The Limits of the Current Consensus Regarding the Carbon Footprint of Photovoltaic Modules Manufactured in China: A Review and Case Study
Posted by HomoExtinctisus@reddit | collapse | View on Reddit | 34 comments
HomoExtinctisus@reddit (OP)
This is longer than I would like but I don't want to cut stuff because I think the points are important and add nuance.
SS: It seems for solar panel manufacturing, calculating Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions may not be very accurate. For example, newer high efficiency panels require a non-trivial amount of additional energy inputs to manufacture, yet they are still at least some sold with labeling using emissions calculations from older, easier to make panels which are less efficient. The case study goes on to expose some of the foundational data used to report emissions grossly underestimates real-world emissions. If the cornerstone of renewable energy transition have carbon footprints 2-7 times higher than reported, this fundamentally breaks the climate mitigation ability as told by the IPCC. Let's assume the worse case 7x emissions scenario and use a value for EPBT (Energy Payback Time) at 4 years and the commercial lifespan of the panels is 30 years. Other factors assumed to be 0 additional emissions i.e. land use change, no storm destroyed the solar field, unplanned maintenance, etc. (7x emissions * 4y) = 28 years to EPBT and 30 - 28 = 2. For 2 years out of 30, the panel would generate energy we would not have otherwise gotten from fossil fuels but a verifiable shit-ton of work had to be done to convert fossil fuel energy to solar panel energy.
The relates to Collapse in a number of ways. It exposes the fragility of modern Science that underpins mainstream climate policy in order to preserve Business As Usual. Modern Science is done in the service to Business As Usual (profit) which corrupts it but often not intentionally. When carbon accounting databases rely on 20-year-old European data while 80% of panels are manufactured in coal-powered Chinese factories, the scientific consensus becomes a fiction that serves market needs rather than physical reality. This corruption is structural, arising from institutional inertia (i.e. difficult to shake faith in experts and information presented in an academic papers), funding pressures (i.e. much cheaper to reuse old manufacturing emission values than complete a full audit for every new process), and the complexity of global supply chains that resist accurate measurement(i.e. Did the entity who chose to reuse old manufacturing emission values even understand how inaccurate it could become?).
Furthermore this illustrates the worldview divide between old skool climate deniers (We are the good guys because we are super skeptical of new things!) and techno-hopium tokers (We are the good guys because we're fixing it!). Both live in a world of fantasies and delusions and seeing what they want to see, but only one of those groups is ridiculed and scorned in the circles I normally haunt because they generally lean to other group. This is unhelpful to both sides and everyone else that has to live the world between them. Echo chambers need to be removed to increase civil participation. I'm making this point because at times r/Collapse itself is an echo chamber in the regard. For example, a reply to one of my recent comments stated something like "that's because scientists are just guessing like the rest of us". That comment was censored, quite wrongly IMO. While that sentiment isn't universally true, it is far more true than false outside of things like mathematical proofs and was clearly true in the context of the comment. Censoring comments like that increase the echo chamber effect r/Collapse intrinsically has to nudge r/Collapse consumer opinions and perception of reality about the current state of Modern Science. Censoring derogatory comments about Modern Science helps to hide its flaws. Intentionally but subtly encouraging others to hold up Modern Science on a pedestal it doesn't deserve results in group idealogical beliefs that are untrue leading to behaviors which appear irrational to non-group members. This is known as making a rod for own back and for the back all members of the group and those touched by member actions and beliefs. Making a rod for your own back is irrational. Please stop removing those type of comments. It's not helping us, it's not helping you, it's not helping our predicament. Simply because some assertion exists in some peer-reviewed academic paper in a well respected journal does not make it true or fact other than the fact it printed in the journal. First principles always need to be applied, even to Modern Science.
If it turns out the case study's findings are found broad and wide in climate science and mitigation planning, it will be devastating to the theory of sustainability and fatal to the concept Net Zero. It would be clear the enormous material and energy investments required to scale renewable technology are accelerating resource consumption while creating the illusion of sustainability. All while cloaked apparent success stories of the increasing use of renewables spouted by politicians, grifters and those who wish to follow them to their pot at the end of the rainbow. Therefore the final way it's related to collapse is we may accelerating There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch may be a cliche but it's also essentially a Law of Thermodynamics.
Why hasn't this issue been explored before now? Who would fund it? Not the "renewables are future" politicians and not the politicians for "fossil fuels are the future" because funding that science would harm their respectively goals.
