kravietz 🦇 on Nostr: npub17qmud…4uz8c It has to be always calculated per Wh of electricity to make any ...
npub17qmud32pgkk4v335kc0mct377pwtjw2rw7p9gphjy280xp2xlr0q24uz8c (npub17qm…uz8c)
It has to be always calculated per Wh of electricity to make any sense — and the data is true: both nuclear and wind/PV require a high initial "investment" of CO2, but then very little in operations. But then nuclear:
* it works for a very long time (80+ years)
* it works at a very high capacity factor (90%+)
In case of wind and solar, it's the opposite:
* they have relatively short lifetime (20 years)
* very low capacity factor (10-30%)
As result the "CO2 payback" in case of nuclear is much better than for wind and solar... and this is reflected by the lifetime IPCC and UNECE emissions intensity shown below.
npub1xgk8e9s8t0apd0z8hxjljlm7dyvuu38p5heckrwvp274ux6jlfgs8uc6ff (npub1xgk…c6ff)
It has to be always calculated per Wh of electricity to make any sense — and the data is true: both nuclear and wind/PV require a high initial "investment" of CO2, but then very little in operations. But then nuclear:
* it works for a very long time (80+ years)
* it works at a very high capacity factor (90%+)
In case of wind and solar, it's the opposite:
* they have relatively short lifetime (20 years)
* very low capacity factor (10-30%)
As result the "CO2 payback" in case of nuclear is much better than for wind and solar... and this is reflected by the lifetime IPCC and UNECE emissions intensity shown below.
npub1xgk8e9s8t0apd0z8hxjljlm7dyvuu38p5heckrwvp274ux6jlfgs8uc6ff (npub1xgk…c6ff)