6 ms·

This is nice to see. However, one aspect of the green energy push that puzzles/irks me is the tendency to outsource carbon pollution. Citizens of Hawaii might

by tcbawo 3y ago

This is nice to see. However, one aspect of the green energy push that puzzles/irks me is the tendency to outsource carbon pollution. Citizens of Hawaii might be carbon neutral for energy production, but they are importing goods and services produced by carbon emitting countries/states. We are lucky that economics of green energy vs fossil fuel-based energy are continuing to look better and better. A climate change win is a climate change win. But I guess we just can’t let ourselves become complacent and say that we’ve already done our part because we let other countries do our polluting for us. Edit: to clarify, I was not referring specifically about the provenance of the battery with my comment about exporting pollution. For example, Hawaii imports cars, electronics, building materials, and has a large tourism industry that relies on airlines.

kabanossen 3y ago
True but we should also celebrate successes like this. If we wait acknowledging progress until all emissions are replaced we miss the good deeds that happen.
thom_thumb 3y ago
It would be nice if the whole world would transition away from fossil fuels all in lockstep, but that's just not realistic. The energy transition is going to be/already is very uneven. It's going to happen first in the places that have a strong desire to lead and the financial and the natural resources (e.g. abundant sun) to enable that. Hawaii happens to fit all those criteria.
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  The country leading the renewables transition right now is China. Since they’re also the country that (not coincidentally) builds everything, outsourcing goods manufacturing to them seems like an okay bet, for the climate at least. (And yes, I know they’re building coal, but their emissions are still set to peak because they’re building more renewables than industry can consume while paying to idle coal plants.)
  - graemep 3y ago
    Why are they building coal plants if they are not going to increase their coal fired output? My guess is that their motive for moving to renewables is more to reduce their reliance on imported oil and gas (vulnerable to blockade in the event of war). Maybe they will reduce oil and gas and increase both coal and renewables use?
    - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
      Theyr rebuilding, newer, cleaner, more flexible plants as in the Chinese system the coal plants need to perform the same role as gas plants in areas with easy access to gas i.e. running intermittently at low capacity factors.
    - matthewdgreen 3y ago
      It is entirely reasonable to believe that China is transitioning away from fossil fuels in the medium term and that they're freeing themselves from vulnerable oil+gas supply lines in the short term, in preparation for a possible Pacific conflict. What alarms me (for both reasons) is that the US and its allies are not doing the same thing. (*Yes, I know the US itself has plenty of domestic oil, but plenty of our critical allies are equally vulnerable to blockade.)
    - Qwertious 3y ago
      >Why are they building coal plants if they are not going to increase their coal fired output? Because 30% of their GDP comes from construction - building coal plants creates jobs. And as a marginal benefit, they even get a spare coal plant at the end. They've been building all sorts of infrastructure projects that don't make sense to build, coal isn't special here.
      - defrost 3y ago
        Or, more rationally - China has closed way more coal plants (small, inefficient, old technology) than it has built new coal plants (larger, new filters, scrubbers, adjacent to fresh coal fields with better grades of coal), in addition to having expanding demand for power. Currently in China new nuclear construction is slightly below new wind+solar addons, and nuclear+wind+solar are together still a small fraction of total power due to coal. Yes, China is phasing out coal - but it's a beast. In the meantime old sulphur filled coal field are being retired, new fields are being opened, and new plants with cleaner burning technology is built next to new fields in order to minimise transport costs (and associated C02 from transport).
- davidw 3y ago
  Something I see so much in local politics is that things don't all happen in a nicely coordinated fashion like one might want. Say, building some denser housing with more transit. But people telling you to wait until everything lines up 'just so' most likely want neither. Things happen in fits and starts in the real world.
- bluGill 3y ago
  I find it interesting that places like Iowa, Texas, and Kansas are leading the transition in the US despite none being places anything thinks associated with environmentalism. While states you might expect to care are way behind. Hawaii has had expensive energy all along and was an early installer of wind, but somehow is still way behind.
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    Easier to build in places like Texas, I suspect.
jakewins 3y ago
This is true and important - but subtle and easily misunderstood as simply outsourcing emissons . There is a fundamental pollution that occurs in a coal plant: its purpose is to combine carbon and oxygen to produce heat and CO2. There is no such fundamentals in producing a lithium cell or a solar module. We are bootstrapping this carbon free energy system from our existing energy system - so of course, emissions abound - but once bootstrapped, it perpetuates without fossil fuels.
- aziaziazi 3y ago
  Not really: batteries and solar need to be replaced more often that coal plant. The current and foreseen material sourcing, production and logistics for solar and batteries rely on a ton of steel which needs… coal! Coal-free steel already exist but is much more expensive, and will very probably remain expensive for a long time.
  - slashdev 3y ago
    The quantity of carbon emitted here matters
  - breischl 3y ago
    > Not really: batteries and solar need to be replaced more often that coal plant. The design lifetimes are on the same order of magnitude, and the components of the coal plant need overhauls/replacement as well. It's not that different. And notice that the coal plant needs a continuous supply of fuel, whereas battery/solar are one-time costs. That's a big difference anywhere, and any even bigger one in Hawaii where you have to ship the coal in. >production and logistics for solar and batteries rely on a ton of steel Totally unlike coal plants, coal mines, and coal shipping. > Coal-free steel already exist but is much more expensive If we can't do everything, perfectly, right now, then we should definitely do nothing at all. That's much better, and totally how all technology development works. /sarc
  - bluGill 3y ago
    What the "production and logistics for" for coal need? I used to live near a coal power plant, there were several long trains per hour of coal going to that plant. Now I live near a wind farm, and while in construction it had a few semis per hour - maybe as much as trains to the coal plant - but that wind farm is complete and will run for a few more decades with very little traffic, while the coal power plant had that many trains per day every day for all the time it was in operation. (it is now shut down)
bryanlarsen 3y ago
I assume the batteries came from China. In 2023 China installed more solar energy capacity than the rest of the world combined.
dralley 3y ago
Unless Hawaii was mining their own coal beforehand, I doubt they're losing anything here.

