3 ms·
It might be the cheapest if you factor in the costs of climate change, as responsible economists have insisted for decades & the fossil fuel industry has spent
by civilized 6y ago
It might be the cheapest if you factor in the costs of climate change, as responsible economists have insisted for decades & the fossil fuel industry has spent billions fighting
- hartator 6y agoSolar panels productions reject more co2 than nuclear plants.
- cbmuser 6y agoGermany: 350 million tons of CO2 per year in the energy sector France: 50 million tons of CO2 per year in the energy sector Germany: 50% renewables France: 70% nuclear
- papaf 6y agoYour point is interesting enough to think about once but please don't spam multiple threads with the same argument.
- shiftingleft 6y agoGermany uses ~30% Coal in its energy mix, France less than 2%. Your argument is misleading at best, and targeted misinformation at worst. Since you've repeated the same argument at least 5 times by now, even though others have informed you about the wrong conclusion, I must assume it is meant to misinform.
- ZeroGravitas 6y agoDo you have any recent data to back this up? It was kind of a statistical tie the last time I looked at this (wind was possibly slightly in the lead out of the three in terms of CO2 per KWh) but the wind and solar numbers seemed to be trending downwards over time.
- acidburnNSA 6y ago2014 data from an IPCC meta-analysis here roughly supports this [1]. 800 gCO2-eq/kWh for coal, 490 for gas, 48 for solar, 12 for nuclear, 11 for wind. To be clear, any non-carbon energy source can decarbonize almost to zero assuming all the lifecycle activities are converted to the non-carbon energy as well. One exception might be hydro with it's potential biogenic methane emissions. [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...
- cbmuser 6y agoExcept that solar power isn’t an effective measure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector. Nuclear is far more effective as the comparison between France and Germany shows with Germany emitting _seven_ times the emissions as France in their energy sector.
- Jweb_Guru 6y agoThat's an incredibly disingenuous comparison; Germany gets just 10% of its power from solar, while France gets about 75% of its power from nuclear. Once again, this is not some sort of demonstration that "solar doesn't reduce greenhouse emissions," it's an indication that people need to start building pumped storage.
- anigbrowl 6y agoYou already made a top level post asserting this, there's no need to keep repeating it.
- throwaway2245 6y agoBecause Germany burns seven times as much fossil fuel as France. This tells us that France has a cleaner energy mix than Germany, but I don't think this cherry-picked example contributes much to the discussion otherwise, no matter how many times you repeat it.
- oezi 6y agoI think your argument could be good if nuclear had any chance in the future. Unfortunately though, it hasn't. The complexity, risk and political cost make it unlikely that we will see a nuclear renaissance. Even countries like the US that can be very market driven, see much higher levels of investment in renewables including solar than nuclear.
- literallycancer 6y agoNuclear is too expensive, takes too long to deploy and the projects always exceed their budget.
- 6y ago
- bassman9000 6y agoThen nuclear is the cheapest, and most reliable, by far.