3 ms·

I'll bite: the problem is that renewable in itself doesn't mean decarbonation: if you're importing solar panels built with Chinese coal and deploy them in Europ

I'll bite: the problem is that renewable in itself doesn't mean decarbonation: if you're importing solar panels built with Chinese coal and deploy them in Europe / Northern US, you're not actually decarboning anything, and instead you're increasing the carbon footprint but move it abroad. So there are things that are not just “not perfect” but actually harmful, and you can't just blindly deploy “not perfect” things. The main reason why people focus on renewable without getting into the details of whether or not it improves thing, is because it gives the impression of addressing the problem without changing the status quo (mass-consumption society, individual cars, disposable packaging, the search for endless growth…) The western world's energy and resource consumption isn't sustainable, no matter how you get the energy from, and “decarbonation”, like recycling, is just a fallacy that's been invented to avoid addressing this issue.

hannob 3y ago
> if you're importing solar panels built with Chinese coal and deploy them in Europe / Northern US, you're not actually decarboning anything, and instead you're increasing the carbon footprint but move it abroad. That is an urban legend and not supported by any evidence. Full solar lifecycle emissions are around an order of magnitude lower than fossil fuels.
- throwaway60742 3y ago
  Does "full solar lifecycle emissions" include the gas and coal powerplant you use because you couldn't build energy storage and your electric grid can't handle the peak power? Does it include the reconstruction of the grid it necessitated?
  - kemotep 3y ago
    Are you saying that if we don’t build solar panels, we won’t have to use electricity generated by gas and coal?
    - throwaway60742 3y ago
      Yes, because instead of wind/solar+storage+grid capable of handling the peaks, we would be building nuclear. Using much less concrete and much less diesel for construction trucks.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        You actually believe, that producing a solar panel, transporting it to the installation site on the other side of the planet, and maintaining it consumes more energy than the module will produce? Where do you get your numbers from, the back of a cereal box bought from Wish?
        throwaway60742 3y ago
        I seriously believe that this is not the full story if we're talking about utility-scale energy.
      - kemotep 3y ago
        Currently the alternative to solar and wind, is coal and gas. Your argument that solar panels cost more in electricity to build and deploy could also be made about nuclear. I agree that we should build more nuclear power plants but do you have evidence that they require less infrastructure than solar? A nuclear power plant seems more expensive to build than a field full of panels. Uranium mining and refining is cheaper and easier than lithium mining and refining? Could you please share your sources I would like to read about that. Nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, etc are all better than coal and gas. We need to build more, upgrade infrastructure, not limit ourselves to one solution as our energy needs and decarbonization efforts will evolve over time. But the alternative to solar isn’t nuclear its the status quo of gas and coal.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        > Currently the alternative to solar and wind, is coal and gas. No, and this vision is the problem. Hydro, geothermal, nuclear, are other options that can make sense depending on the context (of course you don't want to start a nuclear program from scratch, but if you already have a nuclear industry and you're in northern Europe, then it makes much more sense than solar).
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  > Full solar lifecycle emissions are around an order of magnitude lower than fossil fuels. This is nonsense. First of all, “fossil fuel” doesn't mean much as depending on the technology involved the CO2 amount per kWh varies a lot (GTCC vs dumb lignite plant, that's more than a 2x ratio). Then, when you're adding a solar panel you can't compare its output to the same amount of energy produced by “fossil fuel”, you must compare it to the energy mix of the country you're deploying it into (to take the most extreme example: if you're adding a solar panel in France, you're basically replacing nuclear with solar, so you're just adding CO2 emissions). Overall, with the very low solar yields we have in most Europe (everywhere but the Mediterranean) and the fact that in many country the electricity mix is multiple time less carbon-heavy than what coal gives you, your “order of magnitude” is gone. And I'm not even talking about the substitution effect here, where one Euro invested in solar in Europe is one Euro that doesn't get invested in a better decarbonation project (solar being financed elsewhere, wind, geothermal, nuclear), but that's also something to consider when advocating for a technology.
stinos 3y ago
if you're importing solar panels built with Chinese coal and deploy them in Europe / Northern US, you're not actually decarboning anything, and instead you're increasing the carbon footprint but move it abroad. Is that true for the complete lifetime (which is what matters in the end) of, say, a PV installation in one's home? Or even for the complete PV industry?
- V__ 3y ago
  It is not, it's not even close. It's better by a factor of 10 to 20. [1] [1] https://energy.utexas.edu/news/nuclear-and-wind-power-estimated-have-lowest-levelized-co2-emissions https://energy.utexas.edu/news/nuclear-and-wind-power-estima...
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    Your figures have nothing to do with deploying solar panels in northern US / Europe. These are average numbers, that includes the panels deployed in Arizona or Australia. Solar is a good idea when you put in it the right place (like a desert), but not when you put in in the British Isles or in Denmark, that's the point I'm making.
    - stinos 3y ago
      Fair enough perhaps, but in any case: please you point us to the numbers for that? Seeing the annual output of a typcial rather small 5kW peak home PV installation in Western Europe or even Denmark, it just seems unlikely that it would not offset whatever emissions it takes during its mining/production/shipment/installation during its lifetime.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        Helsinki is around, judging from looking at a chart on a phone screen, 20-30% more expensive than Munich per kWh produced using solar.. And still, Helsinki still is cheaper by a factor of roughly 2 than the average spot market kWh prices in 2022. I linked to the source in one of my other comments. Also, Finland installed a ton of solar lasr year, so I guess if someone is doing sometjing someone else claims is impossible, it is possible regardless of what people say and believe.
flgb 3y ago
That’s a complete myth and just more of the same ‘concern trolling’ on renewables that is hampering decarbonization
sanxiyn 3y ago
> The western world's energy and resource consumption isn't sustainable If god wanted us to have infinite energy and resources he would have put a gigantic fusion reactor in the sky. (OH on Twitter)
jacquesm 3y ago
This is exactly what TFA addresses.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  Not at all! (see ZeroGravitas'[1] comment if you want to read it without the paywall instead of making a fool of yourself…) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37912630 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37912630
Muromec 3y ago
Also driving a bicycle is polluting, because bicycles don't grow on trees, but are produced by industry. Yeah, yeah.
- unglaublich 3y ago
  And we haven’t even talked about the peanut butter sandwich the cyclist eats in morning!
svnt 3y ago
Where do you get this information? I’m genuinely curious.
hef19898 3y ago
You zave no idea about energy consumption along a supply chain, if you actually believe any of this.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  > You zave no idea about energy consumption along a supply chain, if you actually believe any of this. This has nothing to to with supply chain, but with the fact that the Nederlands and Seattle aren't especially sunny places…
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Then you shoupd tell the goverment in the Netherlands, they seem to believe they got 14% of their electricity from solar in 2022: https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/the-netherlands-unquestionable-solar-energy-leader-of-2022-study/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/the-netherlan...
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      Public subsidies work, I'm not doubting that. USSR used to grow orange in Siberia too, that a state program can do it doesn't mean it's efficient in any way…
  - marssaxman 3y ago
    And yet, the solar panels I installed on my Seattle house a decade ago generated enough power to pay for themselves in six years. Solar works great here. Overcast skies are not a problem: solar panels don't care which direction the photons come from, and they work more efficiently at cooler temperatures.
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      > And yet, the solar panels I installed on my Seattle house a decade ago generated enough power to pay for themselves in six years. That tells something about your local electricity market though, not about the energy or CO2 emission efficiency.

