Mainstream "green" narratives and climate strategies are focused on rapid electrification. But is a world full of electric cars actually sustainable, or do we need more radical transformation?
Nick, why the heck did I buy solar panels then??! Their production must be equally costly as far as resources go. I suppose that this topic suggests a slower growth of renewable energy sources and electric of battery vehicles is better than rapid replacement. It’s probably better to use and repair something (like a car) for as long as possible before replacing it and to not purchase more vehicles or driving more than you need. Dang it
I am way late to the party here, and don't dispute Nick's broader point, but the "energy payback" period for solar panels is even shorter. Depending on the type of panels you have, it might be as short as 1.5 years and at the most it's probably 3 years. This page links to a few studies that have done research on the "energy payback" for solar panels: https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/solar-energy-payback-myth-mb1409/
Also, given how much the power industry contributes to emissions, reducing energy usage and switching to renewable sources are both important and urgent. Unless you're using your solar panels as an excuse to keep your air conditioner running at 55 degrees all summer long or buy yourself a heated pool (i.e. increasing your energy usage), or you're going to throw the panels away and upgrade to the latest and greatest model in 3 years, then I do think that switching to solar as quickly as possible is better than the alternative. In this case, the alternative option is waiting for the coal or gas plant that's currently providing you power to live out its 40-50 year life and keep cranking out emissions before doing anything. Given how dirty our current power grid is, in most parts of the U.S. our electricity usage is more analogous to driving a clunker that's barely passing emissions inspections than, say, a 5 year old Prius.
To Nick's point, a systemic approach would focus on cleaning up the electricity system as a whole by building new renewable resources that serve the entire grid, rather than relying on individuals to figure it out themselves.
The main point that I'm making here -- and it applies particularly strongly to vehicles, but it is applicable across the whole spectrum of energy use -- is that the systemic answer is *not* simply "building new renewable resources that serve the entire grid," it's aggressively downscaling energy consumption. As a sort of microcosmic example of this, basically all renewable capacity that's been added at a global scale has been offset by increased energy demand. So, yeah, we need to convert the whole grid to renewable energy and storage...but we also need to rapidly stem the growth in energy demand, and begin moving the trend in the other direction, and systemic "solutions" that encourage higher resource consumption are not really solutions at all.
I see your point, the readings about the carbon impact of switching to EVs without reducing car ownership were eye opening to me. The auto industry has a lot to gain from the "solution" of replacing all our cars without actually reducing miles driven. Entrenched industries in electricity also have a lot to gain from aggressively pushing new renewable investments while also locking in current or even higher levels of energy use and expanding U.S. consumption patterns culture globally. I don't mean to say that switching to renewables is sufficient on its own or allows for the unfettered growth of energy consumption. I think the point I intended is more that although individual decisions are minuscule, evaluated as an individual decision the case for solar is pretty clear cut, and delaying the switch to renewable energy because solar panels have a carbon footprint doesn't make sense in most circumstances in the U.S. I keep hearing the narrative that EVs, solar, batteries, etc are just as bad, or possibly worse, than doing nothing, as if we have that luxury, and it's driving me bonkers. Reducing consumption and improving efficiency wherever you can is of course even more impactful. And advocating on behalf of high density, transit accessible, zero energy housing construction in your area is probably even more impactful than that.
I think in general, the individual decisions on the margin are still what you'd think: get solar panels, buy an EV, etc. There is some question about buying a new EV to replace an efficient car that depends on age of the car, sources of power in the area you charge most frequently, and so on, but honestly individual decisions are so minuscule that it's not worth overthinking that sort of thing. Plus, the more nebulous "signaling" benefits of having an EV, talking about why you bought one, etc., likely offset that to some degree.
The main point here is that from a public policy perspective, we should be pursuing policies that downscale our use of cars and private transit rather than just shift that to a new technology. To the extent that we're still using energy / materials / emissions for transport, we *do* need to transition that to electric ASAP, there's no question about that. But what we really need to do is use less energy / materials / emissions for transport, and we accomplish that through macroscale policy and infrastructure planning. So it's kind of a both-and. By all means, take public transit as much as possible, but what's really important is that we work to combat the infrastructural lock-in (suburban sprawl, etc.) that has created a globally spreading culture of car-dependence.
Stop, stop, stop. You are viewing energy use through a rolled up toilet paper tube.
The best thing you can do to get Net Zero is put up enough solar panels to generate your plug load, heat your hot water and house, and charge your new electric car that you are going to buy.
Great Job!!
Reducing your load by insulating and choosing better appliances is nice too, and will save you money on panels, or divert the extra power you generate to soak up the draw from your inactive neighbours.
The cost of us all not going Net Zero in our lives is planetary death. You have just done a very good thing. Now go out and buy the car!
2. Sell your gas car, to drive the price of used gas cars down, and encourage other people from buying a new gas car.
3. Buy a new electric car, to send a message to the manufacturer that these are good.
4. Charge your car battery with your rooftop solar panels.
5. Be patient while the gas car system phases out.
We need to start taking action. Debating about imbedded energy is not taking action, it is freezing in the headlights of climate change. That would make us roadkill.
