- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Hurray! We’ve solved climate change, and will never guess what the solution was. Buying more cheap Chinese junk. And here I though that consumerism was the cause of climate change. Silly me.
Fuck off!
Are you claiming that solar panels have a positive co2 footprint? This policy change was a massive step to a) boost solar power and b) boost decentralized energy security. Calling this “consumerism” is absolutely moronic.
I must be a moron then.
I guess we can find a bit of wisdom even in you. What’s that stone tablet you’re writing on from within your cave anyway?
Are you claiming that solar panels have a positive co2 footprint?
Wait, are you claiming they don’t? (assuming you mean a positive CO₂ footprint means net emission of CO₂).
Solar panels absolutely don’t reduce CO₂. They make things worse more slowly, just as electric cars do, but they’re still making things worse. They are most certainly not carbon neutral, let alone permanently capturing CO₂. They’re an energy multiplier, which is less bad than using the energy without the multiplier, but it isn’t a net positive.
Which I think is probably the crux of OPs point.
Solar panels do not have a positive CO2 footprint in the sense that they are net emitters of CO2. While the production of solar panels generates CO2 emissions, studies have shown that the overall carbon footprint of solar panels is significantly lower than that of traditional fossil fuel-based energy sources.
A life-cycle assessment of solar panels found that the carbon footprint of solar panels is approximately 20-50 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity generated . In contrast, the carbon footprint of coal-fired power plants is around 1,000 grams of CO2-equivalent per kWh .
Research suggests that solar panels can offset their life-cycle emissions within 2-4 years of operation, and can generate clean energy for decades beyond that . A study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology found that the net carbon emissions savings from solar panels can be up to 78% compared to traditional fossil fuel-based energy sources.
hardly slighty less shit id say.
References:
Fthenakis, V. M., & Kim, H. C. (2011). Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of solar panels. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(8), 3521-3533.
IPCC (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Reich, N. H., & Alsema, E. A. (2017). Environmental impacts of solar energy systems. In Solar Energy Engineering (pp. 255-274). Academic Press.
Perez, M. J. R., Fthenakis, V. M., & Kim, H. C. (2019). Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions and net energy analysis of solar panels. Environmental Science & Technology, 53(11), 6453-6462.
Wait, are you claiming they don’t? (assuming you mean a positive CO₂ footprint means net emission of CO₂).
Well, yes. As opposed to a negative footprint, for things that maybe not directly reduce co2 by indirectly, such as renewable energies - solar panels being one of them.
Solar panels absolutely don’t reduce CO₂. They make things worse more slowly, just as electric cars do, but they’re still making things worse. They are most certainly not carbon neutral, let alone permanently capturing CO₂. They’re an energy multiplier, which is less bad than using the energy without the multiplier, but it isn’t a net positive.
Which I think is probably the crux of OPs point.
Hence my cave & stone tablet comment. OP surely does not own a carbon neutral computer and uses a carbon neutral internet. But yes, technically speaking solar panels are carbon neutral, since they can generate more power than they consume. Obviously this very much depends on what this energy is ultimately used for but that’s just pedantic.
local energy independence is a massive W regardless of where the panels came from or if they were subsidized
No. When the pigs highjack green energy to fool you into buying more shit. The poor get poorer and the the planet suffers. But if your goal is wealth inequality and unfair power distribution, I guess you could call it a massive W.
If this was truly about power you could make those panels 30% - 50% more efficient by pointing them at the fucking sun. But then you’d only be able to sell half as many.
So having 100€ savings in a year for a 200€ panel is a bad deal for you? Seriously 200€ is cheap enough for nearly all German households to afford them. What you are essentially doing is give most German households the ability to produce their own power, greatly enhancing fair power distribution, lower the electricity bill for them and give valuable capital most of the population. The only draw back is that they produce 30-50% less electricity, but forcing that would mean that you support big corporations building those solar panels, which only helps the rich.
Yes. Your are absolutely right.
You failing to understand my point and rebutting with a purely constructed straw man has made me look quite foolish.