by tcbawo 3y ago

kabanossen 3y ago

True but we should also celebrate successes like this. If we wait acknowledging progress until all emissions are replaced we miss the good deeds that happen.

thom_thumb 3y ago

It would be nice if the whole world would transition away from fossil fuels all in lockstep, but that's just not realistic. The energy transition is going to be/already is very uneven. It's going to happen first in the places that have a strong desire to lead and the financial and the natural resources (e.g. abundant sun) to enable that. Hawaii happens to fit all those criteria.

matthewdgreen 3y ago
The country leading the renewables transition right now is China. Since they’re also the country that (not coincidentally) builds everything, outsourcing goods manufacturing to them seems like an okay bet, for the climate at least. (And yes, I know they’re building coal, but their emissions are still set to peak because they’re building more renewables than industry can consume while paying to idle coal plants.)
- graemep 3y ago
  Why are they building coal plants if they are not going to increase their coal fired output? My guess is that their motive for moving to renewables is more to reduce their reliance on imported oil and gas (vulnerable to blockade in the event of war). Maybe they will reduce oil and gas and increase both coal and renewables use?
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    Theyr rebuilding, newer, cleaner, more flexible plants as in the Chinese system the coal plants need to perform the same role as gas plants in areas with easy access to gas i.e. running intermittently at low capacity factors.
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    It is entirely reasonable to believe that China is transitioning away from fossil fuels in the medium term and that they're freeing themselves from vulnerable oil+gas supply lines in the short term, in preparation for a possible Pacific conflict. What alarms me (for both reasons) is that the US and its allies are not doing the same thing. (*Yes, I know the US itself has plenty of domestic oil, but plenty of our critical allies are equally vulnerable to blockade.)
  - Qwertious 3y ago
    >Why are they building coal plants if they are not going to increase their coal fired output? Because 30% of their GDP comes from construction - building coal plants creates jobs. And as a marginal benefit, they even get a spare coal plant at the end. They've been building all sorts of infrastructure projects that don't make sense to build, coal isn't special here.
    - defrost 3y ago
      Or, more rationally - China has closed way more coal plants (small, inefficient, old technology) than it has built new coal plants (larger, new filters, scrubbers, adjacent to fresh coal fields with better grades of coal), in addition to having expanding demand for power. Currently in China new nuclear construction is slightly below new wind+solar addons, and nuclear+wind+solar are together still a small fraction of total power due to coal. Yes, China is phasing out coal - but it's a beast. In the meantime old sulphur filled coal field are being retired, new fields are being opened, and new plants with cleaner burning technology is built next to new fields in order to minimise transport costs (and associated C02 from transport).
davidw 3y ago
Something I see so much in local politics is that things don't all happen in a nicely coordinated fashion like one might want. Say, building some denser housing with more transit. But people telling you to wait until everything lines up 'just so' most likely want neither. Things happen in fits and starts in the real world.
bluGill 3y ago
I find it interesting that places like Iowa, Texas, and Kansas are leading the transition in the US despite none being places anything thinks associated with environmentalism. While states you might expect to care are way behind. Hawaii has had expensive energy all along and was an early installer of wind, but somehow is still way behind.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  Easier to build in places like Texas, I suspect.

jakewins 3y ago

This is true and important - but subtle and easily misunderstood as simply outsourcing emissons . There is a fundamental pollution that occurs in a coal plant: its purpose is to combine carbon and oxygen to produce heat and CO2. There is no such fundamentals in producing a lithium cell or a solar module. We are bootstrapping this carbon free energy system from our existing energy system - so of course, emissions abound - but once bootstrapped, it perpetuates without fossil fuels.

aziaziazi 3y ago
Not really: batteries and solar need to be replaced more often that coal plant. The current and foreseen material sourcing, production and logistics for solar and batteries rely on a ton of steel which needs… coal! Coal-free steel already exist but is much more expensive, and will very probably remain expensive for a long time.
- slashdev 3y ago
  The quantity of carbon emitted here matters
- breischl 3y ago
  > Not really: batteries and solar need to be replaced more often that coal plant. The design lifetimes are on the same order of magnitude, and the components of the coal plant need overhauls/replacement as well. It's not that different. And notice that the coal plant needs a continuous supply of fuel, whereas battery/solar are one-time costs. That's a big difference anywhere, and any even bigger one in Hawaii where you have to ship the coal in. >production and logistics for solar and batteries rely on a ton of steel Totally unlike coal plants, coal mines, and coal shipping. > Coal-free steel already exist but is much more expensive If we can't do everything, perfectly, right now, then we should definitely do nothing at all. That's much better, and totally how all technology development works. /sarc
- bluGill 3y ago
  What the "production and logistics for" for coal need? I used to live near a coal power plant, there were several long trains per hour of coal going to that plant. Now I live near a wind farm, and while in construction it had a few semis per hour - maybe as much as trains to the coal plant - but that wind farm is complete and will run for a few more decades with very little traffic, while the coal power plant had that many trains per day every day for all the time it was in operation. (it is now shut down)

bryanlarsen 3y ago

I assume the batteries came from China. In 2023 China installed more solar energy capacity than the rest of the world combined.

dralley 3y ago

Unless Hawaii was mining their own coal beforehand, I doubt they're losing anything here.