Wouldnt then our “green renewables” also not be green due to their production lifecycle as well? Plastics, batteries, fiberglass, rare earth metals, cobalt, etc
To a small extent, yes. It's a matter of degree. Nuclear and renewables still have a much lower footprint than coal. It's just not zero.
We don't know the full lifecycle costs of fusion plants, but at least the fuel part won't involve open pit mining, unlike uranium ore, so it hopefully will be better than fission.
Nuclear have a much lower fooprint than renewables, requires much less space, last longer, is more robust, doesn't require rare earth materials or support from ex coal (like wind and solar often end up doing) as a base component.
Solar and wind is not even close to being in competition with nuclear when it comes to what is cleanest.
I don't think it makes sense to assume that there is an energy technology that doesn't produce environmental harm.
Nuclear power plants increase the temperature of rivers and they are pretty good fish killing machines.
Define substantial. Domestic PV installations reliably produce a significant percentage of domestic consumption - even in countries like Germany and the UK, which aren't known for bright sun.
Countries that do have bright sun typically skip straight to passive solar water heating systems, which can do an excellent job of eliminating water heating costs.
Well, taking PV array efficiency and land vs. sea area into account, that’s probably closer to 0.5% of Earth’s land area that would have to be covered with panels. Obviously not a huge amount relative to agricultural land but we’re still probably talking about a butt pimple around the size of California.
Primary energy use, though, is energy content of sources before they go through thermal cycles to get work. So one should also take into account the heat rejected in the latter. Nearly 80% of the energy content of gasoline, for example, goes out the tailpipe and radiator as heat.
PV would deliver energy in high quality form, electrical power, not as heat. So less than 20 TW, probably much less, would be needed to be equivalent to today's energy usage (although precisely how much would depend on details.)
Energy use will be increasing though, as the world gets wealthier. Still, this will also put pressure on agriculture to increase production, as demand for meat increases. Land constraints in the future will come from that, not from PV.
Because the energy density is extremely low compared to ex nuclear. And that it's not just about land use it's also about rare earth materials, the actual production of that many, the installation and maintanance plus no plans for decommision and it still needs ex coal to back it up because it's unrealiable.
Yes, it is wrong. Rare earth elements are not used in solar panels.
Understand, there's been this obnoxious effort by anti-renewable propagandists to spread the lie that PV is dirty because of rare earths. Shellenberger was spreading this falsehood. But it has no basis in reality.
Vice is just mistaken, not lying. I will charitably assume the same is true of you.
Are you REALLY asking me to prove a negative? Tell me, what purpose do you imagine rare earths serve in silicon PV cells? They are not used as dopants (that's boron and phosphorus). There are no magnets. The glass doesn't require them, nor do the structural metals.
Is this supposed to be some kind of joke? I can think of many reasons why the rainforest is cut down but lack of space for PV isn't one of them. Just think about it. Cutting down trees costs a lot of money in terms of acres. You need expensive machinery, trained workers and a lot of time. In other words people who cut down the rainforest do it with the intention to make a profit selling the wood they cut down. People who "care" about the land itself first burn down the trees because it is faster/cheaper and second because the ash acts as fertilizer in the short term. The rain forest is also rich in a fertile soil called humus which again acts as a fertilizer. But this layer of humus is quickly depleted because it is no longer protected by trees and simply gets washed away. The end result is infertile land and the farmers have to burn down the rainforest again. It's not like this is unexpected. The similar things happen on regular farms which is why we use artificial fertilizer, so in other words: people destroy the rainforest because they want to make a quick buck. If they really cared about the land they wouldn't abandon it as soon as it becomes unprofitable.
In a decarbonized economy, burning no fossil fuels, why should PV emit any CO2?
Nuclear, on the other hand, is going to still have lots of concrete, and making concrete emits CO2 even if the energy to calcine the limestone comes from non-fossil sources.
Yes, one could capture and sequester the CO2 from concrete manufacture. But then one could also capture and sequester putative CO2 from PV manufacture. So if sequestration is on the table, the CO2 argument being made against PV in favor of nuclear just collapses anyway.
There will not be a decarbonized economy running on wind an and solar. It's less than 1% of the worlds energy consumption and won't be more than 3% in 2040.
Nuclear doesn't us "lots of concrete" in any meaningful way especially not when you start factoring in the energy density.
Wind and solar require huge areas, lots of rare earth metals and there is no plan for how to decommission plus, wind and solar are unreliable which means they still need backup from something else like coal, nuclear or oil.
In other words there will be no decarbonized economy without nuclear or fusion or thorium.
No they are quite accurate. You are conflating electricity with energy. Energy is much more than just electricity.
Furthermore, when you hear countries like Denmark and Germany talk about x amount of percentage being wind or solar you need to remember a few very very important things.
1) They are talking about what that specific country produces, not what it consumes.
2) What it consumes includes what it imports.
3) Wind and solar only produce electricity which is only part of our energy consumption
4) You also have to factor in the capacity factor which for wind and solar is between 20-40% and nuclear is more or less 100%.
In other words, those high numbers only come from ignoring the entirety of energy needs. The renewable energy sector and its proponents are very disingenuous when they present their "success".
They have renewables (excluding hydro) supply about 15% of world primary energy demand (not just electric energy demand) in 2040 (although that also includes biomass, waste, and geothermal).
The other consideration is what the wind/solar displaces. 1 joule of wind or solar displaces several joules of primary fossil fuel energy, if the latter were being used for electric power generation. No one benefits from the fraction of fossil primary energy that gets dissipated as waste heat.
Coal is terrible in terms of load following. What are you even talking about? If anything, coal plants are economically unsustainable. They don't respond to short term changes in electricity prices and therefore still produce electricity even when they are losing money.
> wind and solar because those are unreliable energy sources
They are unreliable but not unpredictable. Weather forecast provides adequate production estimates 48 hours, and precise ones 12 hours into the future (especially when averaged over large areas). Enough time to fire up standby power generation.
Also while wind and solar are unreliable by themselves, they become a lot more reliable once you combine them. That is because when there is little wind, it is usually sunny, and when there is little sunshine it is usually windy. At night, when there is neither, the power consumption is low.
The major problem that needs to be addressed with substantial amounts of energy storage is overcast winter days with no wind, when power consumption is high.
> Coal isn't economically unsustainable I don't know where you have that from.
According to a 2018 report[1] of the German Environment Agency (UBA), the economic cost (health and environment) of coal power is an additional 0,19 €/kWh over the generation cost. This makes it unsustainable compared to other energy sources and only profitable because the public bears this cost.
> Wind and solar covers less than 1% of the worlds energy needs even push forward to 2040 and it might do around 3%.
Someone should tell the Chinese, because they are already at 5% from wind alone.
Being predictable doesn't really matter. Denmark had a great summer in 2018, that meant the wind didn't blow which means they had to import energy from Germany. Germany has plenty of solar yet they ended up using coal to provide that energy. The weather was amazing in Germany too yet they didn't actually provide Denmark with solar energy.
I don't think you done any serious research into this to be quite honest.
Then there is capacity factor wich is a whole other problem (look it up)
To claim that coal isn't economically sustainable is absurd. It's more or less the cheapest we have.
With regards to China thats 5% electricity NOT energy. Again I don't believe you actually did any fundamental research here or you wouldn't throw out these numbers that does not support your position.
https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/climate/background/s...