So-called Green Energy Continues to be a Boon for Fossil Fuels and China

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-the-rise-of-u-s-solar-power-a-mountain-of-chinese-coal-11627734770?fbclid=IwAR29Wrnl4oNh7mrrfIMK_mMIo2-zmX2985YPd7gKSYghfOo-KH5W9QQA6vA

Sad that solar, wind, and electric cars are worse for the environment than the status quo. Nuclear is the smartest way to go, but the meedya has everyone terrified of it. Even the frogs love nuclear. 

[Serak The Preparer 3436]

Negged for misrepresenting an article that belongs in CR anyway. The article states that Chinese coal plants are largely responsible for manufacturing of solar panels but contains no analysis (at least not beyond paywall) of cost-benefit over life-time of panel (which, yes, should also include disposal of panels). 

Even if this analysis is true for solar panels (which again, is not at all clear from the article), that is not true for EVs or wind. A recent white paper on EV's, for examples, concludes that they are a net-positive relative to internal combustion engines. You can certainly argue assumptions, but at least the analysis is laid out.

[Telegraph_it 3371]

There is no free lunch. 
 

Negging the post is a bitch move. 

[Serak The Preparer 3436]

Misrepresenting articles is also a bitch move, as is starting topics that are CR-bound in DT. I tend to agree that drive-by negging posts that aren't clear troll posts or just completely shitty (dropping racial or homophobic slurs, for example), is lame. Hence my reply. Harrison is free to neg me back (as are you or others obviously).

[aggie08 21583]

Ok, I'm going to immediately regret asking this, but why do you think spelling it "meedya" is funny, cute, or clever?

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

41 minutes ago, Telegraph_it said:

There is no free lunch. 
 

Negging the post is a bitch move. 

I am surprised this is so surprising to people.

[atomheartbevo 90054]

10 hours ago, aggie08 said:

Ok, I'm going to immediately regret asking this, but why do you think spelling it "meedya" is funny, cute, or clever?

You're trying to understand the mind of GRHorn?

[Nivek 17036]

I am surprised this is so surprising to people.

^Ladies and gentlemen, I present you Subject A of Dunning-Kruger.

[Dahobbs 17809]

10 hours ago, Telegraph_it said:

There is no free lunch. 
 

Negging the post is a bitch move. 

It is a huge misrepresentation of reality and obviously a political troll post. Of course there is no free lunch. 0 total emissions is likely impossible. But, 0 net emissions after carbon capture is possible. And the important thing is to improve from now. The CO2 produced in the manufacture of solar panels, even in dirty grids like China, represents a small fraction of the CO2 that would be produced if the energy produced by those panels was produced by fossil fuels. It is still a huge net decrease in CO2. And as grids get cleaner, less CO2 will be produced during manufacture. The same is true with EVs. An EV powered by the dirtiest grid, and including emissions associated with manufacture, still has less lifetime emissions than all but the most fuel efficient ICE cars. And as the grid gets cleaner, that lead increases. 

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/07/electric-cars-have-much-lower-life-cycle-emissions-new-study-confirms/ 

https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/are-electric-vehicles-really-better-for-the-climate-yes-heres-why/

Edited August 2, 2021 by Dahobbs

[futureman 22565]

10 hours ago, aggie08 said:

Ok, I'm going to immediately regret asking this, but why do you think spelling it "meedya" is funny, cute, or clever?

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

whose sock is this?

[Js1 85748]

9 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

whose sock is this?

GR Horn

[Schulz2.0 29042]

Germany is a real world example, especially compared to France and Sweden, that solar and wind alone don't really do much to reduce CO2 emissions.

[Post Oak 20327]

36 minutes ago, Js1 said:

GR Horn

That's who it smelled like.

[Dahobbs 17809]

39 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Germany is a real world example, especially compared to France and Sweden, that solar and wind alone don't really do much to reduce CO2 emissions.

What does this mean? Germany is an example of what? Germany has a dirtier grid, but it isn't because of renewables. 

[Pescado_Rojo 19453]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

GR Horn

I was thinking Kyle, but GR Horn makes sense too. 

