diesel95 wrote:
Sidefx wrote:
GE Oil and Gas (now Baker Hughes).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Oil_and_Gas#:~:text=GE%20Oil%20%26%20Gas%20was%20the,was%20merged%20with%20Baker%20Hughes.Thank you for all the extra detail but my original point is still valid, you asked me for sources and I've given them (even if you don't like the sources).
Fossil fuel companies (including companies like GE that have and are still suppliers to fossil fuel production and FF energy production) all still have their hands in there.
It doesn't matter if they are "green washing" (like GE is/has been doing) or not, they still have a large degree of control and profits in both markets (BlackRock and Vanguard are major players/influences).
And I'd go as far as saying so would some of the Chinese owned RE companies just like Iberdrola SA, it'd be a lot harder to track that though given the system they work under but at that level there would also be blurred lines.
For example, Tongwei (China's largest PV producer) factories are located in coal producing regions for cheap power, to think they or the chairman or other investors don't have any involvement with the surrounding coal powered energy production is a bit of a stretch for me.
I thought the biggest wind turbine suppliers in EU were Siemens, who also have and have had for a long time a large oil and gas division?
Personally I have no issue with Ampol sponsoring us, at least they are trying to rebrand and move towards cleaner energy production/use, even if you don't like it or trust them.
I have just as much issue with global emissions as I do with environmental damage from RE production and RE disposal and in this sector we are just robbing Peter to pay Paul IMO.
China is building and deploying RE faster than the rest of the world put together. last year Chinese wind power deployment was more than the rest of the world. not sure about PV but most of the worlds PV is made in china today (much of it using UNSW and ANU Patented technologies). but China are also building coal and gas. some of the new coal replaces much more dirty, existing coal power plants, but by all means not all of it.
the more they have RE in their grid where the PV is manufactured then the less embodied energy. a PV panel pays back the “embedded emissions” within approx 18 months if deployed in australia in full sun. they’re rated to ten years but todayS panels can last 30 years easy. may get to 40 yrs average life expectancy.
PV panels continue to produce power after the life expectancy has past but the rating is for 90% of their nameplate capacity. typically they deteriorate at 1.5% pa but some better panels are less than 0.5% pa today. perk cells will
mean lower material usage per kW of panel.
there are techniques to recycle 99% of PV panels today. we won’t always be extracting the silicon (or other for thin film PV) and mineral ores for the other elements required. at some point recycling will account for most or all of PV material demand.
coal is so much worse environmentally. mostly for the GHGs but also the water use, toxic air pollution.
fossil gas is worse than coal from a GHG perspective due to the methane emissions when we compare power from coal fired power and fossil gas open cycle gas turbines.
methane has cause 37% of the historical warming we have experienced to date.
oil and petrol are worse again from an emissions perspective. all combustion devices used to do mechanical work lose two thirds of the energy released as unuseful heat. so when we electrify we only need to replace a third of the energy being used in an ICE engine for example.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I get that GHG's are worse from the FF sector, hence the push towards RE in the first place.
However, unlike CO2 emissions that can be converted by the environment (when it's not be destroyed for farming, population growth and now RE and its transmission) the materials used in PV panels and wind turbines have a longer lasting effect on the environment and is the reason for my comment.
Every RE enthusiast has the same mantra, both solar panels and wind turbines are 99% recyclable (which I doubt given the following).
1. PV panels have 10% plastic in them which they mainly burn off when recycling and allegedly reuse for heating.
2. PV panels on average weigh 19kgs so that is 1.9kg of plastic per panel.
3. It is not economically viable to recycle these panels so most countries don't and they just go to landfill.
4. Plastic can take up to 600 years to decompose.
5. Wind turbine blades are made of fibreglass and carbon fibre and are also not economical to recycle.
6. Wind turbine blades are being buried and from what I've read, fibreglass once buried will never decompose.
7. Lithium batteries are toxic, the processing is extremely toxic and uses extensive amounts of water.
8. Most lithium batteries are not recycled (10% in Aus in 2021) and when they are, they generate large amounts of harmful toxic emissions.
My issue is the media, politicians and activists are all focusing on GHG's when the silent killer is all the rubbish and plastics that we are disposing of, hence robbing Peter to pay Paul.
They estimate that the ocean surface is 40% (5.25 Trillion pieces) covered by plastics and you can not get fish (bigger than sardines) without microns of plastic in them.
Yet all the focus is on GHG which in my opinion will not be resolved before we see wide spread damage, not as a result of FF companies but as a result of human population booms and the land and food required to support them.
I agree with sinbagger, China is just playing the rest of the world as fools, they are controlling a narrative which best suits them while having little to no desire to move away from FF.
They require vast amounts of energy to grow and expand and now they are covering their land with PV panels, they will soon be looking west to obtain food for their ever increasing population, creating world shortages in their wake faster than global warming.
Everything has a price, but not everyone wants to look at it in its entirety.
And is why I am perplexed as to why both sides of our gvt is not looking into nuclear, it is the cleanest form of energy still and surely they have advanced the technology a little in the last 70 odd years. At minimum it seriously needs to be looked at, especially given we only contribute to 1.06% global GHGs.
Sorry from straying from the original topic, but that was my point.
As time goes by I feel the Pixar movie WALL-E is more and more a possibility, creating a planet full of rubbish.
Fact check: Methane is only 16% of GHGs (20-30% of total global warming since 1750) and 37% of that is from the agriculture sector.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
and that's it in a nutshell.