Carbon emission reduction: News and technology

[macdoc]

They produce power for 25 to 40 years then repurposed.

In Belgium, retired wind turbine blades are being given a new purpose: turned into durable public park furniture and benches.

Renewable power means non-polluting, non-carbon emitting sources - solar, hydro, nuclear, wind, tide - as opposed to finite fossil fuel based power sources.

[Svartalf]

well, when you say 'non polluting', you need to take into account the pollution incurred when making (or dismantling) the means of obtaining that power, not just the amount of carbon emitted while the power is being generated.

[JimC]

Certainly the business of correctly recycling the materials from solar cells and wind turbines at the end of their life is important, and probably somewhat neglected. However, the reality remains that the combination of solar, wind and battery storage is both economically attractive and vital in reducing the use of coal to generate electricity...

[Brian Peacock]

Not sure it matters ....the economics of renewables are so superior it has it's own traction tho it does make them look like idiots. Gives the Teals a wide open field.

But the economics shows us that renewables are a net addition to energy capacity rather than a replacement for fossil. The rate of increase in GHG emissions is still rising, even tho renewables comprise an increasing proportion of the energy mix as energy demand rises - and is projected to continue to rise through to the end of the century.

The economics shows us that fossil remains a highly profitable sector even as investment in renewables has increased, and while a substantial chunk of that investment is being shifted over from fossil to renewables.

The economics shows us that even though renewable energy becomes virtually free at the point if generation after 3-5 years the fossil sector still maintains overall control of global energy infrastructure, distribution and pricing.

The economics shows us that for a relatively modest lobbying spend if c.$130m last year global fossil still secured c.$7tn in subsidies/tax breaks. The 'Big 5' oil firms turned a profit of c.$109bn.

In other words, when we think about "the economics of renewables" we have to consider the wider global energy context -- the profitability of fossil along with the costs of renewable generation -- and against rising demand.

[Brian Peacock]

define renewables?
and there are a huge lot of essential products that are not renewables, and that are actually a crap job to recycle, in part due to key elements (gold) coming in tiny to microscopic units that are hard to separate from the apparatus and retrieve for reuse.

"Renewables" is the catch-all term for wind, solar, and hydro power generation. Not to be confused with recycling.

[Brian Peacock]

well, when you say 'non polluting', you need to take into account the pollution incurred when making (or dismantling) the means of obtaining that power, not just the amount of carbon emitted while the power is being generated.

This is what carbon pricing attempts to do - and why it is so strenuously resisted.

[Svartalf]

which is understandable, since even renewable actors have a serious carbon print to deal with, whether it be for the extraction of materials needed to make solar panels, the actual manufacture of such, or windmill machinery, or just the carbon cost of making concrete for dams.

[macdoc]

Oh for FFS Svarty don't be obtuse ...so what there is a carbon footprint.......everything has a carbon footprint. A solar panel with a 25 year life span will save tons of carbon being produced by the use of fossil fuels. Keep your eye on the goal.

A solar panel system can save tens to hundreds of tonnes of carbon dioxide over its lifetime, depending on its size and location. For example, a typical 6.6kW residential system in Australia can offset around 243 tonnes of \(CO_{2}\) over 25 years, with the carbon debt from manufacturing repaid within one to three years of operation. 

A wind turbine can save a significant amount of carbon over its lifetime, with lifecycle emissions being approximately 99% lower than those from coal-fired power plants. A typical turbine has a lifetime carbon footprint of around 11 grams of \(CO_{2}\) equivalent per kilowatt-hour generated, compared to about 980 grams for coal and 465 grams for natural gas. The majority of a wind turbine's carbon footprint is from manufacturing, and it becomes carbon neutral in as little as seven months to a couple of years, depending on the specific turbine and its location

Lifetime emissions While nuclear power's operational emissions are zero, lifecycle emissions are considered. These include emissions from mining, processing uranium, plant construction, and decommissioning. Even with these factors, the lifetime emissions are very low. A life-cycle assessment by the International Panel on Climate Change estimates the average emissions of nuclear power are around \(12\) grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt-hour, which is comparable to wind energy and lower than solar. 

[Brian Peacock]

Got a link for those quotes?

[rainbow]

We in Africa are recycling batteries

https://ewasa.org/new-battery-recycling ... n-gauteng/