P.S. - I'd like to avoid logic errors like found in the reply to this example. Heat doesn't just degrade efficiency of solar panels. Also Heat doesn't just degrade efficiency of solar panels by up to 10%. The degradation is at least linear to temperature to a point then it sharply decreases. Impacts also vary across panel types and the 10% loss comes from old simple panel types, like 13 - 14% or less efficient. Heat also shortens panel lifespan faster and creates increasing safety risks like increased electrical resistance.
Bandits101@reddit
The billions of solar panels and the millions of wind turbines have and end of life. Solar panels now are accumulating in backyards, business sites and land fills.
Giant wind mill blades are mostly plastic. The towers are very expensive to remove and get toppled and left on site.
No account is made for the restoration of land or disposal at end of life of so the called “renewables”.
The giant wind turbine towers will remain like stone heads of Easter Island and testament to our utter folly and overall hubris.
Ulyks@reddit
I know this is r/collapse but come on. Solar panels are surprising most with how long they keep on working and most of the material is easy to recycle.
Wind mill blades are not plastic, it's fiberglass and they recently found a way to recycle that.
The towers get toppled and left on site? Where did that happen? It's mostly concrete so it can used for foundations just like any other concrete structure.
I am a pessimist but wind and solar are the most promising things we have. I bet you love fossil fuels?
Bandits101@reddit
Guess what the resin is that glues fibreglass. “They” have found a way to recycle a great deal of our waste and it barely registers because the profit isn’t there, the return on investment doesn’t add up.
Renewables are similar to adding a gas engine to an electric car. They extend our capacity for BAU, they cannot exist on their own. They are extending our ability to continue burning FF’s, it’s as meaningful as that.
Ulyks@reddit
Very few recycling is profitable. That is not the point.
Renewables can not be developed without going through a stage of fossil fuels but there is no reason why they can't exist on their own.
Just like a three stage rocket cannot get to space without the first stage but it can stay in space indefinitely once it's there, while the first stage has long since crashed.
Maybe it's a bad analogy but coal use could not be achieved without burning wood to make the metal tools used to get coal.
But we certainly no longer need wood to mine coal now...
The real question is what is the energy return on investment for solar panels, which is lower than most fossil fuels for obvious reasons. And there is good news. It's increasing, even in cloudy regions:
https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/67901.pdf
And your claim that they are just "extending our ability to burning fossil fuels" doesn't make sense logically.
If the energy return on investment is above 1, then it's not just extending our ability to burn FF. And if it's below 1, then it's taking away energy from FF, so reducing our ability to use FF.
And to be clear, EROI for solar panels is above 7 and rising (compared to 40 for coal).
It's well above what is needed to be sustainable, which is why countries like China are installing solar panels at an exponential rate.
Bandits101@reddit
“There is no reason they can’t exist on their own”. The power grid they are parasitic on is one reason. The towers, transformers, cables, concrete and constant maintenance are conveniently forgotten.
Ulyks@reddit
The power grid they are parasitic on is one reason.
Yeah ok, weird way to say "parasitic" in this situation. The power grid is made to transport power, it's not like it was never intended for this use...
Nobody ever said "coal plants are parasitic on the power grid". What's next? Cars are leechers of the roads?
If we take the energy needs of the power grid into consideration, the eroi might go down from 7 to 6 for solar panels?
I have no idea how to calculate this.
But long term the need for a centralized power grid is going to go down. As more people get affordable batteries at home, like the sodium ion batteries for which no lithium or cobalt is required, more and more houses can be decoupled from the power grid.
That is one of major advantages of renewables that fossil fuels never had. It can be entirely decentralized.
Bandits101@reddit
Fossil fuels built and maintain the grid., Coal if you didn’t know is a fossil fuel and without coal, the grid would not have been constructed nor can it be maintained.
FF’s are the epitome of “decentralised”. I suppose you’ll have electric, container ships and jets next. The grid was built because it was cheap and the energy supplied was cheap.
Your vision of sodium ion batteries is an absolute pipe dream, similar to covering Nevada in solar panels. We lack resources for building and replacing batteries and other so called “renewables”.
The water use alone would bankrupt a large nation. I’m out, continue your dreams with someone else and leave me alone.
Ulyks@reddit
"the grid would not have been constructed"
Why does that matter? There is no alternative universe where renewables were invented without going through a fossil fuel phase first. We have the grid now and that is what matters.
Maintaining the grid is a lot easier than constructing it. The access roads are there, the factories to produce the components have been built. We're all very thankful for the fossil fuel investments that were made in the past.
