There’s a persistent myth that new solar farms don’t really help tackle climate change because panels are “made with coal” and “never pay back” their carbon debt. This is simply false. - UN: solar ~8x cleaner than gas, ~19x than coal per kWh - panels repay CO2 in 4 months; save 57x over life
Just ordered for my home!
Plus you can install them quickly and in increments. Unlike power stations that take 5 plus years and have a fixed capacity.
I have no particular brief for hydro but it does seem to me that a. it could be usefully split into "big hydro" where upland dams are created, and "small" hydro such as putting a few turnines into a river and b. it is also being talked about as "battery" storage for solar/wind surpluses
Why is hydro so relatively high? Concrete involved in dam construction?
Not sure, but I did see an article that decaying matter at the bottom of the artificial lake releases a lot of additional methane. I might be drawing a false conclusion though, fact check it.
Digging into the cited UN study, it looks like the specifically excluded decaying biomass from the calculation (though you are right that is a noteworthy general concern), the main contributor for this data appears to be transporting materials for construction.
But it is very unclear how generalizable these numbers are given the estimates are based solely on 2 dam projects in a remote region of Patagonia in Chile unece.org/sites/defaul...
Also as an adjacent issue, every hydro dam is bespoke, so construction and planning costs would remain high but solar and wind are basically copy and paste.
Okay, but you wouldn't really expect such bespoke-ness of design and build to actually contribute higher CO2 to be recouped during the operating life, would you? The transporting materials bit makes more sense I suppose.
Yes, I suppose the bespoke is already factored into the original construction costs that makes sense to me
In general manufacturing and installation of solar and windmills have a cost and carbon footprint. So it’s a negative…initially. That’s the naive maga banter. However SO DO NEW power plants. They don’t just pop up. Conclusion: over time green is greener.
And the best technology of all is one we’ve had for decades but fearmongering prevents us from using.
That's not even factoring bonuses like "agrivoltaics" practices in which crops and grazing co-exist with solar farms, resulting in often superior agricultural outputs while making dual-use of the land.
Yes! Plus think of all the places that would benefit from additional shade. We have all these massive black asphalt parking lots acting as solar radiators and heating up our cities. Putting solar over them is an easy win win.
And if you can put solar panels above your crops, you should be able to put a power rail there so you can use electric farming equipment, powered by the very solar panels that runs along it.
Yes, I wish people talked about this more. Fascinating development. China is apparently going heavily into agrivoltaics because of its huge benefits. Everyone else should too.
I was literally just reading this article yesterday about how wool shorn from sheep grazed on solar farms is superior, due to the better grasses they eat, the shade of the panels, etc. www.talkingclimate.ca/p/solar-pane...
Exactly!!! Like solar panels as shade in car parks. I’ve seen those in SoCal. So many ways to include solar panels in dual land use!!!
The truth the climate change deniers don't want exposed! Most countries in the world are now reaping the amazing benefits of wind and solar while our orange clown king keeps shouting "drill baby drill" as we fall far behind!
Beginning year three with solar panels on our home. Our electric bill is about $15/month and while you do pay the solar installers for the system, the tax credit provides a significant savings overall. I don't understand why every Democrat (in single family homes) hasn't switched to solar.
What other things are made of coal? Maybe a pencil? I’m not an engineer but if panels were made of coal, rather than some sort of fancy pants silicon they really wouldnt work very well. ;)
10 tomes. more Co2. them Nuklear power ... and. very volatile.
Solar panels are not made of coal, they are made using coal generated electricity. Even if the first panels don’t recoup their carbon cost the electricity they make can reduce the carbon cost of the next solar panels. Eventually there’s enough solar energy that coal is no longer needed at all.
Thanks for sharing.
Please alt text your pivotal data✨
Bookmarking this for handy reference.
Oil industry propaganda is pushed with a lot of money behind it.
No brown envelopes in solar. #JustStopOil
We never think about how to simply use less. Pitiful.
As solar gets cheaper, sum of inputs cheaper including less energy to make each panel! 🤓 Else, if energy inputs unchanged over time, soon all solar cost energy🤯 Same for wind, batteries💪 EROEI <3 months 25 year panel life, 24 3/4 years carbon free Economic RoI ~ 25%pa bsky.app/profile/prof...
There's a lot of money to be made in climate denial
We love solar, we do not love unscrupulous panel manufacturers & sales that unknowingly to us use forever toxic chemical that make when its time to replace not only the land is destroyed for 300 years, so are the train cars and spills to the toxic dumps for 300 years. Yes it is an issue. PFAS
If a solar panel manufacturer were to put solar panels on their production facility, there would be no carbon deficit in the production phase.
My school district just installed on all of our campuses.
It always amazes me that planting trees isn't considered an offset solution. AI will give you all the pertinent statistics, even how many acres to offset carbon, but if you bring it up you hear it won't work. I suspect it's due to greedy developers not actual scientists.
The primary problem is that it takes quite a while for a tree to start sequestering carbon rather than emitting more carbon, and poorly managed woodland will die before that point, which just generates further emissions. Trees are still good for other reasons, but we still need to reduce emissions.
Well if a tree might die, let's certainly not plant a forest. Let's not even consider a mulripronged approach. Far be it from me to stand in front of the bulldozers of developers so how about if every home was encouraged to plant 1 yard tree, just one.
You absolutely should not attempt to plant a forest if you do not have a plan for keeping those trees alive, and that is the problem. It is cheap to blanket acres of land with saplings that will die, and the company that plants them has no reason to care because they already have your offset money.
Trees and forest have flourished quite well for thousands of years without the well intended hand of man. Do a few die? Yes, and return nutrients to the soil. A forest is not a farm to be tended, it provides fresh air and also refuge for dwindling wildlife.
