Having more clean energy is always better.
Just having a diminished reduction in emissions doesn’t make it worse.
I don’t love the headline. It makes it sound like we’re still trying to figure out how to calculate carbon abatement in models, and it’s a well established practice.
Basically someone tried to do something new and clever with geospatial data mining combined with AI to calculate carbon abatement of rooftop PV. The “rebuttal” paper by EPRI says “very neat method, however, maybe let’s stick to tried and true production cost models which can capture the necessary phenomenon to accurately assess carbon abatement.” We’ve been doing PCM analyses for decades.
I thought someone was finally noticing that the LCA databases are 10-15 years out of date and require twice as much material sourced from processes twice as energy intensive on a grid that’s twice as carbon intensive than the modules in the model.
3 comments
Having more clean energy is always better.
Just having a diminished reduction in emissions doesn’t make it worse.
I don’t love the headline. It makes it sound like we’re still trying to figure out how to calculate carbon abatement in models, and it’s a well established practice.
Basically someone tried to do something new and clever with geospatial data mining combined with AI to calculate carbon abatement of rooftop PV. The “rebuttal” paper by EPRI says “very neat method, however, maybe let’s stick to tried and true production cost models which can capture the necessary phenomenon to accurately assess carbon abatement.” We’ve been doing PCM analyses for decades.
I thought someone was finally noticing that the LCA databases are 10-15 years out of date and require twice as much material sourced from processes twice as energy intensive on a grid that’s twice as carbon intensive than the modules in the model.
But no, instead we get…whatever this is.
Comments are closed.