[throwaway60742]

Does "full solar lifecycle emissions" include the gas and coal powerplant you use because you couldn't build energy storage and your electric grid can't handle the peak power? Does it include the reconstruction of the grid it necessitated?

[kemotep]

Are you saying that if we don’t build solar panels, we won’t have to use electricity generated by gas and coal?

[throwaway60742]

Yes, because instead of wind/solar+storage+grid capable of handling the peaks, we would be building nuclear. Using much less concrete and much less diesel for construction trucks.

[hef19898]

You actually believe, that producing a solar panel, transporting it to the installation site on the other side of the planet, and maintaining it consumes more energy than the module will produce? Where do you get your numbers from, the back of a cereal box bought from Wish?

[throwaway60742]

I seriously believe that this is not the full story if we're talking about utility-scale energy.

[kemotep]

Currently the alternative to solar and wind, is coal and gas. Your argument that solar panels cost more in electricity to build and deploy could also be made about nuclear. I agree that we should build more nuclear power plants but do you have evidence that they require less infrastructure than solar? A nuclear power plant seems more expensive to build than a field full of panels. Uranium mining and refining is cheaper and easier than lithium mining and refining? Could you please share your sources I would like to read about that.

Nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, etc are all better than coal and gas. We need to build more, upgrade infrastructure, not limit ourselves to one solution as our energy needs and decarbonization efforts will evolve over time. But the alternative to solar isn’t nuclear its the status quo of gas and coal.

[littlestymaar]

> Currently the alternative to solar and wind, is coal and gas.

No, and this vision is the problem. Hydro, geothermal, nuclear, are other options that can make sense depending on the context (of course you don't want to start a nuclear program from scratch, but if you already have a nuclear industry and you're in northern Europe, then it makes much more sense than solar).

[kemotep]

I understand. Here in the US 70% of my electricity comes from coal and gas. My county literally passed a law banning solar projects a few years ago because of fear mongering about renewables. The alternative to solar is the status quo of coal and gas. To build out nuclear energy, you would not only have to take decades to build up the infrastructure and capacity but also convince locals that nuclear energy is a viable alternative when enough people were able to convince the local government that large scale solar projects are harmful to environment.

[littlestymaar]

> I understand. Here in the US 70% of my electricity comes from coal and gas. My county literally passed a law banning solar projects a few years ago because of fear mongering about renewables. The alternative to solar is the status quo of coal and gas.

But sometimes solar is not the alternative to the status quo, that's what I meant. By in many places of the US, solar is actually a viable choice though, and banning it there is as stupid as subsidizing it near the polar circle (something we actually do in Europe…).

> but also convince locals that nuclear energy is a viable alternative when enough people were able to convince the local government that large scale solar projects are harmful to environment.

In Europe the biggest, and by far, source of opposition to nuclear comes from renewable energy proponents, even in countries where it doesn't make sense (especially solar). That's how we got Germany to get rid of their perfectly functional nuclear plants, spending tons of money investing in inferior solutions (for the context), and consuming millions of tons of coal in the meantime. Similarly idiotic to your county banning solar…