6 ms·

wait, why are CO2 emissions "bad?" it might even literally take 20-25 years to "pay off the CO2" used to make, deliver, and install the solar panels... to me i

wait, why are CO2 emissions "bad?" it might even literally take 20-25 years to "pay off the CO2" used to make, deliver, and install the solar panels... to me it seems like our CO2 emissions are not bad and the effects on climate are very minor. this is playing out in real time as we make dire predictions that never seem to come to fruition. the world is ending in 12 years, said someone popular in ~2016. Well, halfway there, lady!

Mistletoe 4y ago
There’s nothing we could say to change your mind since you’ve already ignored all the science that exists.
- __pache__ 4y ago
aperson_hello 4y ago
Making and installing solar panels doesn't cost anywhere that much CO2. Best numbers I see suggest payback in ~3 years assuming they're produced with coal power (and the numbers are better if they're produced with cleaner power, though electricity is fungible, so I'm not sure if that really makes sense to do). As a quick gut check, look at unsubsidized solar install costs - they're significantly lower than the cost of the electricity they generate in the 5-10 year range in almost all lower and middle latitude places... Also, idiots stating unscientific garbage (like the world ending in 2028) doesn't mean that there's no science behind it... Just that there was an idiot making up BS. Edit: it was a 2019 quote, not a 2016 quote. So we have all the way until 2031 until the world "ends"... Still an idiotic quote
- __pache__ 4y ago
  > Making and installing solar panels doesn't cost anywhere that much CO2. ...source? Solar is unreliable, you _need_ another system, so you have to install 2 systems now. It _will_ be cheaper/less co2/etc.etc. to just install and use 1 system. The real solution to reducing overall CO2 is clearly Nuclear. Do you disagree with this?
  - aperson_hello 4y ago
    Nuclear should be part of the solution. Solar is just too cheap not to do be part of it too. Since there are on demand sources (natural gas peakers, batteries, etc.) and because solar isn't replacing clean sources at this point in time, solar (and wind) can and should be part of the energy mix! Here's one source. Plenty more if you Google it https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf
    - __pache__ 4y ago
      what should I be looking at in this source? how does it scale? you can scale nuclear/hydro very easily for millions of people .. they inherently scale. solar does not, you need tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of panels. it does not scale. this seems so self evident. like people are holding their hands over their ears and eyes, ignoring the obvious...
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        How much new net renewables capacity was installed last year? What was the largest capacity of nuclear ever installed in a single year? Solar is scaling just fine. Installing 5-20 panels per person is hardly prohibitive. It's like claiming wheat can't feed people because it needs trillions of grains so we must stop wheat farming and only eat novelty sized pumpkin and elephant.
      - aperson_hello 4y ago
        Solar absolutely scales - in the factory...
Schroedingersat 4y ago
EBPT for PERC panels is 3-12 months. Far lower than nuclear and slightly lower than wind.
- __pache__ 4y ago
  what does that even mean? how does this scale? is it the same cost at 1000x the demand to support things? ugh... this is so disingenuous. a nuclear install might support millions of people but the same solar would be insanely huge AND require multiple backups/batteries.. it is so clear solar/wind is worse than nuclear. it is increasingly clear that our co2 output isn't that scary. we are "greening" the Earth. Sea level rise is well within normal bounds. Everything is _great.._
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Weren't you just asserting expertise on the contents of a solar cell and energy content of generation? How do you not know the relevant terms or name for the dominant variety? Did you even know there were different types before you made up numbers? Energy payback time. Passive Emitter Rear Contact photovoltaics They're made of sand and a tiny bit of silver. The amount of silver used total is going down per year in spite of production going up, and there are technologies being commercialized to make it use less silver than a nuclear reactor. Similarly LFP batteries only require a few dozen times as much energy to produce as one charge. Sodium uses even less, only requires abundant materials and is scaling up now. Then there are all of the other storage and load shifting methods. You'd have to increase uranium mining 5x to meet last year's renewable capacity additions, and 8x for next year's. The mines would make more land uninhabitable than the solar panels would cover (even if they weren't compatible with other land use). Trying to make a puny backwards imitation of a star with a few tiny scraps of left over supernova dust is woefully insufficient. Getting energy directly from the source is the only place there's enough available unless we want massive degrowth.
    - __pache__ 4y ago
      > Weren't you just asserting expertise Was I wrong about something ? > Energy payback time. Right. This doesn't scale as close to as well as nuclear .......... > You'd have to increase uranium mining 5x ??? if things actually do become expensive, welcome to breeder reactors bro

Mistletoe 4y ago

There’s nothing we could say to change your mind since you’ve already ignored all the science that exists.

