3 ms·

This is literally the problem. Transmission is desperately needed, much more than generation right now. The issue is that it's hard to explain to people why thi

This is literally the problem. Transmission is desperately needed, much more than generation right now. The issue is that it's hard to explain to people why this is, and even when they understand they react like you do. RENEWABLES NEED TRANSMISSION!!! We need to be building unprecedented Manhattan project levels of transmission, yesterday! But instead we will put some solar panels on a car park and feel like we did our part. Solar is the easy part. Storage and/or transmission is the hard part.

gosub100 1y ago
Is this whole "new set of cables" factored into the CO2 emissions equation? We're undoubtedly going to use massive amounts of energy to mine the metal, melt it into wire, transport it to the site, build the towers, etc. Is that energy "green" ?
- pjc50 1y ago
  > Is that energy "green" ? Not very, but neither is continuing to use fossil fuels on a huge scale.
  - gosub100 1y ago
    So why do it at all if there is no accounting to prove it's green? It's almost as if this movement is a scam. No CO2 equivalent publications on solar, or on recycling. It's just "do what we say or the climate will die". I reject that imperative.
    - ben_w 1y ago
      Before you've built any green power plants, none of the energy you use to build green power plants can itself be green. When all the power plants are green, all of the energy you use to build green power plants is necessarily green. How green a new power plant is, during the process of construction, is a statement of how much progress you've already made before this step, not how much you make in the act of making this step.
      - gosub100 1y ago
        its not a green plant if they conveniently escape all accounting. its a scam.
        ben_w 1y ago
        They're also not escaping any such accounting, but that wasn't my point. PV pays its own energy cost in a few months these days. But even then, the very first PV had to be made with mostly fossil fuels and some hydroelectric, now the new ones in China are made with 35% renewables. Grids have the same question: how green it is to modify today is the current status of the power supply (etc.), not the status it will be when it's been modified.
        ViewTrick1002 1y ago
        I remember seeing such a paper linked by a nuclear bro. Going on and on about how important the LCA was and how nuclear should be the choice. After pages and pages of ”sciency” equations it ends with the Chinese average grid mix in terms of gCO2/kWh.
      - throwaway5081 1y ago
        > Before you've built any green power plants, none of the energy you use to build green power plants can itself be green. Another dimension is time. They can be considered "green" once they have produced more energy than was used for construction from non-green sources.
    - Chilko 1y ago
      > if there is no accounting to prove it's green? It's almost as if this movement is a scam. No CO2 equivalent publications on solar, or on recycling You state this as if that's a fact - just because you haven't looked for them doesn't mean they don't exist. Here's two examples showing that wind [1] and solar [2] have good environmental payback times in my home country due to avoided emissions, a country which already has an ~80% renewable grid. Additionally, [3] is a good resource that puts the potential waste from solar farms into context with other sources (such as coal ash) and shows this is an unfounded fear. Do some research and challenge your biases before you spread misinformation. [1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03036758.2024.2344785#abstract https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03036758.2024.2... [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X24002299 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X2... [3] https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02230-0 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02230-0 [3 - sharing link] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-023-02230-0.epdf?sharing_token=mYyc5NKtQENGmDPnwQ5J69RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M0UbHXgdKFmUfNV6tVbdrnxKmAqpO2hzNtxSIuGP0LrgRPuAjZj12WJzvdmxRy05xj9NCEtoabe-fA4j5BM3Sb_qUEKd0IhDFUJ0dz42WejpwXtHWUKLi8j7k3sMK7lPg%3D https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-023-02230-0.epdf?shar...
SoftTalker 1y ago
And I'd still much rather pay a utility every month for electricity (and have them be responsible for maintaining and upgrading the infrastructure) than install and maintain my own solar plant on my roof, for the same reasons that I'd rather pay utilities to provide me with water and sewer service than have my own well and septic system.
pfdietz 1y ago
With sufficiently cheap storage, no transmission is needed. There's a tradeoff, and batteries are rapidly improving.
- cogman10 1y ago
  The only real downside to batteries is the cost. The upsides are vast. Beyond adding feasibility to solar and wind, batteries stabilize the grid. The ability to instantly absorb and output power in response to demand or a lack of demand is incredibly valuable.
  - pfdietz 1y ago
    I was somewhat gobsmacked when I learned there are electric stoves with integrated batteries (the batteries serving to reduce the maximum current draw for homes wired for limited current.)
    - cogman10 1y ago
      And, when you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Stoves spend 90% of their time drawing 0 power. A fridge would also do well to have a backup battery.
- ben_w 1y ago
  While true, with sufficiently cheap transmission, no storage is needed. But only the Chinese have either the capability to, or interest in, building a one-square-meter-cross-section aluminium belt around the planet, and that means a geopolitical faff.
  - pfdietz 1y ago
    > While true, with sufficiently cheap transmission, no storage is needed. Where "sufficiently cheap" here means "affordable over intercontinental distances". I believe storage costs are falling faster than transmission costs.

