4 ms·

In the case of batteries, it obviously matters what you do with them. Put them in an EV and offset a new ICE on the road? Then yes, significant lifecycle CO2 re

In the case of batteries, it obviously matters what you do with them. Put them in an EV and offset a new ICE on the road? Then yes, significant lifecycle CO2 reduction. You are implying that it’s easy to find lots of scientifically rigorous publications that show solar, wind, and/or batteries (to be used in better integrating wind or solar to the grid) have an objectively worse CO2 impact than gas or coal [0]. I don’t think that’s true. [0] I think nuclear doesn’t count, because it is too expensive in the US. Maybe (hopefully) one day it will be economically viable.

trimethylpurine 3y ago
There are wrong places to put each of these technologies. Electric vehicles don't make sense on a coal power grid. But that's what we're doing here. Coal doesn't make sense at all. Keep downvoting. It only serves to show that I'm right and you're not listening.
- sunshinesnacks 3y ago
  I don’t have enough karma to downvote. US electricity is about 20% from coal [0], and almost certainly trending downward. I agree that there are wrong locations/applications for most technologies. But I don’t think you can make a robust science-based argument that wind and solar are worse than gas or coal for the US in terms of net CO2. Or that the Nature article I posted is full of lies or hype. [0] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
  - trimethylpurine 3y ago
    I am not making those claims. I'm making the claim that blanket policy is not a good solution EVER because it ignores the nuance of reality. And as I'm not able to reply, you can say that saying so is incredibly unpopular. Why? Because of marketing and hype meant to ensure that people who don't want to destroy a forest in the name of solar will not be heard while corporate interests profit in the name of green energy that's anything but green. Regardless I fault the downvoting and the yelling over rational thought, just as we can see in this thread. You guys pedaling the idea that any opposition to solar is evil are the evil. You guys are the reason our environment is being destroyed because you imagine that what works in your neighborhood is best for everyone and you vote that way without imagining what a blanket policy on electric vehicles means for places still on coal. Anyway, sure 80% of the POPULATION is on nuclear. But MOST traffic is goods delivery not your driving around a nuclear powered super metropolitan. Those goods travel through the middle of the country where there is no nuclear and won't be for a very very long time. You can read for yourself about why nuclear is essentially at a halt in the US. It's mostly to do with the high cost of meeting safety guidelines that didn't exist when existing plants were built. Ignoring the supply chain doesn't make you green. You get to live comfortably near nuclear and make decisions for everyone else. But you're making awful ones that ruin our natural resources, destroy our land, and show blatant disregard for how things work outside of your bubble. You may not see it, but I see every day how "green" energy is destroying the environment right outside my door. We simply need more care, discussion, and nuance in energy policy. Screaming down every discussion and drowning it with irrelevant research isn't going to help the environment. It's going to destroy it.
    - sunshinesnacks 3y ago
      I’m sorry that a solar project is having such a negative impact near you. But implying that I’m evil and drowning you in irrelevant research isn’t making me think that this exchange is productive.
      - trimethylpurine 3y ago
        It looks to me like the exchange was productive. I didn't call you evil. That is, unless you are identifying yourself as one of the "guys pedaling the idea that any opposition to solar is evil." Assuming it's not you downvoting, then I don't think this applies to you, specifically.
      - trimethylpurine 3y ago
        I'm curious about what you think about the vast majority of the country being far from nuclear. It makes up the majority of what WILL BE our power demand if all vehicles are EV, just as it currently makes up the majority of our gasoline use. The timing of how, when and for which modes of transport we should be rolling out EVs is critical, otherwise we are simply INCREASING our carbon footprint, all the while also endangering wildlife with batteries. CO2 is not the only enemy of the environment. Good intentions can be as well.
trimethylpurine 3y ago
I didn't imply that. I'm clearly stating, without hidden implications, that destroying a forest to build a solar panel is not environmentally sound. I don't care what the CO2 reduction is. It's negligible in comparison to the damage you're causing to the environment.

trimethylpurine 3y ago

There are wrong places to put each of these technologies. Electric vehicles don't make sense on a coal power grid. But that's what we're doing here. Coal doesn't make sense at all. Keep downvoting. It only serves to show that I'm right and you're not listening.

sunshinesnacks 3y ago
I don’t have enough karma to downvote. US electricity is about 20% from coal [0], and almost certainly trending downward. I agree that there are wrong locations/applications for most technologies. But I don’t think you can make a robust science-based argument that wind and solar are worse than gas or coal for the US in terms of net CO2. Or that the Nature article I posted is full of lies or hype. [0] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  I am not making those claims. I'm making the claim that blanket policy is not a good solution EVER because it ignores the nuance of reality. And as I'm not able to reply, you can say that saying so is incredibly unpopular. Why? Because of marketing and hype meant to ensure that people who don't want to destroy a forest in the name of solar will not be heard while corporate interests profit in the name of green energy that's anything but green. Regardless I fault the downvoting and the yelling over rational thought, just as we can see in this thread. You guys pedaling the idea that any opposition to solar is evil are the evil. You guys are the reason our environment is being destroyed because you imagine that what works in your neighborhood is best for everyone and you vote that way without imagining what a blanket policy on electric vehicles means for places still on coal. Anyway, sure 80% of the POPULATION is on nuclear. But MOST traffic is goods delivery not your driving around a nuclear powered super metropolitan. Those goods travel through the middle of the country where there is no nuclear and won't be for a very very long time. You can read for yourself about why nuclear is essentially at a halt in the US. It's mostly to do with the high cost of meeting safety guidelines that didn't exist when existing plants were built. Ignoring the supply chain doesn't make you green. You get to live comfortably near nuclear and make decisions for everyone else. But you're making awful ones that ruin our natural resources, destroy our land, and show blatant disregard for how things work outside of your bubble. You may not see it, but I see every day how "green" energy is destroying the environment right outside my door. We simply need more care, discussion, and nuance in energy policy. Screaming down every discussion and drowning it with irrelevant research isn't going to help the environment. It's going to destroy it.
  - sunshinesnacks 3y ago
    I’m sorry that a solar project is having such a negative impact near you. But implying that I’m evil and drowning you in irrelevant research isn’t making me think that this exchange is productive.
    - trimethylpurine 3y ago
      It looks to me like the exchange was productive. I didn't call you evil. That is, unless you are identifying yourself as one of the "guys pedaling the idea that any opposition to solar is evil." Assuming it's not you downvoting, then I don't think this applies to you, specifically.
    - trimethylpurine 3y ago
      I'm curious about what you think about the vast majority of the country being far from nuclear. It makes up the majority of what WILL BE our power demand if all vehicles are EV, just as it currently makes up the majority of our gasoline use. The timing of how, when and for which modes of transport we should be rolling out EVs is critical, otherwise we are simply INCREASING our carbon footprint, all the while also endangering wildlife with batteries. CO2 is not the only enemy of the environment. Good intentions can be as well.

trimethylpurine 3y ago

I didn't imply that. I'm clearly stating, without hidden implications, that destroying a forest to build a solar panel is not environmentally sound. I don't care what the CO2 reduction is. It's negligible in comparison to the damage you're causing to the environment.