 

[Telegraph_it 3371]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

It is a huge misrepresentation of reality and obviously a political troll post. Of course there is no free lunch. 0 total emissions is likely impossible. But, 0 net emissions after carbon capture is possible. And the important thing is to improve from now. The CO2 produced in the manufacture of solar panels, even in dirty grids like China, represents a small fraction of the CO2 that would be produced if the energy produced by those panels was produced by fossil fuels. It is still a huge net decrease in CO2. And as grids get cleaner, less CO2 will be produced during manufacture. The same is true with EVs. An EV powered by the dirtiest grid, and including emissions associated with manufacture, still has less lifetime emissions than all but the most fuel efficient ICE cars. And as the grid gets cleaner, that lead increases. 

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/07/electric-cars-have-much-lower-life-cycle-emissions-new-study-confirms/ 

https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/are-electric-vehicles-really-better-for-the-climate-yes-heres-why/

The WSJ article is not a troll post (perhaps the delivery was trollish). My career has pivoted to "green" energy so I am all for increased adoption and the amount of money I see being thrown around makes me believe we are going there. 

As I have come to find out there are many different shades of green as we transition to "new" energy sources. A lot of this green, zero net carbon, use clever marketing and hide some inconvenient truths. 

[Schulz2.0 29042]

26 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What does this mean? Germany is an example of what? Germany has a dirtier grid, but it isn't because of renewables. 

After Fukushima, Germany's Green Party helped force the gradual phase out of Germany's existing nuclear plants and poured money and resources into solar and wind. This means they've kept coal plants online. It means they've become more reliant on natural gas from Russia.

We're going on almost a decade later and they haven't made progress towards meeting CO2 emissions targets. Wind and solar have obvious limitations that make grids reliant on coal/natural gas/nuclear. Solar and wind also make much, much less power than nuclear. Compare Germany's grid on a given day to France or Sweden (which have a high percentage of electricity generated by nuclear). Germany's grid produces a lot more CO2.

I can agree with solar and wind being part of a solution. Solar and wind with no solar as the solar is pretty much blind faith and propaganda that ignores facts and data.

Edited August 2, 2021 by Schulz2.0

[BabaYaga 15374]

5 minutes ago, Telegraph_it said:

The WSJ article is not a troll post (perhaps the delivery was trollish). My career has pivoted to "green" energy so I am all for increased adoption and the amount of money I see being thrown around makes me believe we are going there. 

As I have come to find out there are many different shades of green as we transition to "new" energy sources. A lot of this green, zero net carbon, use clever marketing and hide some inconvenient truths. 

What was the stat?  China's opening a new coal plant every week?  They have currently more than 3x the rest of the world's coal production combined?  While worth the conversation, this talk about solar panels in the macro is akin to using a bucket to hold back a surging river.  

Then we have India and Russia.  

[Dahobbs 17809]

4 minutes ago, Telegraph_it said:

The WSJ article is not a troll post (perhaps the delivery was trollish). My career has pivoted to "green" energy so I am all for increased adoption and the amount of money I see being thrown around makes me believe we are going there. 

As I have come to find out there are many different shades of green as we transition to "new" energy sources. A lot of this green, zero net carbon, use clever marketing and hide some inconvenient truths. 

The post and it's delivery is a troll. I have no idea what the body of the article says because it is behind a paywall. But the suggestion that because CO2 is produced in the manufacture of solar panels that solar is like fossil fuels or worse (as suggested by the OP) is fucking nonsense. Of course there are emissions associated with the manufacture of pretty much anything right now. No one has claimed otherwise. The question is what is the net result. And net result for solar panels is a significant decrease in emissions. The same is true with EVs. 

Is nuclear more emission efficient than solar? I am pretty sure the answer is no when you consider emissions associated with the construction and maintenance of the plant. But, I admit that is a vague recollection of a prior study and I don't have good data on that off hand. Either is significantly better than fossil fuels. But only renewables are economically better. 

[Dahobbs 17809]

3 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

After Fukushima, Germany's Green Party helped force the gradual phase out of Germany's existing nuclear plants and poured money and resources into solar and wind. This means they've kept coal plants online. It means they've become more reliant on natural gas from Russia.

