On Wednesday, August 3, 2016 11:42 AM, Rajesh Mehar <[email protected]>
wrote:
I would like everyone's thoughts on these two links below, and the idea
that without net energy consumption reduction (through de-industrialization
and reduction of automation, probably Luddite ideas in a group such as
Silk) there is no long term benefit from switching to so-called-renewables.
How Sustainable is Solar Power?
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/04/how-sustainable-is-pv-solar-power.html#more
It's certainly true that a dynamic lifecycle analysis of solar PV carbon
footprint would look much worse today than it did in 2008. But I believe things
are set to get better from here. If we look at the two sided equation (carbon
cost of manufacturing and shipping panels and returns from deploying these
panels), the first is permanently altered. There is no way manufacturing can
move away from low cost Taiwanese and Korean players. However, deployment
patterns will see a massive shift with more than 50% of capacity additions from
now to 2025 coming from China and India.
It is also a tad over-simplistic to position solar only as a replacement for
grid connected thermal power. No matter how fast the capacity addition or how
low the panel cost, high solar storage costs will ensure that solar and
conventional power continues to co-exist for a very long time.
Solar has also proven to be a accretive solution. Take, for instance, the 60
million Indian households with no access to electricity. Conventional grid is
too expensive to build here, micro wind and biogas have both been ineffective
so solar micro-grids are the only way these villagers are going to get lights,
fans and mobile chargers. If a slightly higher carbon footprint but a
significantly lower cost from Chinese manufacturers makes this solution
possible, it's a huge benefit.
