And all of this cheap PV being produced required burning coal. We've basically outsourced this production, reduced our own coal burning, and then yell at China for increasing its carbon output.
The disaster of the last century is not securing a renewable energy future while squandering the convenient non-renewable energy of fossil fuels on short-term interests.
If you want to shake your fists about fossil fuel emissions this is by far not the appropriate direction to aim them IMO.
coal is a very specific facet of the discussion where the US has targetted coal reductions, and at the same time increasing other fossil fuel based sources. Meanwhile china uses very little oil and gas for electricity production.
For an example of why focusing on one segment does not give you a full picture, china is the world leader in solar, hydro, and wind energy production.
they also use less fossil fuel energy per capita than the united states.
for a more accurate comparison of how clean their power is compared to the united states, i would say a better metric would be that they are 26% renewable while the US is 17% renewable.
I would argue that energy use per capita is not relevant if you're talking about the embedded energy of durable goods shipped across borders.
Similarly, differences in renewable percentages aren't particularly helpful when there is a large disparity in CO2 production by non-renewable type. Coal produces roughly twice as much CO2 per kilowatt hour As Natural Gas. Therefore, if you want to analyze the footprint of a PV panel, the composition of non-renewable fuel types used to manufacture it is very relevant. Something that is manufactured with 20% Renewables and 80% Natural Gas is comparable to something with 60% Renewables and 40% coal.
Comparison would be CO2 per kilowatt hour in China versus the US, which is 40% higher in China, at 530g/kwh vs 370g/kwh in the US. [1]
> if you're talking about the embedded energy of durable goods shipped across borders.
Doesn't counting this as china energy used rather than US energy used mean china's doing even better? That embedded energy should be counted with the consumer, where it naturally shows up on the supplier's energy bill
Then entirely depends on what analysis you're trying to perform and what you want to measure. There is no single right way to do it. It depends on what question you're trying to answer.
My point was very simple. Producing PV panels in China probably makes more CO2 than if you manufactured it in the US.
If you want to change the subject to some other question, the analysis would be different and we would have to know what the question is.
It should be noted that as long as fossil fuels are being burned to make power, what matters is not the embodied CO2 of PV, but how rapidly PV can replace the fossil fueled power sources.
This is also why using nuclear instead for this is such a bad idea: the CO2 emitted by the fossil fueled sources while the nuclear plants are not yet online far outweighs the embodied CO2 of either PV or nuclear construction themselves.
Like I said to the parent poster, it really matters what analysis you're trying to do. If you have decided to buy a PV, you might care about the embedded CO2.
Similarly, if you have a need that PV can't fill, you might want to look at alternative fuel sources with a longer lead time
Actually, I was given to believe elemental silicon is typically made with charcoal, not coal. The porous structure of charcoal reacts more effectively with silicon monoxide vapor in the arc furnace.
Also, that paper had this statement:
> For example, every step in the production of solar PV power systems requires an input of fossil fuels
which is false. None of the steps in making PV require fossil fuels.
That paper appears to not have been published in any peer reviewed journal. Also the claim that wood chips have to come from clearcutting of rain forests is hilarious. Where did you get this bullshit?
Denial? No. It's pointing out that observing that someone uses coal for some part of making PV doesn't imply that making PV requires coal. There is not a single part of the process of making PV modules that would be impossible without coal (or, indeed, without fossil fuels). Processes might have to be changed a bit from right now, but that's true of making just about anything.