hannob 3y ago

> if you're importing solar panels built with Chinese coal and deploy them in Europe / Northern US, you're not actually decarboning anything, and instead you're increasing the carbon footprint but move it abroad. That is an urban legend and not supported by any evidence. Full solar lifecycle emissions are around an order of magnitude lower than fossil fuels.

throwaway60742 3y ago
Does "full solar lifecycle emissions" include the gas and coal powerplant you use because you couldn't build energy storage and your electric grid can't handle the peak power? Does it include the reconstruction of the grid it necessitated?
- kemotep 3y ago
  Are you saying that if we don’t build solar panels, we won’t have to use electricity generated by gas and coal?
  - throwaway60742 3y ago
    Yes, because instead of wind/solar+storage+grid capable of handling the peaks, we would be building nuclear. Using much less concrete and much less diesel for construction trucks.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      You actually believe, that producing a solar panel, transporting it to the installation site on the other side of the planet, and maintaining it consumes more energy than the module will produce? Where do you get your numbers from, the back of a cereal box bought from Wish?
      - throwaway60742 3y ago
        I seriously believe that this is not the full story if we're talking about utility-scale energy.
    - kemotep 3y ago
      Currently the alternative to solar and wind, is coal and gas. Your argument that solar panels cost more in electricity to build and deploy could also be made about nuclear. I agree that we should build more nuclear power plants but do you have evidence that they require less infrastructure than solar? A nuclear power plant seems more expensive to build than a field full of panels. Uranium mining and refining is cheaper and easier than lithium mining and refining? Could you please share your sources I would like to read about that. Nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, etc are all better than coal and gas. We need to build more, upgrade infrastructure, not limit ourselves to one solution as our energy needs and decarbonization efforts will evolve over time. But the alternative to solar isn’t nuclear its the status quo of gas and coal.
      - littlestymaar 3y ago
        > Currently the alternative to solar and wind, is coal and gas. No, and this vision is the problem. Hydro, geothermal, nuclear, are other options that can make sense depending on the context (of course you don't want to start a nuclear program from scratch, but if you already have a nuclear industry and you're in northern Europe, then it makes much more sense than solar).
littlestymaar 3y ago
> Full solar lifecycle emissions are around an order of magnitude lower than fossil fuels. This is nonsense. First of all, “fossil fuel” doesn't mean much as depending on the technology involved the CO2 amount per kWh varies a lot (GTCC vs dumb lignite plant, that's more than a 2x ratio). Then, when you're adding a solar panel you can't compare its output to the same amount of energy produced by “fossil fuel”, you must compare it to the energy mix of the country you're deploying it into (to take the most extreme example: if you're adding a solar panel in France, you're basically replacing nuclear with solar, so you're just adding CO2 emissions). Overall, with the very low solar yields we have in most Europe (everywhere but the Mediterranean) and the fact that in many country the electricity mix is multiple time less carbon-heavy than what coal gives you, your “order of magnitude” is gone. And I'm not even talking about the substitution effect here, where one Euro invested in solar in Europe is one Euro that doesn't get invested in a better decarbonation project (solar being financed elsewhere, wind, geothermal, nuclear), but that's also something to consider when advocating for a technology.