We're going on almost a decade later and they haven't made progress towards meeting CO2 emissions targets. Wind and solar have obvious limitations that make grids reliant on coal/natural gas/nuclear. Solar and wind also make much, much less power than nuclear. Compare Germany's grid on a given day to France or Sweden (which have a high percentage of electricity generated by nuclear). Germany's grid produces a lot more CO2.

I can agree with solar and wind being part of a solution. Solar and wind with no solar as the solar is pretty much blind faith and propaganda that ignores facts and data.

What does anybody that have to do with opening post? Germany's grid is  (was) dirty because it has a heavier reliance on coal as opposed to natural gas. It isn't because of renewables. You are also looking at old data. Half of Germany's production last year was from renewables. It was a huge jump from prior years, which were much more coal heavy. And, per the article below, Germany's inability to meet ambitious climate goals is due to other sectors. Progress on their grid has actually been good. 

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/electric-power-and-natural-gas/our-insights/germanys-energy-transition-at-a-crossroads#

Quote

 

The main reason is that to date nearly all CO2e savings stem from efforts in the electricity sector, where emission reductions are primarily due to the expansion of renewable-energy sources, along with the decommissioning of older conventional power plants and the surcharge for CO2 within the European emission-trading system. In the first half of 2019, electricity-sector emissions were about 15 percent lower than they were during the same period in 2018. According to the German Association of Energy and Water Industries, this drop was caused by record generation from renewable sources, a higher price for CO2, and mild weather conditions. The amount of electricity generated from renewable sources has surpassed the 2020 target (35 percent of total gross electricity consumption) since 2016. Currently target achievement for this indicator is 144 percent.

However, the electricity sector’s progress has not yet been replicated in the transportation, building, or industry sectors. In the transportation sector, emissions increased from 153 million tons to 162 million tons of CO2e (an increase of 6 percent) since 2012. The rise in passenger vehicle traffic (increase by 5 percent) more than offset the reduction in emissions per kilometer driven (decrease by 3 percent), resulting in a negative balance overall. In the industry sector, CO2e emissions increased from 180 million tons to 196 million tons (increase by 9 percent). Finally, emissions fell in the building sector, but only from 130 million tons to 117 million tons of CO2e—a drop of just 10 percent.

 

 

[Captainant 27972]

11 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

What was the stat?  China's opening a new coal plant every week?  They have currently more than 3x the rest of the world's coal production combined?  While worth the conversation, this talk about solar panels in the macro is akin to using a bucket to hold back a surging river.  

Then we have India and Russia.  

What about it? I don't see the point you're making - just that there's other countries polluting worse than us. Are you suggesting that since they're making the world dirtier, then we shouldn't give a fuck either? Or are you JuSt aSkInG qUeStIoNs?

[Neonmoon 38130]

You’re arguing with people who are emotionally attached to their beliefs and thus incapable of processing new or dynamic information 

[wildcat09 29453]

10 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

You’re arguing with people who are emotionally attached to their beliefs and thus incapable of processing new or dynamic information 

I wish we had a way to take the destruction that will result from climate change and direct it solely at the assholes who decided to pretend that it's not happening because it gave them something to argue on the internet about. If we could, I imagine their experience would resemble the deepest level of hell.

[ChickenSandwich 9856]

33 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

using a bucket to hold back a surging river

China, India and Russia.  

seems simple, do not allow imports from companies that do not have the exact same environmental guidelines as their domestic (USA) peer (and pay - another topic)

[Schulz2.0 29042]

28 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What does anybody that have to do with opening post? Germany's grid is  (was) dirty because it has a heavier reliance on coal as opposed to natural gas. It isn't because of renewables. You are also looking at old data. Half of Germany's production last year was from renewables. It was a huge jump from prior years, which were much more coal heavy. And, per the article below, Germany's inability to meet ambitious climate goals is due to other sectors. Progress on their grid has actually been good. 

