What is the most environmental place to live?

[Jamie in Chile]

A country running on nuclear, geothermal, or hydroelectric is going to be better than trying to get energy from solar.

But countries like that also often sell their unused electricity to neighbors... which means if YOU use it, somebody else is getting less power and is going to burn coal (or something else) to make up for it.

I think residential solar makes sense, because energy is being produced where it's used.

I am not convinced about this argument (the part I've bolded above). I think that would not effect your own calculation of your own footprint (which is the topic of the thread) and would not be your fault. For one thing, I think countries use most of their own energy except on very windy or sunny days (I don't have the evidence for this, but that is my gut feeling from articles I've read.) But, I also think the argument probably isn't, on average, true. Demand leads to more supply and for each person that moves to a country using renewable power more renewable power might be added. However these kinds of supply-demand questions are very tricky and I don't want to get into the detail of it.

Now with home solar for electricity and even heating, you don't have to worry about it. Given that the thread is about how to lower one's own personal carbon emissions, I will grant you that your home solar suggestion is probably superior than my suggestion to answer the basic question of the thread, assuming we lay aside other considerations like the hassling of setting it up and the cost (although we still need to factor in the cost of producing the solar panel).

However, the problem is that solar panels take so long to pay themselves back that you need to factor in inflation and the decreasing value of money that if you hadn't bought the solar panels you could have invested the money in the stock market. Given such considerations, it's possible that they never make back the money, according to some calculations. Now if you took the few thousand dollars you would spent on solar panels and gave it to a charity working on rainforest protection or handing out energy efficient stoves in the third world, and then carry on using grid electricity, you may have reduced the total amount of CO2e in the atmosphere more effectively. Or, give it to the most effective charity there is and it may save on average 1 person's life.

Anyway, even if you are going to install solar panels once you've moved to a country, having a local grid with a low carbon intensity is still useful firstly for backup of cloudy days, and secondly because you will still be using that local grid indirectly, e.g. when you purchase products or use services, as I mentioned previously.

[brimstoneSalad]

Demand leads to more supply and for each person that moves to a country using renewable power more renewable power might be added. However these kinds of supply-demand questions are very tricky and I don't want to get into the detail of it.

For solar and wind that may be pretty likely unless they've maxed out their production potential.

For hydroelectric and some cases of geothermal it's very unlikely because those resources are fully utilized very quickly.

For nuclear, it's complicated by politics and anti-nuclear sentiment. Not a lot of new plants are being built, unfortunately.

It's something to keep in mind, anyway. Consequences are consequences, just because somebody else is using the power doesn't make you not responsible for removing their sustainable alternative.

Now with home solar for electricity and even heating, you don't have to worry about it. Given that the thread is about how to lower one's own personal carbon emissions, I will grant you that your home solar suggestion is probably superior than my suggestion to answer the basic question of the thread, assuming we lay aside other considerations like the hassling of setting it up and the cost (although we still need to factor in the cost of producing the solar panel).

Right. And I think we probably need to worry most about what we can do on our own rather than trying to move the grid.

In terms of costs:
There ARE programs for buying renewable energy credits, which subsidizes renewable and puts it on the grid for others on parity with other sources to replace them (with no indication to those end users that it's renewable, which is the problem with buying "vegan credits"; karma theft).
That may be an easier option if you're concerned with personal costs.
Solar panels don't have great EROEI, that is true.
Solar panel recycling may help with that in the future. Just make sure you recycle them when you have to replace panels, or if there's no option yet, then save them and look for one in a couple years; the market is going to start to take off as solar panels from the 90's start to reach the end of their lifespans. I believe Washington state has actually legislated to mandate manufacturers and sellers provide for recycling, although I don't think it's in effect yet. We could expect that to be true in the next 20 years for panels installed today. Silicon recovery could make a big difference.

Anyway, the main thing you need to do is make your home more energy efficient (or live in an apartment where you have very little outside surface area), that in itself provides huge savings.

However, the problem is that solar panels take so long to pay themselves back that you need to factor in inflation and the decreasing value of money that if you hadn't bought the solar panels you could have invested the money in the stock market. Given such considerations, it's possible that they never make back the money, according to some calculations.

Yes, but that's not an issue of losing the whole several thousand dollars; they recover SOME of the expense. It's an issue of having a little bit of loss. Depending on the calculation, they save a tiny bit of money, break even, or lose a little. I don't think anybody is saying every dollar is down the drain. I would expect a loss on the order of hundreds, not thousands. And if a carbon tax manifests within the lifetime of the panels, you're much more likely to see net savings; even modest losses depend on the political climate staying how it is, and energy prices not increasing substantially.

Now if you took the few thousand dollars you would spent on solar panels and gave it to a charity working on rainforest protection or handing out energy efficient stoves in the third world, and then carry on using grid electricity, you may have reduced the total amount of CO2e in the atmosphere more effectively. Or, give it to the most effective charity there is and it may save on average 1 person's life.

Well, it'd probably be hundreds because you are going to recover at least most of it. And that may possibly be, but I'm pretty skeptical.
Given the uncertainty, it makes the most sense to focus on eliminating your own impact first, and then extending after that to charity.

