• Track_Shovel@slrpnk.netM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • superkret@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        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

        • Don_alForno@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.