I agree that Nevada isn't going to be covered with solar panels, but China is covering part of it's deserts with solar panels and is gearing up to produce massive quantities of sodium ion batteries. The resource requirements can be met. Aluminum, glass, silicon, sodium. None of these are scarce resources.
China is also struggling with water shortages so let's see how they solve that.
Cowicidal@reddit
To be fair, they're working on it. Everything from bio-based resin for wind turbine blades to using current resin being put to use as a protective layer for concrete. The effort is expanding, not stalling. That said, I'm sure the fascist Trump regime will continue to set us back in every way but that's going to end one way or another in either a revolution against them or utter collapse of the United States as a world power.
Decloudo@reddit
The most promising thing would be reducing our energy consumption.
Ulyks@reddit
Yeah, good luck with that. Half the people on the planet are still living on 400 kWh per person per year. While other countries consume that much in a day...
I certainly agree that those latter countries should reduce energy consumption but globally, I don't think that is a reasonable goal to have...
Decloudo@reddit
Oh this will happen, when the food runs out.
You cant consume energy if your dead.
Ulyks@reddit
You can't consume energy but energy is essential to produce food and there we can see that the largest food consuming country, China, is increasingly electrifying it's farming machines and fertilizer production. In addition to creating large strategic reserves for various foods.
I think we should certainly try to create larger food reserves to deal with the unpredictable effects of climate change.
But we're not close to running out of food.
Decloudo@reddit
Only on an industrial scale, we have grown food most our history without using artificially produced energy.
Ill bet you we are way closer then people like to assume.
There are systems breaking and mechanics at play most people dont even know exist, including the ones who think themselves as informed about climate change.
Ulyks@reddit
Yeah most people are indeed badly unaware of all the risks and dependencies around them.
Even the ones that are running our countries and are supposed to be aware.
Still we aren't running out of food just yet and there is a large margin.
They way international trade is set up, if there are shortages of food, it will be felt first by the poorest, ironically the ones growing food the old fashioned way...
Logical-Race8871@reddit
I have terrible news for you
Ulyks@reddit
You got me there, but it doesn't matter? Even if it was made out of unobtainium, it still can be recycled now...
uninhabited@reddit
more expensive to leave them and get sued. This might happen in some country somewhere (show us a link) but it doesn't in most of the west for the simple reason that the land for most windfarms is leased from actual farmers who would scream blue murder if their land wasn't restored. Something like 95% of a modern wind farm can be recycled. What would you rather have: More toxic ash pits for coal-fired power stations or the burial of some turbine blades because they can't be recycled knowing that the fiberglass is inert, won't leach toxins into the soil, and can in the future be dug up and recycled if/when the tech is perfected. Or should we go for nuclear storage which is far worse? Let's go out fighting. We don't have to curl up into balls waiting to die just yet surely?
Ezekiel_29_12@reddit
When blades or gear boxes wear out, can't the wind turbine's tower be reused with a new turbine?
Ulyks@reddit
Coal use in China is dropping. It's down to 53% of the electricity energy mix. (from 75% a decade ago) It's even dropping in absolute numbers.
Fossil fuels were always going to be used to bring alternatives up to speed. Solar panels don't grow on trees nor does any other technology.
What matters is how fast we can get to 100% fossil free electricity. More solar panels and wind mills are essential to achieve that goal.
I agree with the points you make about the decrease in efficiency with heat and the increase cost in energy to create high efficiency solar panels. There is indeed no free lunch but to claim that this is grifting is weird, even for r/collapse comments.
HomoExtinctisus@reddit (OP)
It is? Are you sure? If you're sure, you've got some real interesting sources.
https://www.dw.com/en/china-burning-coal-at-record-high-levels-in-2025-report/a-73753189 https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-2024-coal-power-construction-hits-10-year-high-researchers-say-2025-02-13/
A bow is technology and it most definitely grows on trees. Spears too. Travois and Trebuchets as well.
I'm very confident we'll get to 100% fossil free at some point. Your confidence that electricity will be around when we do is not rooted in the pessimism you claim to be full of.
No where was that stated so confused about your confusion and weirdedoutness.
Ulyks@reddit
I think DW is wrong there, there are many reports of the contrary. DW writes that they consumed more coal but they point to a report that writes that they built more capacity, which is not the same thing...
