2 ms·

It does matter because for now renewables are manufactured mostly with coal and oil EDIT: I'm not a renewable skeptic, answers bellow

• stavros 5mo ago
  Which is a tiny CO2 spend compared to the benefit, unless you dishonestly factor in manufacturing energy costs as coming from oil.
• speed_spread 5mo ago
  They're manufactured once and then generate way more energy than was used to make them.
  • simgt 5mo ago
    Of course, but pretending consumption doesn't matter in that situation is just silly
• michaelbuckbee 5mo ago
  All of the cradle-to-grave studies I've seen about greenhouse gas emissions for renewables versus coal/oil still indicate massive improvements. This government meta study of 3,000 such studies puts PV solar at roughly 20x less emissions than coal. https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf
  • simgt 5mo ago
    Yes, but you're missing the point, I'm not debating that. Renewables aren't free, we should care about consumption just as much as production, and we don't know (yet) how to sustain the current consumption with renewables only, that includes being able to manufacture renewables.
    • michaelbuckbee 5mo ago
      That's fair and fwiw something I'm in firm agreement with you, but also just not what I took from your comment.
• anon7000 5mo ago
  This doesn’t matter that much. Solar and batteries will last for decades with minimal maintenance and no input. Any kind of fossil fuel generation means constantly going out and digging up new oil sources, shipping them around the world, and then burning them. So you invest a lot of time & money into something that disappears immediately and also heats up the environment. Meanwhile, a solar panel just sits there for decades passively making energy with very few externalities. Not to mention, recycling solar panels & batteries is getting cheaper & more effective by the day. The metal (and even oil!) you dug out of the ground to build them didn’t get burned up; a lot of it is still usable.
  • qsera 5mo ago
    Imagine if all the vehicles that run of fossil fules is converted into EV. What are the incentives in place to properly recycle the batteries? Does a new battery technology go into production before the technology to recycle it is production grade/economically viable? What happens when we are getting like a million EV batteries, globally per day, to dispose off? What happens when these batteries use vastly different chemical composition (because they are from various stages of battery evolution) and need vastly different methods to process? What happens when these things pile up and poison the land? dumped in ocean or rivers? burned up releasing god-knows-what into air? How long before the regulation (often times toothless) kicks in to handle these things? I am all for getting rid of pollution, but there should be some caution in rushing onto new things, which is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.
    • dalyons 5mo ago
      “Caution” does nothing except ensure we keep spewing more co2 for longer and cooking the planet. There is no practical alternative to EVs. So let’s go all in as fast as possible please
      • qsera 5mo ago
        There is no practical alternative to air, water and earth as well...So let us please consider the possibility of pollution of those that could be caused by a global dumping of EV batteries