← Back to context

Comment by nick238

3 days ago

Lifecycle analysis is a common and increasingly detailed field which includes impacts to manufacture, transport, install, run, and clean-up installations, either cradle-to-grave, or cradle-to-cradle (includes the cost of recycling). I assume for installations like this, those studies have been done.

There's a whole tirade in "Landman" about wind turbines not being green because of this or that thing[0], ending with the statement: "in its 20-year lifespan, it won't offset the carbon footprint of making it". These are just feelings (of the fictional character, but unfortunately ones adopted by real people) that are unconcerned with the facts that, no, the lifecycle analysis shows that wind turbines break even in 1.8 to 22.5 months, with an average of 5.3 months[1].

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBC_bug5DIQ

[1]: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.9b01030

Yes, lifecycle analysis is the holy grail.

And I'm not qualified to say the tidal based solutions will never beat out Geo/Solar/Win + Batteries. In my informed but non-professional opinion, it seems like this avenue will never ever work at scale.

From everything I've seen, we have the answer, we're just stuck under the boot of old money oil barons. Solar + wind + geo (depending on the geographic area) for the majority of our power generation. Nuclear + batteries to smooth out the duck curve form the bottom, paired with more aggressive demand pricing & thermal regulations to smooth it out from the top. That's the answer. But lobbyist's going to lobby.

Yep, lifecycle analysis is the key lens we should be using when evaluating any energy technology, especially in emotionally charged debates about what’s "green" or not