3 ms·

The World Nuclear Association says it is even higher: 12 g/kWh. See https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/carbon-dioxide

The World Nuclear Association says it is even higher: 12 g/kWh. See https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-electricity.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and...

DennisP 4y ago
Not sure if you meant it like this but "even higher" sounds like you think that's high. Your source also gives the following numbers: On-shore wind: 11 g/kWh Hydropower: 24 g/kWh Utility solar PV: 48 g/kWh Biomass: 230 g/kWh Natural gas: 490 g/kWh Of course this is from the World Nuclear Association but they link a source at the IPCC, and after doing a little googling it looks like other sources agree.
- xupybd 4y ago
  Wow, so on-shore wind is better than Nuclear. I would not have guessed that. Even more surprising is that Natural gas is only 490 g/kWh
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    PV is significantly better than either now. Their reference is panels from 2015
    - preisschild 4y ago
      It is not. Credible sources have PV still over 35g. You can use electricitymaps[1] to quickly compare sources of energy. 1: https://app.electricitymaps.com https://app.electricitymaps.com
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Electricitymaps uses ipcc2014 which was a retrospective at the time and not about new generation and refers to technology over a decade old. Please cite one of those 'credible sources' that verifiably refers to something current like a 160 micron bifacial PERC cell based panel at median capacity factor of 18% (or a realistic near future value like 16%) using up to date processes for polysilicon processes and an up to date energy mix from the place of production (even xinjiang or lower mongolia is significantly lower than it was in 2014) and concludes that emissions are higher than a nuclear reactor based on new mining (rather than a combination of ranger and cigar lake). There is probably a good chance a new ISL mine with solar powered pumps, leeching solution, and electric vehicles followed by centrifuge enrichment then burnt in an APR could come in under wind, but no chance it will come in under new solar -- especially if that solar is produced in new facilities outside of north-western China. It also doesn't matter because the magnitude is so much lower than delaying decarbonization by 6 months and they all close the loop via electrification.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  That IPCC report is very old. Onshore wind and solar have dropped significantly. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/photovoltaics-report.html https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/photov... https://www.vestas.com/en/sustainability/reports-and-ratings#lcadownload https://www.vestas.com/en/sustainability/reports-and-ratings... Uranium mining has dropped too which is what brings it over 4g (largely due to using solar rather than diesel for electricity).

DennisP 4y ago

Not sure if you meant it like this but "even higher" sounds like you think that's high. Your source also gives the following numbers: On-shore wind: 11 g/kWh Hydropower: 24 g/kWh Utility solar PV: 48 g/kWh Biomass: 230 g/kWh Natural gas: 490 g/kWh Of course this is from the World Nuclear Association but they link a source at the IPCC, and after doing a little googling it looks like other sources agree.

xupybd 4y ago
Wow, so on-shore wind is better than Nuclear. I would not have guessed that. Even more surprising is that Natural gas is only 490 g/kWh
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  PV is significantly better than either now. Their reference is panels from 2015
  - preisschild 4y ago
    It is not. Credible sources have PV still over 35g. You can use electricitymaps[1] to quickly compare sources of energy. 1: https://app.electricitymaps.com https://app.electricitymaps.com
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Electricitymaps uses ipcc2014 which was a retrospective at the time and not about new generation and refers to technology over a decade old. Please cite one of those 'credible sources' that verifiably refers to something current like a 160 micron bifacial PERC cell based panel at median capacity factor of 18% (or a realistic near future value like 16%) using up to date processes for polysilicon processes and an up to date energy mix from the place of production (even xinjiang or lower mongolia is significantly lower than it was in 2014) and concludes that emissions are higher than a nuclear reactor based on new mining (rather than a combination of ranger and cigar lake). There is probably a good chance a new ISL mine with solar powered pumps, leeching solution, and electric vehicles followed by centrifuge enrichment then burnt in an APR could come in under wind, but no chance it will come in under new solar -- especially if that solar is produced in new facilities outside of north-western China. It also doesn't matter because the magnitude is so much lower than delaying decarbonization by 6 months and they all close the loop via electrification.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
That IPCC report is very old. Onshore wind and solar have dropped significantly. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/photovoltaics-report.html https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/photov... https://www.vestas.com/en/sustainability/reports-and-ratings#lcadownload https://www.vestas.com/en/sustainability/reports-and-ratings... Uranium mining has dropped too which is what brings it over 4g (largely due to using solar rather than diesel for electricity).