There is a lot of confusion about China's newer coal power plants. They are no longer base load plants but load balancing, which means they are only used to fill in the gaps left by renewables while more power storage is being built.
https://table.media/en/china/feature/china-coal-consumption-falling-despite-more-power-plants
Please let's not go back to bows and spears. Those things are not supposed to be used until after WW3...
You wrote: "There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch may be a cliche but it's also essentially a Law of Thermodynamics"
Solar panels are not a free lunch, they require energy to produce but that energy can, in time, come from other solar panels. And when they run they require matter to be converted to energy in the sun, which is indeed finite (but not on a scale we should be worried about)
blodo_@reddit
As you say, the truth eludes both the climate deniers and the techno hopium takers. OTOH there are many reasons why the scientific consensus tries as hard as it can to not be doomer (research funding schemes among them), while the situation is extremely difficult to say the least, and frequently the hopium (whether genuine or for PR reasons) will look like its just being dishonest to someone who is aware of the dataset trends and the unfiltered thoughts of many scientists gathering this data.
It's worth saying that for all of the criticism of China's coal power, they are the only major country that has seriously undertaken a transition away from fossil fuels, that unfortunately is only ramping up relatively recently. Sure, the power input required into production of renewable power generators is only part of the emissions to account for, but it illustrates the problem: the runaway global warming is currently much faster than we can scale without economic disruptions, and if the transition is even desirable to the politicians in charge in the first place (and my argument is that China is the only country out of the big 4 emitters where politicians are even seriously trying to transition, even if the goals are still not ambitious enough).
Which brings us back to self censorship of criticism of modern science: I think it is also easy for people to run away in the other direction, and try to discredit the process as a whole, to try to perceive it as a conspiracy when the bias is a systemic effect that propagates downstream. For a truly scientific view in a world of biased reporting, one must consider examples from both sides and apply criticism to both, and finally analyse where the facts are with regards to the consensus. And the facts are that the situation is so desperate, that I think many science publications self censor as much to not lose funding as to avoid an outright panic in a situation where even fairly decisive action (at least comparatively to the other major emitters) is not enough. And this translates downstream to places such as here. If the publications were doomer, it would translate to here too, but I am not sure it would improve the quality of the discussion, just merely make people overstate the other point of view. It's difficult to arrive at a medium without wide ranging criticism of both approaches IMO. Climate doomerism too often is an emotional reaction, when it should be a scientifically informed call to action, both in prevention and in mitigation since at this point both are required.
HomoExtinctisus@reddit (OP)
All those recent China reports about their emission reduction which I have seen can be traced to the work of Lauri Myllyvirta citing numbers released by China. Encouraging if true, but it is in direct contradiction from other reporting on China's coal use.
In the years prior to this, China has also been building up coal plants at a record rate. Are you telling me China is doing all this heavy construction, opening new coal plants, opening new nuclear plants and building out it's military and supplementing Russia's military all the while hosting large car companies like Telsa and BYD and growing their presence and profits worldwide while decreasing their emissions? And that we should find China's numbers more credible over places like Reuters which arguably have the highest journalism standards of any major news organization?
I'll let you in on a fact that I haven't seen talked about here or other related subs. China's hitting peak oil right about now, same as the US. Maybe actual peak is a couple years away yet but lag in growth is already being felt by both companies. China saw this coming and decided they needed come up with more energy sources. US did as well but less strenuously, however current state it appears to be trying to disengage from anything except fossil fuels. This lack of energy growth from fossil fuels is at least as much motivation in China's pursuit of non-fossil fuel energy sources as their desire to be "green" and most likely significantly more of a reason. You're placing your hopes in a very treacherous place to be nurtured by the wholesomeness of CCP's motivations.
blodo_@reddit
I believe both are true: China is still building coal power plants, but it is building renewable power even faster. It is falling behind in its stated goals of reducing coal power capacity because its needs are scaling incredibly quickly, but there is at least resistance to taking the path of, say, India, which has seen a large scale effort to build new thermal power plants (mainly coal fired) in the post COVID years (though yes, still lower than China when compared on an absolute basis, but being number 2 isn't exactly a coveted position here either), with a much lower commitment to scaling renewables when compared to China. Lets not even speak about the USA, and its bizarre ideological commitment to try to outright cause damage to renewable installation (though thankfully the Trump admin is largely incompetent here too).
The reason why I believe China is taking the most credible steps out of all of the major emitters (once again, still not enough, but comparatively speaking) is the breadth of their strategy: scale up renewables, scale up nuclear (which still has much lower GHG emissions than any fossil fuel), scale up funding for development of modern nuclear fission energy sources (research into molten salts is also orthogonal to carbon capture tech), take the centre stage in development of fusion power, and so on. It is a wide approach, which is probably the best attempt at a solution on the table.
