4 ms·
Yeah, coal is obviously WAY worse than solar vis a vis carbon dioxide. I'm not disputing that. But compared to other renewables, it doesn't do as well as you'
by mrbabbage 9y ago
Yeah, coal is obviously WAY worse than solar vis a vis carbon dioxide. I'm not disputing that. But compared to other renewables, it doesn't do as well as you'd expect:
- wind: 11 g / kWh [1]
- nuclear: 12 g / kWh [2]
- solar PV: 45 g / kWh [3]
- gas: 450 g / kWh [4]
Of course, 12 g vs 45 g is NOTHING compared to 45 g vs 450 g (and coal is another 2x atop gas!), so I'm making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill.
[1] http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_wind.html http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_wind.html
[2] http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_nuclear.html http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_nuclear.html
[3] http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_pv.html http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_pv.html
[4] http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_ngas.html http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_ngas.html
- crdoconnor 9y agoGas actually contributes more to global warming even than coal does because of the methane (~100x as powerful a warming gas as CO2) also released during extraction: http://inhabitat.com/updated-cornell-study-shows-fracking-causes-more-global-warming-than-coal/ http://inhabitat.com/updated-cornell-study-shows-fracking-ca...
- Filligree 9y agoOn the other hand, methane breaks down fast. It's only an immediate problem; if we didn't release more CO2 than could be absorbed, then we'd have a fairly decent methane budget as well. As it stands, of course, it makes everything worse.