3 ms·

> If I buy an array of solar panels and use it to charge my car, it doesn't matter at all how efficient my car is, grams of CO2 emitted is basically 0. There a

> If I buy an array of solar panels and use it to charge my car, it doesn't matter at all how efficient my car is, grams of CO2 emitted is basically 0. There are metrics which relate the amount of CO2 emitted to manufacture a panel vs the total amount of electricity it goes on to generate, and they are not 0. They're significantly lower than coal fire power plants, but not zero... and can vary greatly depending on where in the world you actually install that panel. > improving the efficiency of grids across the US What is currently inefficient about them? > the much smaller set of infrastructure providers Who all hold government granted monopolies on their infrastructure. I'm not absurdly hopeful this will automatically turn into a win for the consumer.

Dig1t 4y ago
>There are metrics which relate the amount of CO2 emitted to manufacture a panel vs the total amount of electricity it goes on to generate, and they are not 0 Yes, fair enough. Making pretty much _anything_ contributes to CO2 in some way and this argument easily devolves into one where we're saying we should just limit all human activity, and I'd say that that way of thinking is regressive. If you can generate your own electricity this pushes the burden of emissions to the manufacturer of the panels, which is a good thing because panels are tech that improves over time. > What is currently inefficient about them? Yeah I misspoke, what I meant to say is we should focus on reducing the emissions that they create while generating electricity. i.e. improving efficiency if you consider CO2/Watt generated to be your units. This is done by switching to renewables + nuclear. >Who all hold government granted monopolies on their infrastructure. I'm not absurdly hopeful this will automatically turn into a win for the consumer. This I disagree with, I think a smaller number of government-granted monopolies are much easier to control/regulate than every single US consumer.

Dig1t 4y ago

>There are metrics which relate the amount of CO2 emitted to manufacture a panel vs the total amount of electricity it goes on to generate, and they are not 0 Yes, fair enough. Making pretty much _anything_ contributes to CO2 in some way and this argument easily devolves into one where we're saying we should just limit all human activity, and I'd say that that way of thinking is regressive. If you can generate your own electricity this pushes the burden of emissions to the manufacturer of the panels, which is a good thing because panels are tech that improves over time. > What is currently inefficient about them? Yeah I misspoke, what I meant to say is we should focus on reducing the emissions that they create while generating electricity. i.e. improving efficiency if you consider CO2/Watt generated to be your units. This is done by switching to renewables + nuclear. >Who all hold government granted monopolies on their infrastructure. I'm not absurdly hopeful this will automatically turn into a win for the consumer. This I disagree with, I think a smaller number of government-granted monopolies are much easier to control/regulate than every single US consumer.