4 ms·

> PV panels become (on average) carbon neutral after three years of operation That depends on where you install them. Almost anywhere in Europe it doesn't make

> PV panels become (on average) carbon neutral after three years of operation That depends on where you install them. Almost anywhere in Europe it doesn't make sense to use solar, and yet they're doing it.[1] [1]: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fn4clWEWAAkadtu.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fn4clWEWAAkadtu.jpg:large

mikeyouse 4y ago
"Doesn't make sense" is excessively vague. Are you implying that solar in Europe doesn't reach carbon neutrality due to its lower insolation? Because based on raw photons, a panel that is carbon neutral in 3 years in a sunny place would be carbon neutral in 6 years in a setting with 1/2 the sunlight.. These critiques and the silly book's premise that since solar/wind might not break even from an embodied carbon standpoint, that somehow burning actual carbon molecules in their place is "better" are just politically correct denialism.
- mrleinad 4y ago
  It's not silly if all there's to argue from the other point of view is photons per square meter. Weather also plays a role. I don't mean to say I have the absolute truth, I want to see if they've even considered sun availability for different regions. It seems solar proponents really haven't analyzed it from that point of view, AFAIK.
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    As far as you know, solar proponents haven't analyzed sun availability in the regions that they're installing solar? Perhaps they have done the analysis and that's why they're spending billions of dollars installing them? The industry has seen something like 75% decreases in cost-per-watt installation costs in the past decade, I can assure you, they're doing the analysis.
    - mrleinad 4y ago
      Unless you have evidence of those calculations (which should be public of course, right? I mean, it's government spending after all) I'd say they haven't, and they have just been pouring money into a fire pit because it won them votes to say they were going green. What I mean is, I haven't seen those calculations. Have you, or are you just hoping they have done the math? I wouldn't put any faith on any politician doing any hard math on this whatsoever.
      - mikeyouse 4y ago
        Ah, got it. You're basing this on your feelings and baseless conspiracy theories rather than looking at any of the actual profitable, privately owned renewable infrastructure that's being built. I get the distinct sense this conversation won't be productive for either of us, so farewell.
        mrleinad 4y ago
        > actual profitable, privately owned renewable infrastructure Exclude the tax exemptions and subsidies given to those companies and then check if they're profitable or not.

mikeyouse 4y ago

"Doesn't make sense" is excessively vague. Are you implying that solar in Europe doesn't reach carbon neutrality due to its lower insolation? Because based on raw photons, a panel that is carbon neutral in 3 years in a sunny place would be carbon neutral in 6 years in a setting with 1/2 the sunlight.. These critiques and the silly book's premise that since solar/wind might not break even from an embodied carbon standpoint, that somehow burning actual carbon molecules in their place is "better" are just politically correct denialism.

mrleinad 4y ago
It's not silly if all there's to argue from the other point of view is photons per square meter. Weather also plays a role. I don't mean to say I have the absolute truth, I want to see if they've even considered sun availability for different regions. It seems solar proponents really haven't analyzed it from that point of view, AFAIK.
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  As far as you know, solar proponents haven't analyzed sun availability in the regions that they're installing solar? Perhaps they have done the analysis and that's why they're spending billions of dollars installing them? The industry has seen something like 75% decreases in cost-per-watt installation costs in the past decade, I can assure you, they're doing the analysis.
  - mrleinad 4y ago
    Unless you have evidence of those calculations (which should be public of course, right? I mean, it's government spending after all) I'd say they haven't, and they have just been pouring money into a fire pit because it won them votes to say they were going green. What I mean is, I haven't seen those calculations. Have you, or are you just hoping they have done the math? I wouldn't put any faith on any politician doing any hard math on this whatsoever.
    - mikeyouse 4y ago
      Ah, got it. You're basing this on your feelings and baseless conspiracy theories rather than looking at any of the actual profitable, privately owned renewable infrastructure that's being built. I get the distinct sense this conversation won't be productive for either of us, so farewell.
      - mrleinad 4y ago
        > actual profitable, privately owned renewable infrastructure Exclude the tax exemptions and subsidies given to those companies and then check if they're profitable or not.