If you click on the link provided by @bitflip you’d have seen this in the first paragraph.
The goal of this study was to conduct a comprehensive life cycle assessment (LCA) for large onshore wind turbines in the US, including all phases of the turbine’s life cycle separately (materials acquisition, manufacturing, transportation, installation, operation and maintenance, and end of life)
I took the time to read your comment and think about what you said before I replied. Please read my reply and think what I mean by “cradle to grave” or alternatively what “life cycle” means. It covers everything you say and more.
Slightly off topic but related is what hasn’t been discussed is the obvious nature of the turbines requiring it to be windy for efficiency. I’m not a 100% but today only around 3% of the UK energy needs has come from wind power due to low winds and other days it’s been considerably higher. Gas still has a big role to play in energy production over the short and medium term. The obvious solution over the long term is renewables backed up by nuclear, but nuclear has a reputation to be just as bad. Hopefully in the long term fusion technology can replace nuclear. There’s now no doubt that the not in my backyard mentality and ESG group think ideas is going to bite anyone in Europe in the ass. While ESG is morally right this is when ideology meets practically. Unfortunately Europe doesn’t have the technology or the infrastructure to meet a net 0 target anytime soon.
Trying reading some of the sources @bitflip posted. It’s more than a little strange people being interested in a full life cycle analysis of anything potentially green, but never applying the same thing to anything else.
Some have also suggested that UK shale gas production would reduce the cost of energy for UK consumers. However, this is based on the false assumption that UK shale gas would be sold significantly below the international market price for natural gas. A study published in March 2020 by Warwick Business School pointed out: “It is widely recognised that the open and liberal nature of the UK’s gas market means that the market price – the National Balancing Point (NBP) – is unlikely to be influenced by shale gas development.”
In any case, when journalists made that sort “only X years” comment they forgot a few words. The way the oil industry works is that it talks about proven reserves and in particular commercially viable reserves. There are two main factors that some into play when talking about commercially viable reserves: the cost of extraction and the market price of the oil/gas. As oil reserves deplete often stimulation techniques are used to extract more gas/oil but it is only done if the market price is good enough. This is significant: if the market price is good enough. So the life of oil fields gets reappraised over the years and who does this?
It is the relevant experts who do it, based on the state of the reservoir, advances in technology and changes in oil price, not the journalists or politicians.
fail to see this. And they don’t get the irony, they are asking for government intervention, subsidies, increased taxes, handouts and so on and so forth.
How much are the carbon emissions of legacy fossil fuels priced in at the moment?
I’m slightly sympathetic to the marginal preferred costs of gas (good graph here) - actually no screw it, we’re facing an existential crisis that threatens the future of the planet, of civilisation, of countless species, the future well being of children yet to be born etc etc etc… The UK government should be doing a Manhattan/Apollo level project and pushing for solar panels on every single new residential/commercial building and filling our seas with turbines PLUS looking for next valley to flood for hydro storage etc etc
Polite contract negotiations aren’t going to save the world. It’s like fiddling whilst Rome burns.