3 ms·

Source please. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_

Source please. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_em... Solar is listed at 4x more and wind seems to be on par with nuclear. Both solar and wind are far better than the hydrocarbon alternatives. I used to be very pro nuclear but I think nuclear has a lot of hidden costs - very long ramp up time, long and expensive cleanups.

rakoo 7y ago
Doesn't account for the technology needed to make solar and wind reliable, you won't get the same numbers. See some numbers in https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/05/sustainability-off-grid-solar-power.html https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/05/sustainability-off... > Both solar and wind are far better than the hydrocarbon alternatives. Agreed, of course. I'm only mentioning nuclear because people tend to think that merely replacing fossil with pv/wind is good enough. Not only is it not enough, it's also more expensive and barely getting us to the right track. Nuclear isn't perfect of course, but all things considered it's still better.
- askvictor 7y ago
  Solar and wind are reliable, just not necessarily consistent. Aging coal plants are unreliable (they can and do fail without warning), compared to solar and wind, which run reliably when the sun is shining or wind is blowing, both of which can be predicted quite accurately for a few days.
  - rakoo 7y ago
    That's not the same meaning of reliable. What is usually meant is "can I trust this source to give me this amount of power at this time", or can I rely on it being available: fossil can, intermittent (by definition) can't. You need to look at the overall electricity generating system, not just the individual sources hoping they will seamlessly integrate in the grid with little changes.

3 ms·

Source please. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_

by iso1337 7y ago

rakoo 7y ago
Doesn't account for the technology needed to make solar and wind reliable, you won't get the same numbers. See some numbers in https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/05/sustainability-off-grid-solar-power.html https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/05/sustainability-off... > Both solar and wind are far better than the hydrocarbon alternatives. Agreed, of course. I'm only mentioning nuclear because people tend to think that merely replacing fossil with pv/wind is good enough. Not only is it not enough, it's also more expensive and barely getting us to the right track. Nuclear isn't perfect of course, but all things considered it's still better.
- askvictor 7y ago
  Solar and wind are reliable, just not necessarily consistent. Aging coal plants are unreliable (they can and do fail without warning), compared to solar and wind, which run reliably when the sun is shining or wind is blowing, both of which can be predicted quite accurately for a few days.
  - rakoo 7y ago
    That's not the same meaning of reliable. What is usually meant is "can I trust this source to give me this amount of power at this time", or can I rely on it being available: fossil can, intermittent (by definition) can't. You need to look at the overall electricity generating system, not just the individual sources hoping they will seamlessly integrate in the grid with little changes.