__pache__ 4y ago

aperson_hello 4y ago

Making and installing solar panels doesn't cost anywhere that much CO2. Best numbers I see suggest payback in ~3 years assuming they're produced with coal power (and the numbers are better if they're produced with cleaner power, though electricity is fungible, so I'm not sure if that really makes sense to do). As a quick gut check, look at unsubsidized solar install costs - they're significantly lower than the cost of the electricity they generate in the 5-10 year range in almost all lower and middle latitude places... Also, idiots stating unscientific garbage (like the world ending in 2028) doesn't mean that there's no science behind it... Just that there was an idiot making up BS. Edit: it was a 2019 quote, not a 2016 quote. So we have all the way until 2031 until the world "ends"... Still an idiotic quote

__pache__ 4y ago
> Making and installing solar panels doesn't cost anywhere that much CO2. ...source? Solar is unreliable, you _need_ another system, so you have to install 2 systems now. It _will_ be cheaper/less co2/etc.etc. to just install and use 1 system. The real solution to reducing overall CO2 is clearly Nuclear. Do you disagree with this?
- aperson_hello 4y ago
  Nuclear should be part of the solution. Solar is just too cheap not to do be part of it too. Since there are on demand sources (natural gas peakers, batteries, etc.) and because solar isn't replacing clean sources at this point in time, solar (and wind) can and should be part of the energy mix! Here's one source. Plenty more if you Google it https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf
  - __pache__ 4y ago
    what should I be looking at in this source? how does it scale? you can scale nuclear/hydro very easily for millions of people .. they inherently scale. solar does not, you need tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of panels. it does not scale. this seems so self evident. like people are holding their hands over their ears and eyes, ignoring the obvious...
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      How much new net renewables capacity was installed last year? What was the largest capacity of nuclear ever installed in a single year? Solar is scaling just fine. Installing 5-20 panels per person is hardly prohibitive. It's like claiming wheat can't feed people because it needs trillions of grains so we must stop wheat farming and only eat novelty sized pumpkin and elephant.
    - aperson_hello 4y ago
      Solar absolutely scales - in the factory...

Schroedingersat 4y ago

EBPT for PERC panels is 3-12 months. Far lower than nuclear and slightly lower than wind.

__pache__ 4y ago
what does that even mean? how does this scale? is it the same cost at 1000x the demand to support things? ugh... this is so disingenuous. a nuclear install might support millions of people but the same solar would be insanely huge AND require multiple backups/batteries.. it is so clear solar/wind is worse than nuclear. it is increasingly clear that our co2 output isn't that scary. we are "greening" the Earth. Sea level rise is well within normal bounds. Everything is _great.._
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Weren't you just asserting expertise on the contents of a solar cell and energy content of generation? How do you not know the relevant terms or name for the dominant variety? Did you even know there were different types before you made up numbers? Energy payback time. Passive Emitter Rear Contact photovoltaics They're made of sand and a tiny bit of silver. The amount of silver used total is going down per year in spite of production going up, and there are technologies being commercialized to make it use less silver than a nuclear reactor. Similarly LFP batteries only require a few dozen times as much energy to produce as one charge. Sodium uses even less, only requires abundant materials and is scaling up now. Then there are all of the other storage and load shifting methods. You'd have to increase uranium mining 5x to meet last year's renewable capacity additions, and 8x for next year's. The mines would make more land uninhabitable than the solar panels would cover (even if they weren't compatible with other land use). Trying to make a puny backwards imitation of a star with a few tiny scraps of left over supernova dust is woefully insufficient. Getting energy directly from the source is the only place there's enough available unless we want massive degrowth.
  - __pache__ 4y ago
    > Weren't you just asserting expertise Was I wrong about something ? > Energy payback time. Right. This doesn't scale as close to as well as nuclear .......... > You'd have to increase uranium mining 5x ??? if things actually do become expensive, welcome to breeder reactors bro