emissions too in its construction, surprise surprise! But you build it once and run it for a very long time, and the emissions in relationship to the energy output for nuclear completely dwarf anything related to renewables. So stop trying to argue an empty point.
Now, there's no such thing as "dispatchable" without a carbon cost that is non-negligible: the things you build, if you move them you're using trucks that use energy. If you take the windmills down from off the coast where the wind is stronger, you're using boats that use energy. If you need to use tools and to build any kind of structure for things to be installed anywhere new, including extensions to power grids, you're using materials for which the construction requires yet again energy and materials. Oh and now because we don't know on what scenario we are, weather patterns have changed significantly enough over the course of a few decades so you need to start moving your infrastructure to the "right" place, which includes building the damn road there and potentially moving people away too. You can "dispatch" all you want by emitting a ton of unnecessary CO2, or you can go and develop the source that is most reliable, actually controllable, and that only needs those emissions to be made ONCE to become a source of energy.
Stop daydreaming about things that are only marginally doing something, and put your energy into addressing problems at the order of magnitude where you have the real impact. For energy production it's nuclear by a huge margin, and yes that's what the damn physics says. Then move on to the other actual problems that lead to CO2 emissions, and work on those too. Stop trying to fix a problem that already has a solution - especially if your fixes involve a whole lot more repetitive CO2 emissions along the way.
- pfdietz 6y agoIn a world that has transitioned to no fossil fuels, how would renewables be emitting CO2? They wouldn't. In a world transitioning away from fossil fuels, the metric is not how much CO2 renewables use to build, but how much CO2 they displace per $. Renewables, being cheaper than nuclear, allow more CO2 to be displaced more quickly.
- cmehdy 6y agoThere's not a single metric to take but many, first of all. The initial cost in CO2 is absolutely part of the measurement, but if you want to look at finer metrics then you can look at the ratio of estimated CO2 costs over the life of the source over the energy produced too, which gives you good hints as to what requires a lot of emissions to get a lot of energy (which is really what we're trying to curb in the first place). From that metric for example, photovoltaic energy is orders of magnitude worse than nuclear and wind (wind without storage: a dozen grams per KWh, nuclear: a dozen grams per KWh, photovoltaic: between 100g and 200g of CO2 emission per KWh, and beyond if you were to count the batteries). The ROI on the other hand definitely got much better for photovoltaic over the years, and AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN this is why I have not been saying once in all those messages that renewables should be dropped and all the research on it dumped. We CAN make things better, and we WILL benefit from having such extra sources - especially as we learn to extract more and more energy from the same sources. I'll refer to my response to your other message for multiple sources of why that is not enough.
- pfdietz 6y agoYou didn't address the argument I made AT ALL. And, actually, in a zero fossil fuel world, solar is going to be better (at CO2 production) than nuclear, since you can build solar fields with no concrete. Concrete manufacture produces CO2 even if entirely non-fossil energy is used.
- cmehdy 6y agoRenewables are emitting CO2 in their making AND in their maintenance AND when they need to migrate due to climate patterns being unpredictable, and I mentioned that again in another post. In a world transitioning away from fossil fuels, that world has to transition pretty damn fast from fossil fuels and renewables do not bridge the gap AND do not handle controllability. You never actually mention any solution at all despite the now dozen things I've mentioned about this, and you know full well that (1) your precious means to get energy will cost in their making AND the moving as climate evolves, and (2) the unsteady nature of their output REQUIRES having a controllable source in parallel which DOES NOT make the fossil fuel usage go down UNLESS we use nuclear. And the alternative is that we would simply have de-growth, CONFER the damn original post. I am not taking a stance about that, I am simply stating what AGAIN the damn physics lays out in front of your eyes. It's not my fault if you don't want to read IPCC reports. I am sick and tired of your unsourced rants that aren't trying to bring any useful argument to the table, and I'll leave it at that. If you want to keep putting your blinders on and think that the sun is almighty, all the power to you. You're lying to yourself and this can cost more than you realize.