Hacker News Reader

Comment by seibelj | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

> some horses and man power

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com