3 ms·

I don't think he was acting like there aren't people that analyze it, he was just asking for comparative numbers. If you have an uncontroversial answer to his

• throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  It seems impossible to get an actual breakdown out of anyone. Every asshole wants to spit out some "number" that makes their favorite solution look good. Nobody wants to give you a breakdown of the environmental cost of various power sources in terms of site prep/construction, continued operation, etc. Intuition says hydroelectric dam is almost carbon free for a century or more after you build it (not counting watershed disruption). Solar is basically free up front but the panels wear out quick and so the supply chain must run. Nuclear and wind seem to be in the middle with nuclear being closer to the damn and wind being closer to solar. But there is no good way to actually get the numbers and other stuff you need make the comparison. Hell, even just trying to compute the amount of diesel used per kwh over a given timeline (and this should be a really easy thing to quantify in a demonstrably honest way) is basically impossible because you wind up having to sift through reams and reams of material written by people who are just lying with plausible deniability. I don't care what my power source is. I just want to be informed. And the amount of lying I have to identify and discard on my way to being informed is too damn high.