4 ms·

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report[1] "estimates that since 2009 the average construction time for reactors worldwide was just under 10 years, well above

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report[1] "estimates that since 2009 the average construction time for reactors worldwide was just under 10 years, well above the estimate given by industry body the World Nuclear Association (WNA) of between 5 and 8.5 years." The data on ElectricityMap is dubious at best -- I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it's simply due to not updating with more recent figures for some countries. 1: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSK...

toomuchtodo 6y ago
ElectricityMap's data is accurate, and (in the case of France) sourced from https://opendata.reseaux-energies.fr https://opendata.reseaux-energies.fr [1] (I am a volunteer contributor to the platform). [1] https://github.com/tmrowco/electricitymap-contrib/blob/master/DATA_SOURCES.md https://github.com/tmrowco/electricitymap-contrib/blob/maste...
- CogentHedgehog 6y ago
  BS. Nobody who is involved with the energy sector thinks ElectricityMap has any credibility. The datasets are extremely fragmentary and have huge yawning gaps with no data available, which should be the first red flag for anybody citing it. I have literally only seen ElectricityMap cited by nuclear energy shills -- as has been demonstrated in the comments here. Edit: I won't deny it might have value for trends over time within a given country, but the country-to-country carbon emissions comparisons simply don't fit with official figures.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Google uses them for scheduling workloads based on electrical carbon intensity [1] [2]. Can you source a citation demonstrating "Nobody who is involved with the energy sector thinks ElectricityMap has any credibility."? If not, please don't libel them in public with unsubstantiated claims. People shilling for nuclear is an entirely distinct issue, regardless of the data sources they're using to make their claims. [1] https://www.tmrow.com/blog/announcing-our-partnership-with-google/ https://www.tmrow.com/blog/announcing-our-partnership-with-g... [2] https://blog.google/inside-google/infrastructure/data-centers-work-harder-sun-shines-wind-blows https://blog.google/inside-google/infrastructure/data-center...
    - CogentHedgehog 6y ago
      > People shilling for nuclear is an entirely distinct issue, regardless of the data sources they're using to make their claims. These are people whose behavior shows they are very clearly acting in bad faith -- throwaway accounts that post talking points. They almost exclusively use ElectricityMap to back up their claims. > Can you source a citation demonstrating "Nobody who is involved with the energy sector thinks ElectricityMap has any credibility." Of course not, nobody wants to go officially go on the record saying this and get handed a SLAPP lawsuit. But it's a known reality at this point. I don't know if the issues with ElectricityMap are due to data quality (or lack of data in some cases), but it's not reliable. Edit: for credible data, go to the official yearly figures reported by national and international agencies.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]

toomuchtodo 6y ago

ElectricityMap's data is accurate, and (in the case of France) sourced from https://opendata.reseaux-energies.fr https://opendata.reseaux-energies.fr [1] (I am a volunteer contributor to the platform). [1] https://github.com/tmrowco/electricitymap-contrib/blob/master/DATA_SOURCES.md https://github.com/tmrowco/electricitymap-contrib/blob/maste...

CogentHedgehog 6y ago
BS. Nobody who is involved with the energy sector thinks ElectricityMap has any credibility. The datasets are extremely fragmentary and have huge yawning gaps with no data available, which should be the first red flag for anybody citing it. I have literally only seen ElectricityMap cited by nuclear energy shills -- as has been demonstrated in the comments here. Edit: I won't deny it might have value for trends over time within a given country, but the country-to-country carbon emissions comparisons simply don't fit with official figures.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Google uses them for scheduling workloads based on electrical carbon intensity [1] [2]. Can you source a citation demonstrating "Nobody who is involved with the energy sector thinks ElectricityMap has any credibility."? If not, please don't libel them in public with unsubstantiated claims. People shilling for nuclear is an entirely distinct issue, regardless of the data sources they're using to make their claims. [1] https://www.tmrow.com/blog/announcing-our-partnership-with-google/ https://www.tmrow.com/blog/announcing-our-partnership-with-g... [2] https://blog.google/inside-google/infrastructure/data-centers-work-harder-sun-shines-wind-blows https://blog.google/inside-google/infrastructure/data-center...
  - CogentHedgehog 6y ago
    > People shilling for nuclear is an entirely distinct issue, regardless of the data sources they're using to make their claims. These are people whose behavior shows they are very clearly acting in bad faith -- throwaway accounts that post talking points. They almost exclusively use ElectricityMap to back up their claims. > Can you source a citation demonstrating "Nobody who is involved with the energy sector thinks ElectricityMap has any credibility." Of course not, nobody wants to go officially go on the record saying this and get handed a SLAPP lawsuit. But it's a known reality at this point. I don't know if the issues with ElectricityMap are due to data quality (or lack of data in some cases), but it's not reliable. Edit: for credible data, go to the official yearly figures reported by national and international agencies.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]