Anyway, even if you are going to install solar panels once you've moved to a country, having a local grid with a low carbon intensity is still useful firstly for backup of cloudy days, and secondly because you will still be using that local grid indirectly, e.g. when you purchase products or use services, as I mentioned previously.

True, assuming there's not an issue of limited zero carbon sources and export.

[Jebus]

I assume you are doing this as hypothetical exercise?

Hypothetically out of curiosity but also practically as I hope to retire in less than 15 years and will perhaps move location.

The carbon intensity of some countries' grids can be 10 times better than others.

Surprising to see that there is so much variation between EU nations.

Choose a city rather than the country for environmentally sound living.

For most people this would be true although I think a rural life without the need to move large distances would be the best option.

since you may end up picking up the habits of the locals. If you move to the USA you may end up buying a large home because there aren't as many small ones available or to keep up with the neighbours, or having a large car because small cars barely exist, or because you want to culturally fit in.

Unfortunately, this is probably true for most people but I think those really concerned about minimizing their carbon footprint would care less. Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass what my neighbours think.

If, after moving, you then decide to take long-haul flights back to your home country now and then to see family and friends, then the whole scheme is pointless and you had better stay where you are.

This, I have already considered, and it will definitely be a major factor in choosing my retirement home.

However, the problem is that solar panels take so long to pay themselves back that you need to factor in inflation and the decreasing value of money that if you hadn't bought the solar panels you could have invested the money in the stock market.

I don't think this factors in the fact that off-grip properties tend to cost a lot less than on-grid properties.

[Jamie in Chile]

Brimstone salad, thanks for your comments. I think you are probably right, I probably wasn't right to talk about taking several thousand that you have saved from solar panels and spending it on other environmental causes instead. You could pay the several thousand to the solar panels, then immediately save say 30 dollars a month on electricity, and then immediately set up a direct debit to give a charity working on rainforest protection or handing out energy efficient stoves in the third world that amount of 30 dollars a month.

However, on the downside you have caused more carbon emissions in the short term (in the construction of the solar panel) and deferred the gain until later. I believe there is a school of thought that carbon emissions now will have more damaging impact than later. I am not too sure about that,though, just something I vaguely reccollect.

There is also a risk that your solar panels will break, that you will move house and they won't get use, or that the won't work well. However I think these are fairly weak arguments overall.

So on the whole maybe I was being a bit harsh on solar panels.

However for my specific personal situation I am not convinced yet, since I rent rather than own which adds a difficulty (I thought I could sell the solar panels cheaply to the owner when I leave?), and Chile's CO2e/KWh is half the world average. Solar panel installations for carbon improvements are a very long term project (10-40 years?) so need to consider whether the country's CO2e/kWH factor may drastically improve in that time. In Chile, they are talking about connecting the solar power north to the central grid where I live at some point.

[Jamie in Chile]

Jebus, if you want to live in a rural location fair enough. Just choose a place where your daily/weekly journeys will be very short as I think implied earlier in the discussion, perhaps done by walking or cycling.

By the 2030s in European countries there may be widespread electric car availability - even second hand ones at low prices- and very low CO2e/KWH factors meaning that car usage may become much greener anyway.

[Jamie in Chile]

since you may end up picking up the habits of the locals. If you move to the USA you may end up buying a large home because there aren't as many small ones available or to keep up with the neighbours, or having a large car because small cars barely exist, or because you want to culturally fit in.

Unfortunately, this is probably true for most people but I think those really concerned about minimizing their carbon footprint would care less. Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass what my neighbours think.

Provided that you don't have dependent kids and either live alone or live with other people that fully think the same way as you do, then I agree, so fair enough.

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't think this factors in the fact that off-grip properties tend to cost a lot less than on-grid properties.

Very good point. Off-grid savings could easily be more than enough to finance solar installation. Of course, in that case you have to have more solar panels because you'll have to deal with cloudy days and you can't use the grid as a backup. To use a normal amount, you'd have to be OK with not using a lot of electricity on cloudy days (no electric heating/AC, no blenders, probably moderate electronics use, don't open your refrigerator or freezer more than once or twice) -- definitely doable, but may create some quality of life issues.

You can complement a solar installation with a vertical axis wind turbine, since cloudy days are often windier, but that's more infrastructure investment (and embodied energy which needs to be paid back by the system).

It gets complicated when you have to deal with backup plans, so you always have to be prepared for a little personal hardship when you get a perfect storm (maybe a literal storm, no solar, and turbines have to be locked down so they don't break in high winds).

However, on the downside you have caused more carbon emissions in the short term (in the construction of the solar panel) and deferred the gain until later.

Yes, we have to carefully consider EROEI

I believe there is a school of thought that carbon emissions now will have more damaging impact than later. I am not too sure about that,though, just something I vaguely reccollect.

You can deal with it in the same way as monetary interest. We'd have to figure out what interest rate makes sense (of course this is what makes nuclear preferable, but we don't have personal access to that).

