4 ms·
That’s a good metric for safe. I think clean is best looked at in terms of something like lifecycle CO2 equivalent per kWh. In which case wind and solar are onl
by sunshinesnacks 3y ago
That’s a good metric for safe. I think clean is best looked at in terms of something like lifecycle CO2 equivalent per kWh. In which case wind and solar are only beat by nuclear.
Then there’s lifecycle (levelized) cost per MWh, where wind and solar are way ahead of nuclear, and mostly have an edge on gas CCs.
- thelastgallon 3y ago> like lifecycle CO2 equivalent per kWh Oh yes, the big "scare" of it costs more (in terms of carbon) to manufacture. Does it cost zero carbon emissions for fossil fuels? Fossil fuels after all have to be explored, extracted (from 10s of thousands of feet from the bottom of the ocean) , shipped, shipped to refineries, shipped from refineries (40% of global shipping is fossil fuels), methane leaks from all this extraction of coal and oil, flaring. And all this comes free of carbon emissions? From the article you cited: Making solar cells requires a lot of energy. Fortunately, because these cells generate electricity, they pay back the original investment of energy; most do so after just two years of operation, and some companies report payback times as short as six months. Thats ten years back, Solar panels have been continuously advancing since then, quite possibly payback now is a couple of months or less. Perhaps read the source you cited instead of scaremongering?
- sunshinesnacks 3y agoI think you might be confusing me and my comment with the person we are both responding to. I agree that wind and solar are clean and safe compared to almost all alternatives. And much cheaper than nuclear. Edit to add: and yes, the energy payback on solar is great.
- thelastgallon 3y agoSorry about that, didn't realize i'm not at the right thread level.
- sunshinesnacks 3y agoNo worries. It is getting confusing in here :)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]