July 21, 20242 yr From the clever folk (I have no connection with them) who created the embodied carbon database for the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. Worth a look if you care about your carbon emissions/footprint when you buy the cheapest PV. Good summary at the bottom of the page. https://circularecology.com/solar-pv-embodied-carbon.html
July 21, 20242 yr There’s a few different figures for Kg CO2 / kWp in the article, but they all seem very high. 2500kg/kWp is used twice, a lower number later; that 2.5T corresponding to 1000kg for a 400W solar panel which you can buy for £60 these days, ie. 17kg CO2e/£….way higher than buying a barrel of Brent crude oil and burning it (5kg/£). I just don’t get how you can get higher emissions than buying oil and burning it - ok you can, but no legal and sensible business strategies. I think that figure is very old and irrelevant now.
July 22, 20242 yr Interesting. A Willmott Dixon report shows 520 - 780 kg/kWp. An eTude report, 615kg/kWp. This report, with Craig Jones (he is Dr Circular Economy) as one of the authors shows between 249 - 2104 kg/kWp. So something seems amiss, maybe an editing mistake. Are they using Cradle to Grave or Cradle to Gate figures? Edited July 22, 20242 yr by SteamyTea
July 22, 20242 yr Daft thing with all these reports they miss one fundamental If we and others had not installed PV or wind (expect the same sort of paper on wind), the grid would not be decarbonised and we would still be reliant on coal etc. So the end state of reports like this is in 2030/2050 if we are net zero or close to it, is no renewable energy source makes sense. It should only be compared against say a carbon emitter, which is what it is displacing, not a mix of other non carbon emitters. Normal for this type of report it's sh#te in, sh#te out. Maybe it was written by or for the Telegraph, they seem to love this sort of thing.
Create an account or sign in to comment