> But, as we’ll see below, a new investigation started by Italian researcher Enrico Mariutti suggests that the number is closer to between 170 and 250 gCO2/kWh, depending on the energy mix used to power PV production. If this estimate is accurate, solar would not compare favorably with natural gas, which is around 50 gCO2/kWh with carbon capture and 400 to 500 without.
Last time I checked, 250 was less than 400.
They could have compared solar against wind or nuclear on carbon, which it is generally held to be roughly equal with. Why did they jump straight to nonexistent carbon capturing fossil methane plants?
Yeah, if we’re going to compare solar with a hypothetical CCS plant we should compare it using solar on a mostly renewable grid with electric mining equipment.
Both solutions will likely exist in the future, but don’t right now.
My argument for solar then would that we can be pretty sure the investments go toward a sustainable future. We will always need solar.
CCS can never, ever be sustainable. And it will just be yet another debt we pass onto our children.
Last time I checked, 250 was less than 400.
They could have compared solar against wind or nuclear on carbon, which it is generally held to be roughly equal with. Why did they jump straight to nonexistent carbon capturing fossil methane plants?