• Hypx@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Solar panels are only 15-20% efficient. No one is going around saying we need to ban solar panels.

    Fuels made from solar power are the opposite of unsustainable. They are the most sustainable ideas possible. It is basically artificial photosynthesis.

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      We don’t make fuels from solar power.

      Unless you mean hydrogen, which by itself is already 30-40% less efficient then just using the electricity directly in a battery.

      And that is without counting all the hydrogen that just escapes through any form of containment we try to keep it in.

      • Hypx@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hydrogen is a fuel. E-fuels are hydrogen plus CO₂ and converted into synthetic hydrocarbons.

        You are blatantly ignoring the part where solar power is incredibly inefficient to begin with, and we don’t care. It’s still cheap energy.

        • PlatinumSf@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re confusing the efficency of solar panels with the efficiency of burning hydrocarbon based fuel (perhaps intentionally?). Yes, solar panels convert about 20-30% (they’re getting better with time) of the energy provided by mankind’s closest and most beloved fission reactor into energy we can use, the rest being reflected or turned into heat, but the source (that giant ball of fission) is infinite and non-detremental to the environment to keep running. Hydrocarbon production not only requires this original source but once calculated would provided you end delivery efficency levels that are dramatically lower (likely less than 1%), Natural hydrocarbons are limited in supply, and the whole chain is significantly more toxic for the planet when you calculate in byproducts produced during production or consumption. It’s legitimately not even close and if you truly believe hydrocarbons are even remotely viable you’ve misinterpreted one of the data points somewhere in your calculation.

          • Hypx@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Except you’ve just proved my point: Solar is basically infinite energy. So why obsess over efficiency? If you have something made from solar power, it is not a big deal.

            • PlatinumSf@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              I’m not obsessed with efficency, but it is a useful metric to consider when thinking about the overall picture. Additionally I’ve not made your point. Solar still requires implementation, land use, and is finite in access to humanity despite the source being infinite. Producing hydrogen fuel with this consideration would automatically increase the required solar capacity by 20-40% based on current hydrogen production processes. In addition there are byproducts and downsides from creating traditional hydrocarbon based fuels in a renewable manner.

              • Hypx@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Useful in isolation, but that is not what is happening here. People want to maximize the efficiency of a resource that is basically infinite in nature, while being fine with it destroying the rest of the environment in the process. It doesn’t take much thought to realize that deprioritizing efficiency in favor of other factors is a much better compromise.

                And this is even more stark when you realize that we are not merely prioritizing efficiency; we effectively have a cult of efficiency. One that maximizes the perception of efficiency even at the cost of actual efficiency. BEVs are still insanely inefficient compared to ideas like mass transit or walkable neighborhoods. A grid that runs entirely on renewable energy needs vast amounts of energy storage, which can’t be solved by batteries without massive amounts of waste. A much smarter balance of solutions will actually reduce waste and improve efficiency. However, that imply that BEVs are a niche idea and aren’t really needed in the grand scheme of things.

                • PlatinumSf@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Absolutely agree with you when it comes to all of that, but I’m just saying after spending a pretty significant amount of time reading up on current ‘renewable’ hydrocarbon production it’s not what it’s cracked up to be. We should almost assuredly be investing in transport networks that are vastly more efficient and environmentally friendly than our current networks (light rail, bus networks, electric bikes, etc, etc), but it’s a far easier argument to talk someone into an BEV vehicle vs a ICE one than it is to get them to take the bus or petition their local council for better community transit, and like it or not new vehicles will continue to be made. Not sure what that says for us as a species, headed high speed towards self and environmental destruction, but at least BEVs seem to help lift the metaphorical foot off the accelerator. I hope we eventually get to a point where current transport networks look as outdated as horse and carriage to our descendants.

                  • Hypx@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    Talking someone into a BEV is just laziness, and more greenwashing than being a serious solution. It’s not even easier, as you now need a garage and tolerance for long recharge times and less range. The actual easiest idea would be to create a drop-in replacement for ICE cars. E-fuels are an option. Hydrogen cars are similarly straightforward as a possibility.

                    BEVs are at best a transitional idea. All it seems to be good for is changing people’s minds on green transportation. But it won’t get us to the promise land. There are too many problems, and the resource requirements mean they create huge new problems of their own. We need to push for whatever that can best get rid of fossil fuel cars, which will have to be something else.

    • WallEx@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Where is the comparison to the solar panel? I’m comparing methods of propelling, you are comparing solar panels and?

      If you can use the energy more efficiently and choose not to it’s not sustainable (or at least not very smart)

      • Hypx@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Because it is solar power ultimately powering it all. If you don’t care about the efficiency of that step, you don’t really care about all of the later steps. It is still green energy and still cheap.

        The problem with BEVs is that while it is efficient in one respect, it is insanely wasteful in others. As a result, it is an unsustainable idea and functionally just greenwashing.

        • WallEx@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          So it’s the same if you have to build 5 times as many solar panels to do the same thing? It’s just not.

          • Hypx@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Now we’re in the “pro-BEV bullshit” zone. Batteries won’t magically solve all transportation needs, nor solve the energy storage requirements of the grid. Alternatives still have to exist anyways, and the total lifecycle efficiency of BEVs isn’t that special. In a lot of cases, avoiding excessive use of batteries will save you energy. So pursuing alternatives will not need radically more solar panels.

              • Hypx@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                11 months ago

                If you can admit that, you can admit there can be superior options to BEVs.

                • WallEx@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Admit what? That they aren’t perfect? Yeah sure, nothing is. But where is the better option?

                  • Hypx@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    E-fuels or hydrogen made from green energy. With the latter you won’t even give up on the future being EVs. They are the actually sustainable forms of transportation that everyone can accept.