I wouldn't be so fast as to reduce it all to "peak oil" either. I believe the truth, as you pointed out yourself, lies somewhere in the middle: it is in China's self interest to not only keep being able to power itself, but also to not have the Gobi desert overtake it from the north, not have the Huanghe dry up, and so on. It is altruism by self interest: them trying to keep themselves safe also helps the rest of us. Them cooperating with the rest of us to keep us safe also helps them. Global warming is a global problem, and every environmentally positive contribution helps everyone, and vice versa. So out of all of the possible cases where one could question the CPC's motives, this is IMO one where it makes the least sense to do so: they can at the very least be counted on to not be outright suicidal, unlike some other examples.
In an effort to not make this post too long I'll also briefly bring up the issues of base load power, and energy transmission/storage inefficiencies which (economics aside) are the two main technical/engineering issues that tend to slow down adoption. China also suffered from these issues, and its ability to resolve them should IMO be studied by other countries if they ever hope to hit even the milquetoast Paris targets.
BrightCandle@reddit
Lets do a quick calculation to see if its possible this is right that 28 years of the solar production is actually consumed by panel creation.
1KWp of Solar panel produces 1.873MWh annually in Australia which is about the best case but lets run with that. So this papers claim is that it costs about 52.44MWh to make those panels and so they only produce 3.7MWh over and above that.
China is producing 80% of the worlds panels and made 1540 GW worth of panel last year. The power needs for that would thus be 1540 * 1000000 * 52.44 = 80,757,600,000 MWh, that is 80,757 TWh.
China's total energy usage in 2024 was 9,852 TWh. I can't make this authors claims work, he has used China's total energy needs 8x just for Solar panels. Doesn't pass the basic sniff test for me.
Fit-Swordfish8104@reddit
I couldn't find the 2-7 x figure OP was basing their calculation off of anywhere in the referenced paper, dunno where they got it from. The paper made well reasoned and cited arguments about lacks in clarity and accuracy of current PV lifecycle emission calculations, but estimating the full range of the inaccuracy did not seem to be within the scope of the paper. OP's chosen EPBT of 4 years seems suspect too. With an EPBT of 8 months, you use about a fifth of China's total energy, which seems realistic after you account for conversions to lifecycle CO2 equivalents.
However, this is a valuable paper and it would be unwise to dismiss it out of hand because OP didn't frame it accurately. It draws a clear conclusion that the industry does not provide accurate calculations about PV cells and there is a need for increased accuracy their emission equivalents.
BrightCandle@reddit
I could not validate that finding in the paper either and I agree it talks through issues where the data is lacking. CO2e data is lacking in every industry its a problem across the glove and its all based on estimates because measuring a lot of these processes are company secrets.
7 months has been the usual finding for a Solar panel energy production pay off period and its very hard for it to be substantially higher than that or it becomes far too big based on the measured energy use of the entire country. Even a fifth would be substantial for just one industry, its not impossible but they have many high energy industries.
Mission-Notice7820@reddit
No such thing as a free lunch.
CorvidCorbeau@reddit
As much as I like solar panels, I like scientific transparency even more. It's unfortunate that lags and inaccuracies persist in basically every area of knowledge that we keep, but that's exactly why studies like this are both necessary and much appreciated.
StatementBot@reddit
The following submission statement was provided by /u/HomoExtinctisus:
This is longer than I would like but I don't want to cut stuff because I think the points are important and add nuance.
SS: It seems for solar panel manufacturing, calculating Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions may not be very accurate. For example, newer high efficiency panels require a non-trivial amount of additional energy inputs to manufacture, yet they are still at least some sold with labeling using emissions calculations from older, easier to make panels which are less efficient. The case study goes on to expose some of the foundational data used to report emissions grossly underestimates real-world emissions. If the cornerstone of renewable energy transition have carbon footprints 2-7 times higher than reported, this fundamentally breaks the climate mitigation ability as told by the IPCC. Let's assume the worse case 7x emissions scenario and use a value for EPBT (Energy Payback Time) at 4 years and the commercial lifespan of the panels is 30 years. Other factors assumed to be 0 additional emissions i.e. land use change, no storm destroyed the solar field, unplanned maintenance, etc. (7x emissions * 4y) = 28 years to EPBT and 30 - 28 = 2. For 2 years out of 30, the panel would generate energy we would not have otherwise gotten from fossil fuels but a verifiable shit-ton of work had to be done to convert fossil fuel energy to solar panel energy.
