Where is electricity almost perfectly green? Burning at the house is thermodynamically much more efficient (and by extension much more green) than burning at a plant for resistive heating at the house.
Nowhere in the US is even close to having an energy mix where this is not the case. Why take steps backward and pollute more? Shouldn't we be trying to make strides to reduce emissions?
A study in the UK found that heating with electricity has lower carbon emissions than heating with natural gas:
> the average efficiency of gas heating rose slowly to 86% over the last decade, so that carbon emissions from producing 1 kWh of central heating [using natural gas] fell to 215 grams of CO2 in 2019. However, simple [resistance] electric heaters averaged only 207 grams of carbon dioxide per kWh by the end of 2019
For new buildings the effect is probably even greater, as you are probably going to choose a heat pump (2-5kW heat output for 1kW electrical input) over resistance heating.
The US averages around 400g CO2 per kWh, so yes maybe resistance heating doesn't make sense, but heat pumps for sure do.
> Burning at the house is thermodynamically much more efficient (and by extension much more green) than burning at a plant for resistive heating at the house.
Which is why almost no houses in heating-dominated climates use primarily resistance heating.
In the UK, pretty much anywhere that uses electric heating will be resistive: either night-time storage heaters or just straight-up electric radiators. Heat pumps are still exceedingly rare.
Wind turbines are manufactured using petrochemicals and currently have no way of being recycled, so they build up when they are replaced. GE hopes to turn them into some form of cement, but that may take decades https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turb...
Solar panels are built in China, powered by coal and slave labor.
My point is there is no such thing as a free lunch, and a lot of "green" tech is very much not-so at this point.
I see this point often brought up to detract from green energy sources. But I fail to see how it would be possible to transition to any new green technology without relying on the existing energy infrastructure for manufacturing. This attitude reminds of of the saying "perfection is the enemy of the good" and would get us no closer to a green energy future if everyone held this opinion.
Put another way, what is the alternative you are proposing for the energy source to manufacture the first wind turbine (at cost and can scale)? You might be able to manufacture a couple of wind turbines with some horses and man power but it will never be cost competitive with fossil fuels unfortunately.
Those also produce CO2 (effectively by burning sugar, more or less), and IIRC generally more of it per unit of useful work than a good fossil-fuel-powered engine.
I’m trying to point out an uncomfortable truth that a lot of green promoters gloss over or fail to acknowledge. In some cases natural gas may be the best option for the environment given a location - that’s simply a fact. Producing solar power, even if it was perfect and constant, does not magically remove all of the petrochemicals involved in its manufacture, transport, and maintenance.
I think hydro and nuclear are the realistic clean options. Solar and wind are not going to fix our problems.
Nowhere in the US is even close to having an energy mix where this is not the case. Why take steps backward and pollute more? Shouldn't we be trying to make strides to reduce emissions?