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/electric-power-and-natural-gas/our-insights/germanys-energy-transition-at-a-crossroads#

 

You probably want to keep reading the article. They're facing supply issues because they've switched their grid to mainly renewables while phasing out nuclear and coal. They wouldn't have had these issues, and would have made much more progress in lowering CO2 emissions, had they merely phased out coal and kept the nuclear. 

In regards to the OP, as I said earlier, the people pushing solar and wind like to focus on the positives while completely omitting any of the negatives. It's like their dismissal of nuclear as an option. Everything comes down to their beliefs. Science, facts, and data don't matter.

Edited August 2, 2021 by Schulz2.0

[Schulz2.0 29042]

27 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

You’re arguing with people who are emotionally attached to their beliefs and thus incapable of processing new or dynamic information 

I completely believe the science that says climate change is real. I also have a background in power generation and can understand that renewables aren't necessarily the savior some want to make them out to be. 

[Dahobbs 17809]

8 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

You probably want to keep reading the article. They're facing supply issues because they've switched their grid to mainly renewables while phasing out nuclear and coal. They wouldn't have had these issues, and would have made much more progress in lowering CO2 emissions, had they merely phased out coal and kept the nuclear. 

In regards to the OP, as I said earlier, the people pushing solar and wind like to focus on the positives while completely omitting any of the negatives. It's like their dismissal of nuclear as an option. Everything comes down to their beliefs. Science, facts, and data don't matter.

Yes, they need to build more plants and interconnects. They may be winding down existing plants too quickly. But it doesn't say that renewables are an unsolvable problem as indicated by the OP. And it's clear that the power grid isn't what is currently holding back Germany's CO2 targets as you indicated.

You seem to think I'm arguing for something that I'm not. I'm merely pointing out the OP is bullshit. Anyone saying renewables are 100 perfect is also bullshitting. But they are better than what we have. Getting to 100% renewable energy without nuclear is probably not possible without massive expansion in energy storage systems. But it also isn't necessary. Natural gas is both economically efficient and better than other fossil fuels as far as emissions. We can have a grid majority renewable, some natural gas/energy storage back up, and make up the remaining emissions with carbon capture programs (not just at the power plants, but things like reforestation). 

[Neonmoon 38130]

1 hour ago, Schulz2.0 said:

I completely believe the science that says climate change is real. I also have a background in power generation and can understand that renewables aren't necessarily the savior some want to make them out to be. 

Like Dahobbs said, you’re arguing against thin air. No one is arguing renewables can replace fossil fuels now or in the near future. People are arguing against baseless troll OP

[DDD Dad 14373]

1 hour ago, Schulz2.0 said:

In regards to the OP, as I said earlier, the people pushing solar and wind like to focus on the positives while completely omitting any of the negatives. It's like their dismissal of nuclear as an option. Everything comes down to their beliefs. Science, facts, and data don't matter.

Nice broad generalization.

Many of those in favor of renewables understand their limitations and the fact that they still impact the environment (in manufacture and disposal) and are not total zero emissions. 

The issue is that those negative impacts are used by others with feelings to say we should do nothing and not utilize these types of energy because of feelings.

 

[elfenix 34385]

it's called a payback period.  in other news, water is wet, the sun rises in the east, and OU sucks.

Edited August 2, 2021 by elfenix

[F250 28944]

7 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

seems simple, do not allow imports from companies that do not have the exact same environmental guidelines as their domestic (USA) peer (and pay - another topic)

That doesn't sound simple. Shit, just getting other nations to say they will do better regarding emissions in a trade agreement is a bridge too far.

*FTA would be necessary. Unilateral agreements are retarded and you end up fucking up your economy.

 

Edited August 2, 2021 by F250

[AeroHorn 781]

This topic has been very well researched. Solar, wind and nuclear are about an order of magnitude lower in terms of Carbon footprint/Green house gas emissions compared to  coal and natural gas over their respective lifetimes (from mining and manufacturing to usage and disposal).

NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) has conducted comprehensive studies (to name one of many orgs) where they have gone over thousands of scientific/industry publications and prepared the data. https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/life-cycle-assessment.html

Summary table is below.