The relates to Collapse in a number of ways. It exposes the fragility of modern Science that underpins mainstream climate policy in order to preserve Business As Usual. Modern Science is done in the service to Business As Usual (profit) which corrupts it but often not intentionally. When carbon accounting databases rely on 20-year-old European data while 80% of panels are manufactured in coal-powered Chinese factories, the scientific consensus becomes a fiction that serves market needs rather than physical reality. This corruption is structural, arising from institutional inertia (i.e. difficult to shake faith in experts and information presented in an academic papers), funding pressures (i.e. much cheaper to reuse old manufacturing emission values than complete a full audit for every new process), and the complexity of global supply chains that resist accurate measurement(i.e. Did the entity who chose to reuse old manufacturing emission values even understand how inaccurate it could become?).
Furthermore this illustrates the worldview divide between old skool climate deniers (We are the good guys because we are super skeptical of new things!) and techno-hopium tokers (We are the good guys because we're fixing it!). Both live in a world of fantasies and delusions and seeing what they want to see, but only one of those groups is ridiculed and scorned in the circles I normally haunt because they generally lean to other group. This is unhelpful to both sides and everyone else that has to live the world between them. Echo chambers need to be removed to increase civil participation. I'm making this point because at times r/Collapse itself is an echo chamber in the regard. For example, a reply to one of my recent comments stated something like "that's because scientists are just guessing like the rest of us". That comment was censored, quite wrongly IMO. While that sentiment isn't universally true, it is far more true than false outside of things like mathematical proofs and was clearly true in the context of the comment. Censoring comments like that increase the echo chamber effect r/Collapse intrinsically has to nudge r/Collapse consumer opinions and perception of reality about the current state of Modern Science. Censoring derogatory comments about Modern Science helps to hide its flaws. Intentionally but subtly encouraging others to hold up Modern Science on a pedestal it doesn't deserve results in group idealogical beliefs that are untrue leading to behaviors which appear irrational to non-group members. This is known as making a rod for own back and for the back all members of the group and those touched by member actions and beliefs. Making a rod for your own back is irrational. Please stop removing those type of comments. It's not helping us, it's not helping you, it's not helping our predicament. Simply because some assertion exists in some peer-reviewed academic paper in a well respected journal does not make it true or fact other than the fact it printed in the journal. First principles always need to be applied, even to Modern Science.
If it turns out the case study's findings are found broad and wide in climate science and mitigation planning, it will be devastating to the theory of sustainability and fatal to the concept Net Zero. It would be clear the enormous material and energy investments required to scale renewable technology are accelerating resource consumption while creating the illusion of sustainability. All while cloaked apparent success stories of the increasing use of renewables spouted by politicians, grifters and those who wish to follow them to their pot at the end of the rainbow. Therefore the final way it's related to collapse is we may accelerating Collapse by our choice to attempt to continue BAU. There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch may be a cliche but it's also essentially a Law of Thermodynamics.
Why hasn't this issue been explored before now? Who would fund it? Not the "renewables are future" politicians and not the politicians for "fossil fuels are the future" because funding that science would harm their respectively goals.
P.S. - I'd like to avoid logic errors like found in the reply to this example. Heat doesn't just degrade efficiency of solar panels. Also Heat doesn't just degrade efficiency of solar panels by up to 10%. The degradation is at least linear to temperature to a point then it sharply decreases. Impacts also vary across panel types and the 10% loss comes from old simple panel types, like 13 - 14% or less efficient. Heat also shortens panel lifespan faster and creates increasing safety risks like increased electrical resistance.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1n5hjmd/the_limits_of_the_current_consensus_regarding_the/nbsr3lh/
StatementBot@reddit
As a final reminder, your post must include a valid submission statement within 30 min. Your post is missing a submission statement.
Submission statements must clearly explain why the linked content is collapse-related. They should contain a summary or description of the content and must be at least 150 characters in length. They must be original and not overly composed of quoted text from the source. If a statement is not added within thirty minutes of posting it will be removed.
Please message the moderators if you feel this was an error. Responses to this comment are not monitored.
OGSyedIsEverywhere@reddit
Man, it's really negative on our current consensus and it sticks purely to the silicon wafer purification chain. As soon as somebody looks at the alum supply chain it'll take about two weeks for the solar promoters to get put on suicide watch.