3 ms·

Solar and wind emit a lot of CO2 upfront relative to the energy they produce down the line.

by m101 2y ago

nine_k 2y ago
So does nuclear, and in much larger absolute extent: production of steel and concrete, used copiously in NPP construction, inevitably releases a lot of CO2. Melting silicon or smelting aluminum, not nearly as much. (IDK about epoxy resin production.) I suppose that instead of eliminating the processes that produce large amounts of CO2, we should embrace them, learn to capture the CO2 where it's produced in high concentrations (like steel plants or cement furnaces), and either bind the carbon in non-volatile ways, like in plastics, or produce fuel from it again and close the loop.
- UltraSane 2y ago
  [dead]
- m101 2y ago
  It's not about absolute but about relative to the amount of energy produced. Energy return in investment is <10x for solar, but more like 100x for nuclear. We have an energy budget to solver climate change. This is nothing to do with how much things cost.
Angostura 2y ago
Now run that in comparison to building and decommissioning a nuclear power station
- m101 2y ago
  It works out even with that. It's actually better than that - many nuclear plants work well past their initial design lifetimes.
Dylan16807 2y ago
"A lot" is really subjective, so I'll link this chart instead: https://assets.solar.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Carbon-footprint-of-solar-panels.png https://assets.solar.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Carbon-f... I'd say 1-5% of coal is pretty good. Also as we make the power grid cleaner and switch to electric vehicles, the CO2 used in manufacturing goes down.
- m101 2y ago
  It's not about comparing to coal but rather about comparing to other good alternatives, with that being nuclear. Energy return in investment is <10x for solar, but more like 100x for nuclear. We have an energy budget to solver climate change. This is nothing to do with how much things cost.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    You said solar and wind emit a lot, but according to the chart wind and nuclear are tied. Rooftop solar is worse, but 4x worse than wind/nuclear is still quite good (and non-rooftop solar is almost certainly better than that). Solar's energy return on investment is higher than 10x by my searching, and we should be mass producing all three technologies at this point.
Ghaenergyyy 2y ago
Its not a lot. Pls don't repeat this. Wind and solar turnaround is very fast...
- m101 2y ago
  Energy return in investment is <10x for solar, but more like 100x for nuclear. We have an energy budget to solver climate change. This is nothing to do with how much things cost.
  - Ghaenergyyy 2y ago
    That was not my point. A solar panel is co2 neutral after 3 years and wind in a year. And if we could build nuclear properly in a reasonable fast way around the globe, i would be for investing it heavily anyway i'm just not controling it in anyway and the only thing actually working is solar, wind and battery. Low risk, broad spectrum investment (private, small companies, big, basically everyone can)

Solar and wind emit a lot of CO2 upfront relative to the energy they produce down the line.

by m101 2y ago

Solar and wind emit a lot of CO2 upfront relative to the energy they produce down the line.

So does nuclear, and in much larger absolute extent: production of steel and concrete, used copiously in NPP construction, inevitably releases a lot of CO2. Melting silicon or smelting aluminum, not nearly as much. (IDK about epoxy resin production.) I suppose that instead of eliminating the processes that produce large amounts of CO2, we should embrace them, learn to capture the CO2 where it's produced in high concentrations (like steel plants or cement furnaces), and either bind the carbon in non-volatile ways, like in plastics, or produce fuel from it again and close the loop.

UltraSane 2y ago
[dead]
m101 2y ago
It's not about absolute but about relative to the amount of energy produced. Energy return in investment is <10x for solar, but more like 100x for nuclear. We have an energy budget to solver climate change. This is nothing to do with how much things cost.

Angostura 2y ago

Now run that in comparison to building and decommissioning a nuclear power station

m101 2y ago
It works out even with that. It's actually better than that - many nuclear plants work well past their initial design lifetimes.

Dylan16807 2y ago

"A lot" is really subjective, so I'll link this chart instead: https://assets.solar.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Carbon-footprint-of-solar-panels.png https://assets.solar.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Carbon-f... I'd say 1-5% of coal is pretty good. Also as we make the power grid cleaner and switch to electric vehicles, the CO2 used in manufacturing goes down.

m101 2y ago
It's not about comparing to coal but rather about comparing to other good alternatives, with that being nuclear. Energy return in investment is <10x for solar, but more like 100x for nuclear. We have an energy budget to solver climate change. This is nothing to do with how much things cost.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  You said solar and wind emit a lot, but according to the chart wind and nuclear are tied. Rooftop solar is worse, but 4x worse than wind/nuclear is still quite good (and non-rooftop solar is almost certainly better than that). Solar's energy return on investment is higher than 10x by my searching, and we should be mass producing all three technologies at this point.

Ghaenergyyy 2y ago

Its not a lot. Pls don't repeat this. Wind and solar turnaround is very fast...

m101 2y ago
Energy return in investment is <10x for solar, but more like 100x for nuclear. We have an energy budget to solver climate change. This is nothing to do with how much things cost.
- Ghaenergyyy 2y ago
  That was not my point. A solar panel is co2 neutral after 3 years and wind in a year. And if we could build nuclear properly in a reasonable fast way around the globe, i would be for investing it heavily anyway i'm just not controling it in anyway and the only thing actually working is solar, wind and battery. Low risk, broad spectrum investment (private, small companies, big, basically everyone can)