stinos 3y ago

if you're importing solar panels built with Chinese coal and deploy them in Europe / Northern US, you're not actually decarboning anything, and instead you're increasing the carbon footprint but move it abroad. Is that true for the complete lifetime (which is what matters in the end) of, say, a PV installation in one's home? Or even for the complete PV industry?

V__ 3y ago
It is not, it's not even close. It's better by a factor of 10 to 20. [1] [1] https://energy.utexas.edu/news/nuclear-and-wind-power-estimated-have-lowest-levelized-co2-emissions https://energy.utexas.edu/news/nuclear-and-wind-power-estima...
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  Your figures have nothing to do with deploying solar panels in northern US / Europe. These are average numbers, that includes the panels deployed in Arizona or Australia. Solar is a good idea when you put in it the right place (like a desert), but not when you put in in the British Isles or in Denmark, that's the point I'm making.
  - stinos 3y ago
    Fair enough perhaps, but in any case: please you point us to the numbers for that? Seeing the annual output of a typcial rather small 5kW peak home PV installation in Western Europe or even Denmark, it just seems unlikely that it would not offset whatever emissions it takes during its mining/production/shipment/installation during its lifetime.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Helsinki is around, judging from looking at a chart on a phone screen, 20-30% more expensive than Munich per kWh produced using solar.. And still, Helsinki still is cheaper by a factor of roughly 2 than the average spot market kWh prices in 2022. I linked to the source in one of my other comments. Also, Finland installed a ton of solar lasr year, so I guess if someone is doing sometjing someone else claims is impossible, it is possible regardless of what people say and believe.

flgb 3y ago

That’s a complete myth and just more of the same ‘concern trolling’ on renewables that is hampering decarbonization

sanxiyn 3y ago

> The western world's energy and resource consumption isn't sustainable If god wanted us to have infinite energy and resources he would have put a gigantic fusion reactor in the sky. (OH on Twitter)

jacquesm 3y ago

This is exactly what TFA addresses.

littlestymaar 3y ago
Not at all! (see ZeroGravitas'[1] comment if you want to read it without the paywall instead of making a fool of yourself…) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37912630 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37912630

Muromec 3y ago

Also driving a bicycle is polluting, because bicycles don't grow on trees, but are produced by industry. Yeah, yeah.

unglaublich 3y ago
And we haven’t even talked about the peanut butter sandwich the cyclist eats in morning!

svnt 3y ago

Where do you get this information? I’m genuinely curious.

hef19898 3y ago

You zave no idea about energy consumption along a supply chain, if you actually believe any of this.

littlestymaar 3y ago
> You zave no idea about energy consumption along a supply chain, if you actually believe any of this. This has nothing to to with supply chain, but with the fact that the Nederlands and Seattle aren't especially sunny places…
- hef19898 3y ago
  Then you shoupd tell the goverment in the Netherlands, they seem to believe they got 14% of their electricity from solar in 2022: https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/the-netherlands-unquestionable-solar-energy-leader-of-2022-study/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/the-netherlan...
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    Public subsidies work, I'm not doubting that. USSR used to grow orange in Siberia too, that a state program can do it doesn't mean it's efficient in any way…
- marssaxman 3y ago
  And yet, the solar panels I installed on my Seattle house a decade ago generated enough power to pay for themselves in six years. Solar works great here. Overcast skies are not a problem: solar panels don't care which direction the photons come from, and they work more efficiently at cooler temperatures.
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    > And yet, the solar panels I installed on my Seattle house a decade ago generated enough power to pay for themselves in six years. That tells something about your local electricity market though, not about the energy or CO2 emission efficiency.