5 ms·

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 i

by 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.
      - littlestymaar 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. The price doesn't have anything to do with the carbon footprint though… > 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. Sure it is possible to install solar in Finland, if you're a politician and you want to do a PR move it's probably even a good idea, but it's not for producing electricity.
        hef19898 3y ago
        Solar, once installed, has close to zero CO2 emissions (maintenance being the only source). And it is absolutely possible, and done. Not by politicians, but by people investing in the projects. And those expect, and get, returns. Funny, how otherwise reasonable people insist to argue against reality... Disclaimer: Obviously, installing PV around the arctic circle is better during summer than winter...
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        > Solar, once installed, has close to zero CO2 emissions Thanks for this fabulously insightful take. Here's a similar one: “Coal, once burned, has closed to zero CO2 emissions”. I mean, yes, for sure, but that's a bit strange of an analysis isn't it? > Not by politicians, but by people investing in the projects. Well, first of all it is also done by politicians. And then “people investing in the project” is also a common sentence when discussing NFTs so I'm not sure how convincing you think it is. Each euros that goes to solar in Finland and doesn't get to hydro, wind, biomasse or whatever, is wasted. Wasted in terms of energy production, and have a much bigger carbon footprint per kWh, but hey it's trendy (mostly because it makes total sense in California, the cultural center of the Western world). > Funny, how otherwise reasonable people insist to argue against reality... Funny indeed.
        3y ago
  - rypskar 3y ago
    >>right place (like a desert) The panels are less efficient when it is hot, so at summer Denmark is the right place. They are even using solar on Svalbard [0] with good results 9 months a year [0]https://nordregioprojects.org/blog/2019/11/28/archipelago-of-svalbard-the-place-of-solar-and-wind-energy-in-norway/ https://nordregioprojects.org/blog/2019/11/28/archipelago-of...
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      > The panels are less efficient when it is hot, so at summer Denmark is the right place. Panels are less efficient when hot (which is a problem), but they are even less efficient when the sun is low on the horizon, which is the case even in summer in Denmark, and when there are clouds. These a reason why the most efficient plants aren't actually in Denmark but in Arizona… > with good results 9 months a year Nothing in your link allows assessing how good the results are supposed to be. The fact that, without any quantitative elements, you assume the results presented here to be “good” tells a lot about your confirmation bias.

by stinos 3y ago

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.
    - littlestymaar 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. The price doesn't have anything to do with the carbon footprint though… > 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. Sure it is possible to install solar in Finland, if you're a politician and you want to do a PR move it's probably even a good idea, but it's not for producing electricity.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        Solar, once installed, has close to zero CO2 emissions (maintenance being the only source). And it is absolutely possible, and done. Not by politicians, but by people investing in the projects. And those expect, and get, returns. Funny, how otherwise reasonable people insist to argue against reality... Disclaimer: Obviously, installing PV around the arctic circle is better during summer than winter...
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        > Solar, once installed, has close to zero CO2 emissions Thanks for this fabulously insightful take. Here's a similar one: “Coal, once burned, has closed to zero CO2 emissions”. I mean, yes, for sure, but that's a bit strange of an analysis isn't it? > Not by politicians, but by people investing in the projects. Well, first of all it is also done by politicians. And then “people investing in the project” is also a common sentence when discussing NFTs so I'm not sure how convincing you think it is. Each euros that goes to solar in Finland and doesn't get to hydro, wind, biomasse or whatever, is wasted. Wasted in terms of energy production, and have a much bigger carbon footprint per kWh, but hey it's trendy (mostly because it makes total sense in California, the cultural center of the Western world). > Funny, how otherwise reasonable people insist to argue against reality... Funny indeed.
        3y ago
- rypskar 3y ago
  >>right place (like a desert) The panels are less efficient when it is hot, so at summer Denmark is the right place. They are even using solar on Svalbard [0] with good results 9 months a year [0]https://nordregioprojects.org/blog/2019/11/28/archipelago-of-svalbard-the-place-of-solar-and-wind-energy-in-norway/ https://nordregioprojects.org/blog/2019/11/28/archipelago-of...
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    > The panels are less efficient when it is hot, so at summer Denmark is the right place. Panels are less efficient when hot (which is a problem), but they are even less efficient when the sun is low on the horizon, which is the case even in summer in Denmark, and when there are clouds. These a reason why the most efficient plants aren't actually in Denmark but in Arizona… > with good results 9 months a year Nothing in your link allows assessing how good the results are supposed to be. The fact that, without any quantitative elements, you assume the results presented here to be “good” tells a lot about your confirmation bias.