As I mentioned in my first post, trees are still good for other reasons. Tree lined streets are cooler and have better air quality. Trees can shelter smaller plants that also help contribute both to air and soil quality and to overall carbon reduction. But a tree is a century of investment.
Carbon offset is a scam, and we should not consider the promise of carbon sequestration in a decades time as a license to pollute today. That does not mean we should not plant trees, but it does mean that we should be careful to make sure that when we do we take care of the trees that we plant.
Nuance is hard in short form text, but I hope this comes across in the spirit that it was intended.
I agree with you on carbon sequestered being a scam. Personally, I think the solution lies more in the realm of achieving a balance. Perhaps a good start would be concentrating on renovating abandoned areas over clearing new ground and expanding.
As for your comment about nuance I ask you to please use the same grace with me
LOL, as a retired engineer, I can tell you this was bullshit in the late 1990s
It sure is persistent
My Alberta relatives have told me waste (broken panels and broken wind turbines) is a big issue for renewable energy. Apparently there are piles and piles of discarded solar panels and wind turbine blades piling up 🤔
To my knowledge wind turbine plates can currently not be recycled. Solar panels should be recyclable
Both are very much recyclable (blades and panels). Howeber, cumulative blade waste from 2020 to 2050 is estimated to represent only 0.05% to 1.6% of MSW going to landfills each year in the US. It is a vanishingly small issue that has been wildly overblown.
That is what I figured and have said to them. O&G is still worse for the environment. But they don't like hearing that.
It's not the renewables that we add that count, it's the amount fossil generation that we remove that's important.
Need more nuclear too
Nuclear is expensive and slow though. Why bother when solar + wind + batteries already solves the problem?
It doesn't help the myth that for many needing a loan to purchase there is only a break even point. Such is my case.
You can say crazy shit like that on right wing media (tv, radio, podcasts,etc.) because no one will challenge you and the idiots tuning in will believe it.
85% of original efficiency after 25 yrs
It’s not false, as we can see from our spiralling energy prices.
you know what else is made with coal? coal if solar usage reduces reliance on coal plants, it's already carbon positive
The logic is so absurd 🤷🏼♂️
The myth comes from MAGAts fed a steady diet of tripe and bots made by fossil fuels operatives. The resting us are aware of the facts.
Even the "made from coal" bit is no longer fully true. 39% of China's electricity is already from renewables.
The only issue I know of is there is some toxic by products or used to be I guess that was 20 years ago when I last knew something about the chemical manufacturing for a photovoltaic cell.
Jan, thanks for your work. Helpful tip in debunking myths - don’t repeat them, especially don’t lead with them. Just clearly state the truth. www.linkedin.com/pulse/troubl...
Or, it may not matter. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
👍
Unfortunately; there's far less of a myth in countries like Qatar, who invest 10% of their 90% fossil fuels market, to keep renewables at a peak of 10%, by using as much fossil fuels as possible, to produce the renewables. These devolving profit sources need to be replaced.
Solar farms reduce emissions but equipment is made from oil byproducts. That must improve to zero carbon output to stop global warming. But solar energy is on the right track to green energy while oil addiction is getting more expensive to maintain cancer causing global power.
Do those charts include the carbon debt for the manufacturing of whatever it is that is burning the coal? That always seems to be conveniently ignored
Why is hydro so high? From the concrete and ecosystem damage?
Way more beneficial to install these solar farms on existing buildings, over parking lots or along roads rather than looking at good farmland. Farmers can & should benefit from clever installations, but they cannot be the only option. Subsidies to install them on residential homes must be better.
World needs to put the pedal the floor on solar. It’s probably two decades too late though.
I am not all that familiar with production for photovoltaic panels, but it seems to me that electricity is bound to be involved. Do we know if this chart assumes that said power is generated through combustion or solar?
Pity that the "failed wind" is missing from this graph.
The myth is propaganda.
Several countries now rely heavily on renewable energy, sometimes nearly canceling fossil fuel use. China leads with record solar generation, producing more than any other nation. The shift proves clean power is not just possible—it’s already happening.
What is the carbon footprint to build on of these.
Ask the experts. I just know that since I was born, 75 years ago, the fossil fuel industry has known what their pollution will do to our environment, our lives. Greed literally kills.
And.., soon… the equipment used to mine, transport , and refine materials will all be electric!!!
And even if they used coal for power to make them, it means the next generation of solar panels would use less coal power and more green power to be made, and that would compound every generation of panels put out until it's all green.
The government should not be making these decisions over scientist and over people!
📌
I have never heard that myth. I have heard people point out that carbon footprints are associated with all forms of electricity generation, commerce and transport. That is why net zero is almost impossible to achieve (we still need to push towards it). Why anyone objects to solar panels is beyond me
But surely as we decarbonise the grid and electrify more things, we reach a point where there are no longer GHG emissions associated with manufacturing? Net zero will become easier to achieve the more renewables and nuclear we add. There are only a few challenges remaining after that (e.g. concrete)
It's almost as if those perpetuating this myth are not interested in the truth and have some other agenda.
Almost
The fossil fuels producers have been lying to US for years.
“Research shows cigarettes are actually good for your health” ‘Research’ put out by cigarette companies. Oil barons are behind the propaganda. Solar, wind, limited hydro, nuclear are the way of the future bc oil is not limitless and we WILL run out.
Stop with the facts already .. you're confusing the issue! :) Unfortunately the real issue is the current energy barons wanting to milk the last cent out even if it means destroying the climate. it's a price they are willing to pay.
I hear this from people where I live all the time and it’s so asinine!
