Backup needs to be included in the carbon footprint and intensity calculations. How much backup? As much as seven weeks. At today's prices, for an all-electric American economy with an appetite for 1.7 TWe, the cost would be about NINE TIMES TOTAL GDP EVERY YEAR!
Thanks very much, Enrico. I haven't seen this laid out clearly anywhere else.
Are you able to estimate the carbon content of Chinese PV other than "much more"? Is much of the polysilicon production driven by coal (as I've seen a number of places) or by LNG, per Doomberg today?
The EROI is just too low for solar PV for it to have 40 gm/kwh CO2 intensity. Similarity I really doubt Wind Industrial sites supplying grid power are 12 gms/kwh. I'm certain those numbers are based on one wind turbine's material inputs vs its theoretical perfect lifetime electricity generation. I bet in the real world they are at least 2X that and probably, like the solar PV, more like 4X. And of course the elephant in the room is that doesn't include the effects of the cycling wind or solar on grid efficiency. Which can easily push the ACTUAL carbon intensity up to coal levels or more.
BTW, the CERI analysis of CANDU nuclear power in Ontario calculated it was 1.8 gms/kwh. With 95% of the supply chain Canadian.
But there is no global warming caused by CO2 in the atmosphere. The earth is actually in a cooling phase. The scientist William Happer published a paper proving that CO2 in the atmosphere cannot cause global warming.
Given the political ramifications, I am not surprised that knowingly inaccurate emissions data is being used for PV, but I am otherwise grateful to Enrico Mariutti for putting in the work, educating me, getting the word out!
As if any of that is relevant to the eminent climate crisis in the disaster awaiting? Deflection agitprop is pathetic. I guess the morally bankrupt barrel has no bottom
I have often wondered if the emissions intensity includes the raw materials or if it assumes the materials arrive at the place of manufacture emissions free? I suspect it is the later as the mining and extraction of silica from sand for the glass alone is energy intensive.
Great work Enrico, revealing yet more smoke and mirrors when it comes to expensive unreliables. Almost everywhere you look, you find a complex web of lies propping up the Trojan Horse of AGW. Meanwhile we have to bear the brunt of the cost. Here in the UK our energy bills have tripled in the last 2yrs because apparently our Masters want us to be a world leader in self-inflicted economic suicide. Brilliant article (I was secretly hoping the EROEI would be higher the Gas and Coal😁).
Excellent work on the Numerator. Thank you. What about the denominator? I am confident you vetted the capacity factor based upon the insolation per location. I wonder though, what lifetime do they assign to solar panels and is that realistic?
The real question is despite the obvious failings that at least a couple of 'smart' people in the Wind/Solar crowd would blatantly know about, why are we as a species rampaging towards this cliff? What's the endgame here?
Backup needs to be included in the carbon footprint and intensity calculations. How much backup? As much as seven weeks. At today's prices, for an all-electric American economy with an appetite for 1.7 TWe, the cost would be about NINE TIMES TOTAL GDP EVERY YEAR!
http://vandyke.mynetgear.com/Worse.html. https://vsnyder.substack.com.
Thanks very much, Enrico. I haven't seen this laid out clearly anywhere else.
Are you able to estimate the carbon content of Chinese PV other than "much more"? Is much of the polysilicon production driven by coal (as I've seen a number of places) or by LNG, per Doomberg today?
Huh! I knew it! Excellent article!
The EROI is just too low for solar PV for it to have 40 gm/kwh CO2 intensity. Similarity I really doubt Wind Industrial sites supplying grid power are 12 gms/kwh. I'm certain those numbers are based on one wind turbine's material inputs vs its theoretical perfect lifetime electricity generation. I bet in the real world they are at least 2X that and probably, like the solar PV, more like 4X. And of course the elephant in the room is that doesn't include the effects of the cycling wind or solar on grid efficiency. Which can easily push the ACTUAL carbon intensity up to coal levels or more.
BTW, the CERI analysis of CANDU nuclear power in Ontario calculated it was 1.8 gms/kwh. With 95% of the supply chain Canadian.
We waste so much time and effort, trying to correct the reasoning of those who really do not want to have their reasoning changed.
But there is no global warming caused by CO2 in the atmosphere. The earth is actually in a cooling phase. The scientist William Happer published a paper proving that CO2 in the atmosphere cannot cause global warming.
The First Law of Thermodynamics still holds: "Energy Cannot be Created or Destroyed, Only Transformed".
Great article.
In compliment, see :
https://tucoschild.substack.com/p/chinas-quest-for-world-domination
Given the political ramifications, I am not surprised that knowingly inaccurate emissions data is being used for PV, but I am otherwise grateful to Enrico Mariutti for putting in the work, educating me, getting the word out!
As if any of that is relevant to the eminent climate crisis in the disaster awaiting? Deflection agitprop is pathetic. I guess the morally bankrupt barrel has no bottom
I have often wondered if the emissions intensity includes the raw materials or if it assumes the materials arrive at the place of manufacture emissions free? I suspect it is the later as the mining and extraction of silica from sand for the glass alone is energy intensive.
Great work Enrico, revealing yet more smoke and mirrors when it comes to expensive unreliables. Almost everywhere you look, you find a complex web of lies propping up the Trojan Horse of AGW. Meanwhile we have to bear the brunt of the cost. Here in the UK our energy bills have tripled in the last 2yrs because apparently our Masters want us to be a world leader in self-inflicted economic suicide. Brilliant article (I was secretly hoping the EROEI would be higher the Gas and Coal😁).
Excellent work on the Numerator. Thank you. What about the denominator? I am confident you vetted the capacity factor based upon the insolation per location. I wonder though, what lifetime do they assign to solar panels and is that realistic?
The real question is despite the obvious failings that at least a couple of 'smart' people in the Wind/Solar crowd would blatantly know about, why are we as a species rampaging towards this cliff? What's the endgame here?
Excellent. Now do LCOE.