Solar panels have a pretty short lifespan and should pay for themselves in terms of energy provided in around 4 years. So there's an immediate carbon output, a break even at four years, then a savings for the next 20 or so.
There's a table here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested#Economic_influence_of_EROEI

Wind is better there, BUT that's highly site specific and I think it only applies to the large turbines. I don't think you could beat solar for residential use.

There is also a risk that your solar panels will break, that you will move house and they won't get use, or that the won't work well. However I think these are fairly weak arguments overall.

Breakage is an odds game, and you're not responsible for that unless it was negligence; overall benefit is still statistically good.

If you moved house or something that would be your fault, you could move your solar system though.

However for my specific personal situation I am not convinced yet, since I rent rather than own which adds a difficulty (I thought I could sell the solar panels cheaply to the owner when I leave?),

Yes, you would probably need to own.
Home ownership is important for energy efficiency. You can replace your windows, add insulation, build a grey water system, build a geothermal system, and do a lot of other very important things for energy conservation.

and Chile's CO2e/KWh is half the world average. Solar panel installations for carbon improvements are a very long term project (10-40 years?) so need to consider whether the country's CO2e/kWH factor may drastically improve in that time. In Chile, they are talking about connecting the solar power north to the central grid where I live at some point.

Unless they're talking about taking the grid nuclear, I think it's a good idea.
Distributed solar (on each house) is better than centralized production anyway.

[Jebus]

you have to have more solar panels because you'll have to deal with cloudy days and you can't use the grid as a backup. To use a normal amount, you'd have to be OK with not using a lot of electricity on cloudy days (no electric heating/AC, no blenders, probably moderate electronics use, don't open your refrigerator or freezer more than once or twice) -- definitely doable, but may create some quality of life issues.

I have read several off-grid living accounts (such as the vegans living at the Vegoa project in Portugal) and I never read that anyone has to skimp on his power usage. With a good set of batteries you are good to go.

I like Elon Musk's project of using solar receptors as building materials. Still a bit pricey but hopefully that will soon come down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMrantzEYC8

Regarding electric cars I am not entirely convinced. In my country, they burn coal for electricity. In this case, a small petrol car may be the greenest option. Are any countries really prepared for the increased power consumption if all cars were to go electric in the next 20 years? Also, given the time it takes to charge a car imagine the required size of charging stations.

[brimstoneSalad]

I have read several off-grid living accounts (such as the vegans living at the Vegoa project in Portugal) and I never read that anyone has to skimp on his power usage. With a good set of batteries you are good to go.

They're probably using arrays and battery banks sized to maximum usage under unfavorable conditions; it means they've bought a lot more solar panel and battery than strictly necessary, and there's probably a lot of wasted power if they aren't using it for something during peak production (once the batteries are charged).

Some people don't realize how wasteful that is, because they imagine it as free energy and so it's OK to waste it.

More solar panels waste energy to produce, and if they're not being used to the fullest they're not necessarily going to see good returns on that investment. A large battery bank is also expensive and has significant embodied energy itself (maybe more than the panels in some cases).

The point is it's more complicated than over-engineering, because over-engineering itself is wasteful. Sustainability is a careful balance.

Regarding electric cars I am not entirely convinced. In my country, they burn coal for electricity. In this case, a small petrol car may be the greenest option. Are any countries really prepared for the increased power consumption if all cars were to go electric in the next 20 years? Also, given the time it takes to charge a car imagine the required size of charging stations.

I'm not certain, but coal powered plants are still probably more efficient than distributed power production from petrol in small engines (Jamie may know of some stats on this).
The higher temperatures and pressures reached at large facilities generates power more efficiently. Also, beyond the efficiency of the power generation, electric cars use tricks like regenerative breaking which is very useful for city driving and driving in hilly areas (highway driving on flat terrain does not provide this advantage).

Your best bet is ethanol if you can get it, but beyond that a hybrid may be a good choice (particularly for city or hilly driving, thanks to regenerative breaking).

[Jebus]

I have read several off-grid living accounts (such as the vegans living at the Vegoa project in Portugal) and I never read that anyone has to skimp on his power usage. With a good set of batteries you are good to go.

They're probably using arrays and battery banks sized to maximum usage under unfavorable conditions; it means they've bought a lot more solar panel and battery than strictly necessary, and there's probably a lot of wasted power if they aren't using it for something during peak production (once the batteries are charged).

Some people don't realize how wasteful that is, because they imagine it as free energy and so it's OK to waste it.

More solar panels waste energy to produce, and if they're not being used to the fullest they're not necessarily going to see good returns on that investment. A large battery bank is also expensive and has significant embodied energy itself (maybe more than the panels in some cases).

The point is it's more complicated than over-engineering, because over-engineering itself is wasteful. Sustainability is a careful balance.

I think you are over complicating things here. A person simply needs to compare his current carbon impact compared to the proposed off-grid option. If the identical energy consumption of the proposed option is lower (even after considering the impact of the production) she would be making a better choice. I think "waste" is too strong of a word in this context as it is quite different from, for example, leaving the a.c. on in an unoccupied room. What you refer to as "waste" also applies to on-grid systems that would rather overproduce than risk not being able to support its energy needs.