3 ms·
Just out of curiosity, how does a coal / nuclear plant compare ? Those are neither small, nor made from cotton candy.
by golem14 9y ago
Just out of curiosity, how does a coal / nuclear plant compare ? Those are neither small, nor made from cotton candy.
- beefman 9y agoYou can have a look at my LCA page[1]. The Sanyo figures are obsolete and I should update them soon. The coal figure is double-counted but hopefully that's clear. The LCA literature, including this page, is quite seriously flawed. But it should be a good starting point. [1] http://lumma.org/energy/lca/ http://lumma.org/energy/lca/
- golem14 9y agoI looked at that site, but the data here is hard to verify, and the methodology is a bit unclear. E.g., coal energy only has a coal material flow, the wind turbine only a steel material flow. I'm not even sure if that means that the turbine has a life expectancy of so many GW and then is considered evaporated. I suppose coal plans are made of cotton candy, or the material per GWh is negligible ? Trying to figure this out, a nuclear plant might have 1GW capacity and a lifetime of 30 years, so ≈260,000 hours. [1] seems to suggest a plant would need 40,000t of steel, or about 0.16t steel/GWh over the lifetime, with coal plans using over twice that. My math might be off, or the assumptions might be wrong. [1] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/519e/a5c55a312f3f45ccfcc4a093a941366c6658.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/519e/a5c55a312f3f45ccfcc4a0...