Slashdot Mirror
The World Set a New Record For Renewable Power in 2017, But Emissions Are Still Rising (qz.com)
In 2017, the world deployed an ever-expanding amount of solar and wind power, setting a new record for renewable-power capacity added to the grid. From a report: In fact, the money spent on renewable installations was more than twice the sum spent on nuclear and fossil-fuel power, according to the annual Global Status Report published by renewables policy group REN21. Over the past 10 years, global installed renewable-power capacity, which includes hydropower, has doubled.
That growth, however, isn't enough to reduce emissions. World demand for energy increased by 2.1% last year, and low-carbon sources could not keep pace. As a result, the word's energy-related carbon emissions rose by 1.7%, the first rise in four years. It's an important reminder that, despite all the talk about the growth of renewables, we still rely heavily on fossil fuels.
That growth, however, isn't enough to reduce emissions. World demand for energy increased by 2.1% last year, and low-carbon sources could not keep pace. As a result, the word's energy-related carbon emissions rose by 1.7%, the first rise in four years. It's an important reminder that, despite all the talk about the growth of renewables, we still rely heavily on fossil fuels.
But the capacity factor is low and the O&M cost is not free. The land required is not free. The capital cost is not free. The owners cost is not free. The cost of T&D is not free. Levelized cost means renewables still cannot compete with natural gas.
You will be using fossil fuel your entire lives. Get over it.
Take all proven reserves and extrapolate the new finds, add 25% for extraction methods. All of this will become C02 or methane. No matter how much one tries not to, there will be burning of fossil fuels. since lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is longer than the time it will be reuired to burn it all you now know how much CO2 will be in the atmosphere. We will roast ourselves, and acidify the ocean. The real question is are there any positive feedback effects? such as the acidity of the ocean causing a fall off in it's absorption, the build up of oil films decrasing the flux of CO2 into the oceans, the metltng of the tundra releasing methane?
And finally there's the one big one we already have the in sedimentary layers to guide us: forests die, release carbon, and the heat kills more forests. Oddly many people think that is the origin of hysteresis that causes the iceage cylce. It's not proven but the theory says ice ages are triggered by global warming transporting more water to the cold regions.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Nuclear fission reactors are clean and produce continuous power.
Ah yes, lines from 1979 by the great physicist, Dan Fogelberg.
If you ignore the fact that solar has and will continue to double in efficiency / decreased price per watt / decreased price of installation over regular, repeatable time periods, you have a point.
You don't need direct Sun light. Solar panels can generate around 80% of peak during dismal overcast days. And there are batteries. They really are not that expensive. Some places are even pairing batteries with fossil fuel like coal. A recent case study showed they were able to save $35mil in fuel over a 6 month period from a $55mil battery bank. Seems to me that batteries pay for themselves.
If we switched to GaAs-based or CdTe based solar panel technologies, you might have had a point. But silicon cells? Nothing really dangerous about them.,
You mean the folks that received between 1 and 15 mSv for the inhabitants of the affected areas? Note that the average annual dose for Japanese citizens is around 4mSv. So for the most severe case of residents, they got a 4 year dose. Current residual radiation is lower than many cities natural background radiation.
http://www.pref.fukushima.lg.j...
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
I'm not worried about solder. But clearly you didn't even take time to google PV production chemicals before responding.
I don't need to, because I actually know the technology. You seem to be not afraid of nuclear waste because it is "easy to manage, highly inert". Well, in turn, I'm not afraid of the chemicals named in that site
Let me help;
No, let me help. As I said, I actually know the technology. The chemicals named in that site are: "Hydrochloric acid, copper, trichlorosilane gas and silicon waste."
Hydrochloric acid: Wow, sounds scary! Acid! Well, uh, except just mix the waste with dilute sodium hydroxide, and it turns into salt and water.
copper: You know what? I'm not afraid of copper. Sorry. I even have it in my house-- it's in the wires!
trichlorosilane gas: Solar production don't want to waste the silane-- it's your feedstock-- but if there is waste? Burn it. It turns into silicon dioxide (sand), water, and hydrochloric acid (see above).
and silicon waste: Silicon is pretty inert.
Really. If you are not scared of nuclear waste, you should really really not be scared of solar array production waste. Use the same standards of "scaryness" for both.
(Several other chemicals are named later on in the article... which are not used in current technology panels.)
You already know Americans produce more CO2 from coal powered electricity than Chinese people.
Chinese coal plants produced 3,573 MT of CO2 in 2017 American coal plants produced 1,056 MT of CO2 in 2017
Per person America (less than 1/4 China's population) produces more CO2 from coal plants than China does...much more...OOPS.
Then on top of that America is the biggest user of natural gas. And America too, is the far biggest oil user.
It's no wonder your CO2 emissions are so much more than every one elses.