gosub100 1y ago

Is this whole "new set of cables" factored into the CO2 emissions equation? We're undoubtedly going to use massive amounts of energy to mine the metal, melt it into wire, transport it to the site, build the towers, etc. Is that energy "green" ?

pjc50 1y ago
> Is that energy "green" ? Not very, but neither is continuing to use fossil fuels on a huge scale.
- gosub100 1y ago
  So why do it at all if there is no accounting to prove it's green? It's almost as if this movement is a scam. No CO2 equivalent publications on solar, or on recycling. It's just "do what we say or the climate will die". I reject that imperative.
  - ben_w 1y ago
    Before you've built any green power plants, none of the energy you use to build green power plants can itself be green. When all the power plants are green, all of the energy you use to build green power plants is necessarily green. How green a new power plant is, during the process of construction, is a statement of how much progress you've already made before this step, not how much you make in the act of making this step.
    - gosub100 1y ago
      its not a green plant if they conveniently escape all accounting. its a scam.
      - ben_w 1y ago
        They're also not escaping any such accounting, but that wasn't my point. PV pays its own energy cost in a few months these days. But even then, the very first PV had to be made with mostly fossil fuels and some hydroelectric, now the new ones in China are made with 35% renewables. Grids have the same question: how green it is to modify today is the current status of the power supply (etc.), not the status it will be when it's been modified.
        ViewTrick1002 1y ago
        I remember seeing such a paper linked by a nuclear bro. Going on and on about how important the LCA was and how nuclear should be the choice. After pages and pages of ”sciency” equations it ends with the Chinese average grid mix in terms of gCO2/kWh.
    - throwaway5081 1y ago
      > Before you've built any green power plants, none of the energy you use to build green power plants can itself be green. Another dimension is time. They can be considered "green" once they have produced more energy than was used for construction from non-green sources.
  - Chilko 1y ago
    > if there is no accounting to prove it's green? It's almost as if this movement is a scam. No CO2 equivalent publications on solar, or on recycling You state this as if that's a fact - just because you haven't looked for them doesn't mean they don't exist. Here's two examples showing that wind [1] and solar [2] have good environmental payback times in my home country due to avoided emissions, a country which already has an ~80% renewable grid. Additionally, [3] is a good resource that puts the potential waste from solar farms into context with other sources (such as coal ash) and shows this is an unfounded fear. Do some research and challenge your biases before you spread misinformation. [1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03036758.2024.2344785#abstract https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03036758.2024.2... [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X24002299 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X2... [3] https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02230-0 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02230-0 [3 - sharing link] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-023-02230-0.epdf?sharing_token=mYyc5NKtQENGmDPnwQ5J69RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M0UbHXgdKFmUfNV6tVbdrnxKmAqpO2hzNtxSIuGP0LrgRPuAjZj12WJzvdmxRy05xj9NCEtoabe-fA4j5BM3Sb_qUEKd0IhDFUJ0dz42WejpwXtHWUKLi8j7k3sMK7lPg%3D https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-023-02230-0.epdf?shar...

SoftTalker 1y ago

And I'd still much rather pay a utility every month for electricity (and have them be responsible for maintaining and upgrading the infrastructure) than install and maintain my own solar plant on my roof, for the same reasons that I'd rather pay utilities to provide me with water and sewer service than have my own well and septic system.

pfdietz 1y ago

With sufficiently cheap storage, no transmission is needed. There's a tradeoff, and batteries are rapidly improving.

cogman10 1y ago
The only real downside to batteries is the cost. The upsides are vast. Beyond adding feasibility to solar and wind, batteries stabilize the grid. The ability to instantly absorb and output power in response to demand or a lack of demand is incredibly valuable.
- pfdietz 1y ago
  I was somewhat gobsmacked when I learned there are electric stoves with integrated batteries (the batteries serving to reduce the maximum current draw for homes wired for limited current.)
  - cogman10 1y ago
    And, when you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Stoves spend 90% of their time drawing 0 power. A fridge would also do well to have a backup battery.
ben_w 1y ago
While true, with sufficiently cheap transmission, no storage is needed. But only the Chinese have either the capability to, or interest in, building a one-square-meter-cross-section aluminium belt around the planet, and that means a geopolitical faff.
- pfdietz 1y ago
  > While true, with sufficiently cheap transmission, no storage is needed. Where "sufficiently cheap" here means "affordable over intercontinental distances". I believe storage costs are falling faster than transmission costs.