Completely agree with what you say here. I'm veering from the topic here but there is even more unclean part of this solar/wind equation. In order for the grid to be stable you need a backup power source as clouds and sudden drops in wind speed will cause generation problems and grid instabilities. Guess what that backup power source is today? In the US it will most likely be a Gas Turbine operating in close proximity to the solar/wind field. It will also be running in minimum environmental load meaning it is running at the lowest load that is allowed without exceeding its air permit, usually around 50% of max load. This puts the gas turbine at several factors above its most 'clean' setting (say 25 or 50ppm CO vs <2ppm).
Obviously, but when emissions in the 2-3 decades of its lifespan are limited to the manufacturing process wich is one moment time and then 2-3 decades generating electricity constantly, with no emissions at all, that´s considered negligible.Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:42 amno wind or solar farm is 100% cleanAndres125sx wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:01 pm....We´re talking about emissions, so we´re talking globally. You can´t take a single plant whatever it is, and use it as a reference. If so, I may take a solar or wind farm and say electricity is 100% clean, because it is, right?
It´s the average what counts, and on most countries except third world the percentage of electricity wich produces significant emissions, even if you include wood burning, is a small percentage of the total. It will depend on the country obviously, but we´re talking about maybe 20-50% range
What about nuclear plants or hydro plants? They can, and actually cover, the intermitency of solar and wind energy without any carbon cost
Maybe, maybe not. But they surely will have better air quality replacing ICE with EVs, AND replacing wood burners, fuel boilers, etc. with thermic panels. We don´t need to choose between both options, we can, and actually we are replacing both at the same time
Nukes, in my opinion, should be the majority (all!) of the non-renewable mix. But they are not as good with cycling so there needs to be some source which is.
Have to start somewhere. Since sudden 100% replacement of infrastructure is not practical, transition to full renewable or non-carbon will necessarily be incremental. If a fully renewable or hydrocarbon free global power grid is ever realized, the replacement intervals for components will be less relevant in terms of environmental impact. It may essentially be closed loop at that point and you could recycle and remanufacture components only limited by monetary concerns. All forms of power generation require maintenance. How long does a steam turbine last? A stationary diesel?
From the reports I have seen, one of the main criteria is that the battery is replaced at 150.000 km. And that the energy used for production of the battery has high CO2 emissions. Now that EVs has been in the market for several years, it seems the batteries should last a fair bit longer. As an example, BMW states for the i3 that the battery is meant to last as long as the rest of the car. (And then is reused for energy storage etc.) Energy gets cleaner every year, and if you were to produce a battery from 100% renewables and not replace it during the cars lifetime, the picture would be completely different. The most optimistic report I've read states the EV is on par with ICE within 20.000 - 30.000 km. On the other end I've seen claims of more than 600.000 km (!)Andres125sx wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:06 amI´ve seen several, stating only when 100% of electricity comes from a coal plants, then emissions are comparable to ICEs. Any other scenario, and EVs are less harmfull for environement, wich actually means in 90% of countries EVs are better than ICE, everywhere except India and countries wich only rely on carbon.
That's a common problem when analyzing game changers. It is not only your product that changes, but the whole ecosystem around it.
TC, come and live in Australia.
Same in Madrid, now if you have a small and old car with a small engine, you cant go into the city. Sell it, purchase a 2 ton SUV with 500bhp and you´re allowed to go into the city even if it does pollute more than double your previous car...
I know you're suggesting it's not that ironic, but it is because of half-arsed government intervention that EVs will have an uphill struggle in some places; the best way to get things rolling is and will always be a competitive market. The whole picture is distorted at the moment by subsidies, and not just for EVs.