40% of traffic is for petrochemicals, which according to this article is coal, oil, gas, and things derived from them, which would include fertilizer and plastics and probably some other stuff too like industrial lubricants, asphalt etc. Not just fossil fuels, so not all that 40% would be affected by a switch to renewable energy. It’s also worth noting that building out renewable energy generation involves shipping a lot of hardware around the globe as well.
That last sentence, yep. People don’t tend to factor in the carbon footprint of building anything they deem environmentally friendly. There’s a cost/benefit analysis to be made. A bad idea may actually be worse than what it’s replacing, or not beneficial enough to pursue.
There may be carbon emitted in creating green energy but green energy is ultimately reducing demand for hydrocarbons, which is better than sequestration. Also you need to factor into the operational life of the green tech. If you do, it’s pretty clear pretty fast that it’s beneficial to go with green energy options. The argument you’re making is a common strawman argument for not investing in green energy.
We swapped to ICE vehicles as they were cleaner than shit covered streets from all the horses, making a new problem.
Renewable energy is much cleaner long term- but what new issues are we not seeing? If we through ourselves head first into this (and we need to) what did we miss?
I’m very much a proponent of careful planning and going into things with our eyes open. Sadly, I don’t think we are in a position to know what we don’t know or even find it out at this point because we are on a compressed timeline.
It’s like worrying about the effects of fire retardant from the fire department’s trucks, when your house is on fire… and the other option in the equation is a flamethrower
Make no mistake, im not saying we should stop. Far from it. Only that we should have had these discussions 30 years ago, and don’t be soo quick to dismiss the next tragedy to focus on this one - we just repeat the cycle.
You’re right, the timeline is compressed from the 50 years we “thought” we had, down to literally months, and I don’t think people actually realise that. Too bad most targets are 2050, 2060…
If we through throw ourselves head first into this (and we need to) what did we miss?
literally the only way to know is to do it. same with horses. there’s a 30 year transition period as infrastructure accommodates the world to the new technology.
For all the things you think of when you hear “renewables”, that analysis has already been made, and it’s overwhelmingly better in every way to ditch fossil fuels.
More like a year.
A wind turbine, depending on size, position etc, generates the amount of power used in it’s construction within 2.5 - 11 months. Over it’s life cycle it generates about 40x the energy you put in.
People have done those cost/benefit analysis for solar, wind, and EVs. They come out a pretty clear winner. We don’t really need to keep hounding on this while pretending to be smart.
Now E15 gas, OTOH? Utter trash that should go away.
Do we know what the percentage is after subtracting out things derived from fossil fuels? I looked at the article and tried to do the math, but it seems like the stats are bundled together.
Also it requires shipping oil to fuel the mining operations needed to produce full scale renewable energy. But if we wait a little bit the quality of power output from the same mining inputs will improve which means renewable later requires less total mining than full scale renewable now, and so you will use less fuel to do that smaller amount of mining.
What people don’t realize is that the expense of renewable technology mostly is fuel. Fuel to mine it, fuel to move the raw materials, fuel to refine it, fuel to manufacture it, fuel to ship it to you. The total labor is quite small. So if taken on a specific case the financial perspective alone of a particular application of renewable vs conventional energy the numbers don’t add up then likely the renewable is less green. If you wait a little bit for the green cost to come down that indicates improved efficiencies and now it actually is green.
So the answer to make the world more green is not to shift our calculations to spend money on green solutions beyond financial sense. It’s to work on technology to lower green costs until it naturally makes sense and thereby also make it more green at the same time.
So if taken on a specific case the financial perspective alone of a particular application of renewable vs conventional energy the numbers don’t add up then likely the renewable is less green.
Renewables are more climate efficient and cheaper. Today. All this included. A wind turbine, depending on size, position etc, generates the amount of power used in it’s construction within 2.5 - 11 months. Over it’s life cycle it generates about 40x the energy you put in.
There is no valid excuse to keep burning stuff because it appears cheaper short-term.
Yeah, I feel like GP was a comment that was valid 10-20 years ago, but not now. We improved green energy during that time by a lot. It’s past time to deploy it as fast as we can.
That’s China. Are you making a product in China and need a bunch of screws? The factory down the street makes those. Need a housing? Another factory down the street makes those. An LCD display? Believe it or not, down the street.
These are two distinct goals, sometimes that work against each other. Localization is often a tradeoff between saving energy on transport and logistics versus economies of scale in production, and the right balance might look different for different things.
The carbon footprint of a banana shipped across the globe is still far less than that of the typical backyard chicken, because the act of raising a chicken at home is so inefficient (including with commercially purchased feed driven home in a passenger car) that it can’t compete on energy/carbon footprint.
There are products where going local saves energy, but that’s not by any means a universal correlation.
Don’t forget that if those other things which are derived from them are reduced too that would be a massive win for the health of the planet and everything living on it. Without primarily consuming the fuel component of petrochemicals I think it would drastically change the economics of producing the derivatives and make them scarcer. It looks like a win-win.
Inaccurate statement.
https://qz.com/2113243/forty-percent-of-all-shipping-cargo-consists-of-fossil-fuels
40% of traffic is for petrochemicals, which according to this article is coal, oil, gas, and things derived from them, which would include fertilizer and plastics and probably some other stuff too like industrial lubricants, asphalt etc. Not just fossil fuels, so not all that 40% would be affected by a switch to renewable energy. It’s also worth noting that building out renewable energy generation involves shipping a lot of hardware around the globe as well.
