Comment by gosub100
2 days 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.
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.
its not a green plant if they conveniently escape all accounting. its a scam.
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.
1 reply →
> 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/10.1080/03036758.2024.2...
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X2...
[3] https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02230-0
[3 - sharing link] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-023-02230-0.epdf?shar...