[qqqwerty]

I have a philosophical issue with the embodied energy critiques. Primarily, it is that individuals who are trying to push the world in a carbon free direction would also likely prefer that the goods that they consume also be manufactured using carbon free energy. In essence it feels like they are taking the blame for decisions made by our predecessors when they are the ones trying to fix those bad decisions. In a sense, the blame for the embodied energy belongs to the previous generation that chose to use carbon based energy, with the exception for individuals who are advocating for the status quo. In that case, they should be accountable for it (not that they would care anyways).

Additionally, these analyses rarely take into account positive second order effects. For example if someone puts solar panels on a northern facing roof in Canada, they are unlikely to ever realize a breakeven point, and the project might not offset the embodied energy of the system (and associated emissions). But that purchase means more revenues and jobs for the solar industry. And in turn that means more investment and more economies of scale.

Basically, if we want to transition to a carbon neutral world, it is going to require a lot of people investing/purchasing projects/goods that do not make sense economically and might not initially be carbon neutral after accounting for embodied energy. Without early supporters we can only rely on government subsidies (which we already do, but obviously not enough). I personally don't think the free market can solve climate change, but if it is going to have a chance, we are going to need a lot of people to make these types of purchases/investments.

Also, another thing to consider is that the inverters lifetime is going to be directly correlated to the operating hours. So if the OP wants to hook up his exercise bike to the grid (assuming it is legal in their area), and then down the road decides to get some solar panels, that inverter will work perfectly fine for that purpose and have minimal degradation.

[ASalazarMX]

You can't deny that it's borderline foolish to spend much more energy to build a device to save energy, even if you think it could be repurposed in the uncertain future. If we're going to be conscious about our (carbon/pollution/etc.) footprint in this planet, we have to make rational decisions about our consumption. It doesn't mean we can't have fun, we just have to waste less.

[cwkoss]

Energy isn't fungible though. It has a steep decay over time and space.

A watthour next to a hydroelectic powerplant has a very different value that a watthour in an off grid cabin during arctic winter.

Sometimes energy prices even go negative - it would be wonderful if these surpluses could effectively be utilized to manufacture solar.

[qqqwerty]

We are talking about a handful of hobbyists and tinkerers making DIY systems. If they substitute a weekend road trip with a weekend of tinkering with DIY power generation at home, the fuel savings would more than offset the embodied energy of the hardware in their project.

But if everyone on the planet started doing it, I might rethink my position.

[stefan_]

These calculations are all kinds of silly. No one should be exercising in the first place if you apply this kind of logic since humans are terribly inefficient (~25%) and the western food mix takes many many kJ to produce one kJ of nutrition.

[dwighttk]

> Basically, if we want to transition to a carbon neutral world, it is going to require a lot of people investing/purchasing projects/goods that do not make sense economically and might not initially be carbon neutral after accounting for embodied energy.

Large shifts like that don’t occur from people wasting money they have left over after entertaining themselves, they occur because the new way is much cheaper and the old way can’t compete.

[BizarroLand]

The current situation is like a fishhook with many barbs. You can't go back without ripping your skin to shreds, so even though it hurts almost as bad, to minimize damages you have to push forward, embedding more hooks into your already wounded skin, in order to get to the smooth part of the hook so you can push it out and be done with it.

Too many people get hung up on the idea of pulling out the hook (the current carbon-positive processes that we use) and not about the ultimately least painful and most successful way of removing the hook (pushing forward with pressure to transition to carbon-negative systems even if in the in-between time that causes more carbon to be released into the atmosphere)

We would generate a ton of carbon to build and roll out an EV replacement for every ICE vehicle on the planet, not to mention the extraordinary expenses of generating enough electricity and charging plants for them.

If that were done in an amazing single year by military force or something, it would be the year of the most carbon production ever on the planet.

But the centuries afterwards with the extraordinary reduction in Carbon Dioxides and Monoxides and other exhaust gasses would be worth it, right?

That's the plan, work over time, get better every day, little by little, don't worry about perfection, focus on drawing closer to good enough.