That last sentence, yep. People don’t tend to factor in the carbon footprint of building anything they deem environmentally friendly. There’s a cost/benefit analysis to be made. A bad idea may actually be worse than what it’s replacing, or not beneficial enough to pursue.
There may be carbon emitted in creating green energy but green energy is ultimately reducing demand for hydrocarbons, which is better than sequestration. Also you need to factor into the operational life of the green tech. If you do, it’s pretty clear pretty fast that it’s beneficial to go with green energy options. The argument you’re making is a common strawman argument for not investing in green energy.
Interestingly you’re both correct.
We swapped to ICE vehicles as they were cleaner than shit covered streets from all the horses, making a new problem.
Renewable energy is much cleaner long term- but what new issues are we not seeing? If we through ourselves head first into this (and we need to) what did we miss?
I’m very much a proponent of careful planning and going into things with our eyes open. Sadly, I don’t think we are in a position to know what we don’t know or even find it out at this point because we are on a compressed timeline.
It’s like worrying about the effects of fire retardant from the fire department’s trucks, when your house is on fire… and the other option in the equation is a flamethrower
Make no mistake, im not saying we should stop. Far from it. Only that we should have had these discussions 30 years ago, and don’t be soo quick to dismiss the next tragedy to focus on this one - we just repeat the cycle.
You’re right, the timeline is compressed from the 50 years we “thought” we had, down to literally months, and I don’t think people actually realise that. Too bad most targets are 2050, 2060…
literally the only way to know is to do it. same with horses. there’s a 30 year transition period as infrastructure accommodates the world to the new technology.
For all the things you think of when you hear “renewables”, that analysis has already been made, and it’s overwhelmingly better in every way to ditch fossil fuels.
I’d assume this is true over any sufficiently long time horizon.
I’d guess it’s like 20 years for a lotta stuff? i.e. short enough the average Lemming would benefit in their lifetime
More like a year. A wind turbine, depending on size, position etc, generates the amount of power used in it’s construction within 2.5 - 11 months. Over it’s life cycle it generates about 40x the energy you put in.
Incredible, love it!
Thanks for the bright fact :)
People have done those cost/benefit analysis for solar, wind, and EVs. They come out a pretty clear winner. We don’t really need to keep hounding on this while pretending to be smart.
Now E15 gas, OTOH? Utter trash that should go away.
Mostly accurate statement
Src: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/rmt2023ch1_en.pdf
Do we know what the percentage is after subtracting out things derived from fossil fuels? I looked at the article and tried to do the math, but it seems like the stats are bundled together.
Yeah me too, I couldn’t figure it out.
We need Hank Green.
Also it requires shipping oil to fuel the mining operations needed to produce full scale renewable energy. But if we wait a little bit the quality of power output from the same mining inputs will improve which means renewable later requires less total mining than full scale renewable now, and so you will use less fuel to do that smaller amount of mining.
What people don’t realize is that the expense of renewable technology mostly is fuel. Fuel to mine it, fuel to move the raw materials, fuel to refine it, fuel to manufacture it, fuel to ship it to you. The total labor is quite small. So if taken on a specific case the financial perspective alone of a particular application of renewable vs conventional energy the numbers don’t add up then likely the renewable is less green. If you wait a little bit for the green cost to come down that indicates improved efficiencies and now it actually is green.
So the answer to make the world more green is not to shift our calculations to spend money on green solutions beyond financial sense. It’s to work on technology to lower green costs until it naturally makes sense and thereby also make it more green at the same time.
Renewables are more climate efficient and cheaper. Today. All this included. A wind turbine, depending on size, position etc, generates the amount of power used in it’s construction within 2.5 - 11 months. Over it’s life cycle it generates about 40x the energy you put in. There is no valid excuse to keep burning stuff because it appears cheaper short-term.
Yeah, I feel like GP was a comment that was valid 10-20 years ago, but not now. We improved green energy during that time by a lot. It’s past time to deploy it as fast as we can.
localizing and streamlining production is a bigger factor to climate change anyway imo
technology and production should absolutely not be as centralized and wasteful as it currently is.
That’s China. Are you making a product in China and need a bunch of screws? The factory down the street makes those. Need a housing? Another factory down the street makes those. An LCD display? Believe it or not, down the street.
These are two distinct goals, sometimes that work against each other. Localization is often a tradeoff between saving energy on transport and logistics versus economies of scale in production, and the right balance might look different for different things.
The carbon footprint of a banana shipped across the globe is still far less than that of the typical backyard chicken, because the act of raising a chicken at home is so inefficient (including with commercially purchased feed driven home in a passenger car) that it can’t compete on energy/carbon footprint.
There are products where going local saves energy, but that’s not by any means a universal correlation.
Don’t forget that if those other things which are derived from them are reduced too that would be a massive win for the health of the planet and everything living on it. Without primarily consuming the fuel component of petrochemicals I think it would drastically change the economics of producing the derivatives and make them scarcer. It looks like a win-win.
Industrial lubricants and asphalt fit my definition of petrochemicals
But then so do plastics
Right that’s what I’m saying though- they wouldn’t be affected by switching away from fossil fuels