3 ms·

Ok. Can you agree that it should at least be an improvement in carbon emissions? Grid tied solar often manages this, though exceedingly poor panel utilization

by Syonyk 5y ago

Ok. Can you agree that it should at least be an improvement in carbon emissions? Grid tied solar often manages this, though exceedingly poor panel utilization as in the article typically won't. By the time you start adding batteries, you're unlikely to be net carbon negative during the system life. It's hard to get solid numbers for modern battery construction, though. They tend to be trade secret sort of values.

stormbrew 5y ago
Do you think I wouldn't agree with that? What a weird thing to ask. I'm literally saying "the conversation should be dominated by the long term benefits rather than your wallet." That means ghg. A lot of this depends a lot on where you live and what your energy mix is to begin with, so there's no one size fits all answer. My issue isn't with any of these specifics though, it's that the conversation is always dominated entirely by "will it result in me paying less in the short term?" which is exactly the kind of short term thinking that's gotten us into this mess. Anyways, I think it's too early for widespread use of battery systems, for sure. I'm also personally not keen to put a giant fire hazard into my house or garage if I don't have to. I think the tech for solar and the tech for batteries are on similar but offset curves, where battery storage for an entire home just isn't quite there yet like panels are.
Tade0 5y ago
> By the time you start adding batteries, you're unlikely to be net carbon negative during the system life. Batteries are around 100kg of CO2 per kWh of capacity on a really dirty grid (China). So after the usual 2000 cycles a LiFePO4 battery can stand it will amount to around 50g of CO2 per kWh delivered (or 60g taking into account losses). Solar panels are 45-80g per kWh so worst case scenario you're doubling the system's footprint if you're going for 1 hour of full capacity.

by Syonyk 5y ago

stormbrew 5y ago

Do you think I wouldn't agree with that? What a weird thing to ask. I'm literally saying "the conversation should be dominated by the long term benefits rather than your wallet." That means ghg. A lot of this depends a lot on where you live and what your energy mix is to begin with, so there's no one size fits all answer. My issue isn't with any of these specifics though, it's that the conversation is always dominated entirely by "will it result in me paying less in the short term?" which is exactly the kind of short term thinking that's gotten us into this mess. Anyways, I think it's too early for widespread use of battery systems, for sure. I'm also personally not keen to put a giant fire hazard into my house or garage if I don't have to. I think the tech for solar and the tech for batteries are on similar but offset curves, where battery storage for an entire home just isn't quite there yet like panels are.

Tade0 5y ago

> By the time you start adding batteries, you're unlikely to be net carbon negative during the system life. Batteries are around 100kg of CO2 per kWh of capacity on a really dirty grid (China). So after the usual 2000 cycles a LiFePO4 battery can stand it will amount to around 50g of CO2 per kWh delivered (or 60g taking into account losses). Solar panels are 45-80g per kWh so worst case scenario you're doubling the system's footprint if you're going for 1 hour of full capacity.