4 ms·

> All based upon some dude, smoking a fatty, saying "woha! concrete uses co2 in creation" without any numbers, impact studies, and comparatives. Are you seriou

> All based upon some dude, smoking a fatty, saying "woha! concrete uses co2 in creation" without any numbers, impact studies, and comparatives. Are you serious? There are multiple university departments that study this sort of thing. The amount of CO2 released by all these various things has been very well calculated. We can definitely go into projects with good numbers to help us compare what the consequences will be.

b112 3y ago
Yet, where are those solid comparisons? Where is all the data? All I see is people repeating that "dam bad", and ignoring battery, and concrete footing costs of other project types. So you see, I'm quite serious, because you've not showed me what I asked for. A study comparison, including all factors such as lifetime of project, battery costs(or not), and so on. Most importantly, that study should compare co2 released by burning coal, compared to dam, wind, solar, etc lifetime. Imagine if it is 100000 for coal vs 1.1 for dam and 1.06 for windfarm? If so, no one has any business complaining about a dam's cement! If so, complaining only helps hurt the environment. It helps the deniers, it helps the coal industry, all for naught! So let's see the numbers, before people go on about dam bad.
- defrost 3y ago
  Here's one paper of many that'll help you get started: Foundations of offshore wind turbines: A review https://sci-hub.ru/10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.012 https://sci-hub.ru/10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.012 You can combine that (and others) with your global GIS map of offshore turbines, cross product against makes, models, developers, other papers on various foundations types and then add in on shore windfarms. You then end up with a wind farm version of something like, say: https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/campaigns/metals-mining https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/campaigns/met... which took some years to put together and is pay to access. Have large scale resource companies commissioned such integrated overviews with hot link to all the relevant technical reports that have been written on renewable energy? Yes. Is it in the public domain? No. Infomation want to be free, sure, but there's still a lot of high grade dark data out there. But with a bit of perseverance you can get a pretty good ballpark on the data you're asking for with some sweat equity.
  - b112 3y ago
    So still, there is no comparative study. And your link goes to some generic mining sector page. My point is, I see endless people saying "dams are horrible because of cement carbon!", yet no one has the raw numbers, compared to other green projects, to validate that statement. People are just twitter spreading, an unjustified, unconfirmed hypothesis! And it serves no one except bad actors.
    - defrost 3y ago
      If you can't be arsed doing the heavy lifting answering your own question then that's on you. > your link goes to some generic mining sector page. To an up to date database of every significant mineral resource deposit across the globe backed by Tech Reports (geochem, geophysics, drilling, resource and reserve estimations), company ownership structure, land ownership structures, stock exchange filings, etc. Also includes prospects and ownership and development pipeline. The equivilants exist for energy (trad fossil fuel exploration) and the renewable sectors (capital investments in tech (wind turbines) and resource pipelines (copper, lithium, etc..)) It's an an example of what you can do if you put your mind to it. That one was developed here where I live (Western Australia) and onsold to Standard & Poor (the S&P people) when the private backers who wanted it had what they needed and passed it on. Cement is an interesting one as we can make cement from fly ash left over from coal fired plants; that has a much lower carbon footprint than other cement.
      - b112 3y ago
        If you can't be arsed doing the heavy lifting answering your own question then that's on you. You're not paying attention. I'm saying, without validation, and proof, no one should be saying dams aren't as green as, for example, wind. You've basically made my point for me, in that, no one has a clue, and everyone is just repeating a random thought someone had, without any comparative study done.

b112 3y ago

Yet, where are those solid comparisons? Where is all the data? All I see is people repeating that "dam bad", and ignoring battery, and concrete footing costs of other project types. So you see, I'm quite serious, because you've not showed me what I asked for. A study comparison, including all factors such as lifetime of project, battery costs(or not), and so on. Most importantly, that study should compare co2 released by burning coal, compared to dam, wind, solar, etc lifetime. Imagine if it is 100000 for coal vs 1.1 for dam and 1.06 for windfarm? If so, no one has any business complaining about a dam's cement! If so, complaining only helps hurt the environment. It helps the deniers, it helps the coal industry, all for naught! So let's see the numbers, before people go on about dam bad.

defrost 3y ago
Here's one paper of many that'll help you get started: Foundations of offshore wind turbines: A review https://sci-hub.ru/10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.012 https://sci-hub.ru/10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.012 You can combine that (and others) with your global GIS map of offshore turbines, cross product against makes, models, developers, other papers on various foundations types and then add in on shore windfarms. You then end up with a wind farm version of something like, say: https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/campaigns/metals-mining https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/campaigns/met... which took some years to put together and is pay to access. Have large scale resource companies commissioned such integrated overviews with hot link to all the relevant technical reports that have been written on renewable energy? Yes. Is it in the public domain? No. Infomation want to be free, sure, but there's still a lot of high grade dark data out there. But with a bit of perseverance you can get a pretty good ballpark on the data you're asking for with some sweat equity.
- b112 3y ago
  So still, there is no comparative study. And your link goes to some generic mining sector page. My point is, I see endless people saying "dams are horrible because of cement carbon!", yet no one has the raw numbers, compared to other green projects, to validate that statement. People are just twitter spreading, an unjustified, unconfirmed hypothesis! And it serves no one except bad actors.
  - defrost 3y ago
    If you can't be arsed doing the heavy lifting answering your own question then that's on you. > your link goes to some generic mining sector page. To an up to date database of every significant mineral resource deposit across the globe backed by Tech Reports (geochem, geophysics, drilling, resource and reserve estimations), company ownership structure, land ownership structures, stock exchange filings, etc. Also includes prospects and ownership and development pipeline. The equivilants exist for energy (trad fossil fuel exploration) and the renewable sectors (capital investments in tech (wind turbines) and resource pipelines (copper, lithium, etc..)) It's an an example of what you can do if you put your mind to it. That one was developed here where I live (Western Australia) and onsold to Standard & Poor (the S&P people) when the private backers who wanted it had what they needed and passed it on. Cement is an interesting one as we can make cement from fly ash left over from coal fired plants; that has a much lower carbon footprint than other cement.
    - b112 3y ago
      If you can't be arsed doing the heavy lifting answering your own question then that's on you. You're not paying attention. I'm saying, without validation, and proof, no one should be saying dams aren't as green as, for example, wind. You've basically made my point for me, in that, no one has a clue, and everyone is just repeating a random thought someone had, without any comparative study done.