Nick, why the heck did I buy solar panels then??! Their production must be equally costly as far as resources go. I suppose that this topic suggests a slower growth of renewable energy sources and electric of battery vehicles is better than rapid replacement. It’s probably better to use and repair something (like a car) for as long as possible before replacing it and to not purchase more vehicles or driving more than you need. Dang it
I am way late to the party here, and don't dispute Nick's broader point, but the "energy payback" period for solar panels is even shorter. Depending on the type of panels you have, it might be as short as 1.5 years and at the most it's probably 3 years. This page links to a few studies that have done research on the "energy payback" for solar panels: https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/solar-energy-payback-myth-mb1409/
Also, given how much the power industry contributes to emissions, reducing energy usage and switching to renewable sources are both important and urgent. Unless you're using your solar panels as an excuse to keep your air conditioner running at 55 degrees all summer long or buy yourself a heated pool (i.e. increasing your energy usage), or you're going to throw the panels away and upgrade to the latest and greatest model in 3 years, then I do think that switching to solar as quickly as possible is better than the alternative. In this case, the alternative option is waiting for the coal or gas plant that's currently providing you power to live out its 40-50 year life and keep cranking out emissions before doing anything. Given how dirty our current power grid is, in most parts of the U.S. our electricity usage is more analogous to driving a clunker that's barely passing emissions inspections than, say, a 5 year old Prius.
To Nick's point, a systemic approach would focus on cleaning up the electricity system as a whole by building new renewable resources that serve the entire grid, rather than relying on individuals to figure it out themselves.
The main point that I'm making here -- and it applies particularly strongly to vehicles, but it is applicable across the whole spectrum of energy use -- is that the systemic answer is *not* simply "building new renewable resources that serve the entire grid," it's aggressively downscaling energy consumption. As a sort of microcosmic example of this, basically all renewable capacity that's been added at a global scale has been offset by increased energy demand. So, yeah, we need to convert the whole grid to renewable energy and storage...but we also need to rapidly stem the growth in energy demand, and begin moving the trend in the other direction, and systemic "solutions" that encourage higher resource consumption are not really solutions at all.
I see your point, the readings about the carbon impact of switching to EVs without reducing car ownership were eye opening to me. The auto industry has a lot to gain from the "solution" of replacing all our cars without actually reducing miles driven. Entrenched industries in electricity also have a lot to gain from aggressively pushing new renewable investments while also locking in current or even higher levels of energy use and expanding U.S. consumption patterns culture globally. I don't mean to say that switching to renewables is sufficient on its own or allows for the unfettered growth of energy consumption. I think the point I intended is more that although individual decisions are minuscule, evaluated as an individual decision the case for solar is pretty clear cut, and delaying the switch to renewable energy because solar panels have a carbon footprint doesn't make sense in most circumstances in the U.S. I keep hearing the narrative that EVs, solar, batteries, etc are just as bad, or possibly worse, than doing nothing, as if we have that luxury, and it's driving me bonkers. Reducing consumption and improving efficiency wherever you can is of course even more impactful. And advocating on behalf of high density, transit accessible, zero energy housing construction in your area is probably even more impactful than that.
I think in general, the individual decisions on the margin are still what you'd think: get solar panels, buy an EV, etc. There is some question about buying a new EV to replace an efficient car that depends on age of the car, sources of power in the area you charge most frequently, and so on, but honestly individual decisions are so minuscule that it's not worth overthinking that sort of thing. Plus, the more nebulous "signaling" benefits of having an EV, talking about why you bought one, etc., likely offset that to some degree.
The main point here is that from a public policy perspective, we should be pursuing policies that downscale our use of cars and private transit rather than just shift that to a new technology. To the extent that we're still using energy / materials / emissions for transport, we *do* need to transition that to electric ASAP, there's no question about that. But what we really need to do is use less energy / materials / emissions for transport, and we accomplish that through macroscale policy and infrastructure planning. So it's kind of a both-and. By all means, take public transit as much as possible, but what's really important is that we work to combat the infrastructural lock-in (suburban sprawl, etc.) that has created a globally spreading culture of car-dependence.
Stop, stop, stop. You are viewing energy use through a rolled up toilet paper tube.
The best thing you can do to get Net Zero is put up enough solar panels to generate your plug load, heat your hot water and house, and charge your new electric car that you are going to buy.
Great Job!!
Reducing your load by insulating and choosing better appliances is nice too, and will save you money on panels, or divert the extra power you generate to soak up the draw from your inactive neighbours.
The cost of us all not going Net Zero in our lives is planetary death. You have just done a very good thing. Now go out and buy the car!
Here's a plan.
1. Do not buy a new gas car.
2. Sell your gas car, to drive the price of used gas cars down, and encourage other people from buying a new gas car.
3. Buy a new electric car, to send a message to the manufacturer that these are good.
4. Charge your car battery with your rooftop solar panels.
5. Be patient while the gas car system phases out.
We need to start taking action. Debating about imbedded energy is not taking action, it is freezing in the headlights of climate change. That would make us roadkill.
This is an awesome talk pertaining to this issue!
https://gmu.zoom.us/rec/play/UHPa28FmEnp6igK15wpogNp2fxIKAKV98-PvJHaqMSLq6ImZdCRwW-n4O7AmL9U3PJphWM9R-cRKQfDK.wVw-NHa0ZuS4bODI?startTime=1594396616000&_x_zm_rtaid=fXlPAC-FSIWBxpfhN8DUGA.1610128213167.20fd96addf18fd37529481508cd16b36&_x_zm_rhtaid=913