> And they will be right. If it emits carbon it isn't green, it really is that simple.
Then we have no green energy sources at all, which makes it sort of useless as a description.
Manufacturing and installation of the energy source always has to be included. For something with as short of a life as solar panels, the manufacturing, transport, installation, and disposal is a critical piece in the CO2 emissions that has to be amortized over the kWh it’s expected to generate over its lifetime.
Oh please. Compare the CO2 emissions of a solar plant with those of a gas plant. Normalize for MWH produced. How many orders of magnitude is the difference?
The argument that solar emits carbon is counting the carbon emitted in construction and plant operation. That is such a minute amount of carbon in comparison to the energy produced by a gas plant in generating power that it isn’t even worth talking about for the purposes of classifying gas as “green”.
Getting the construction and logistics of anything carbon neutral is orthogonal to the carbon emissions in the production of power.
Bringing up construction CO2 is a red herring at best. I asked for numbers to illustrate how ridiculous the argument is.
> That is such a minute amount of carbon in comparison to the energy produced by a gas plant in generating power
Citation needed. A gas plant dwarves solar in energy output.
The whole point is that solar does have an emission and burying your head in the sand does no good when we are comparing solutions that don’t emit during generation but do to make (solar vs wind + batteries vs nuclear?).
Yes, solar has emissions. But in your previous message you implied that it is larger than it is by making a deceptively long list of items. These are the number of total CO2 emited per energy produced (gCO2e/kWh):
> But in your previous message you implied that it is larger than it is by making a deceptively long list of items.
No I didn’t. Your reading comprehension did that. I was simply pointing out that a dipshit stance like “no energy source can have any emissions and be called green” actually rules everything out and destroys the nuanced discussions between green energies. The statement I replied to was literally “It is as simple as I originally stated”.
> Implying that solar, nuclear or wind have emissions nowhere near gas or coal is not fair play.
Wanna try that sentence again? I think you meant to say something else because solar, wind, and nuclear absolutely have emissions nowhere near gas or coal.
The message I answered was to support that CO2 emited by solar, wind or nuclear are indeed minute compared with a gas plant, even including "short of a life, manufacturing, transport, installation, and disposal" emissions.
Because someone reading that long list of items could get confused and think that those things added so much emissions that they could be near fossil emisions. It seems that it was not your intention, but I felt a clarification and a citation was needed.
Then we have no green energy sources at all, which makes it sort of useless as a description.
Manufacturing and installation of the energy source always has to be included. For something with as short of a life as solar panels, the manufacturing, transport, installation, and disposal is a critical piece in the CO2 emissions that has to be amortized over the kWh it’s expected to generate over its lifetime.