Talk:Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Sovacool Analysis Changes (2012-07-16)

The following section needs to be removed or drastically changed. The meta analysis mentioned focuses on Nuclear power and did not find anything about fossil fuelled power plants or renewable (it simply quoted numbers from other studies for comparisons). Sovacool is clear that 66g is the mean for Nuclear and there is an extensive range, discussed throughout the article. I made some temporary changes, but the paragraph still needs improvement.

"A meta analysis of 103 life-cycle studies by Benjamin K. Sovacool found that fossil fueled power plants produce electricity with about 443 to 1,050 g equivalent lifecycle carbon dioxide emissions per kWh, nuclear power plants produce electricity with about 66 g (no range given) equivalent life-cycle carbon dioxide emissions per kWh, and renewable power generators produce electricity with 9.5 to 38 g carbon dioxide per kWh.[1][2]"

Tprentice (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. Up until I started editing the page the article seemed focused almost entirely on presenting nuclear power findings as controversial, by flaunting the range of CO2 emission findings, in an attempt to make it appear nuclear power was alone in having a large range of CO2 findings. However every other source of power also has a large range.* Previously the article did not apply the same level of high presentation of the varying CO2 findings from other energy sources, instead this article seemed solely concerned with presenting all the nuclear power findings and none else. So really this whole article was one giant POV piece that attempted to highlight the published variability of nuclear power emissions without being balanced and applying this very same criteria, to every other energy source.
I have done my best to fix this now. Although it is still very nuclear power centric. If we are going to give the varying findings of nuclear power emissions so much pride of place, we should also endeavor to do the same for every other source of power. Like for example studies that found wind power emissions are 81 g/kWh. * http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_wind.html
High wind & nuclear emission findings are on the fringe. It's about time others stop editing to push their anti-nuclear point of view.
Boundarylayer (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Boundarylayer, as I've told you now repeatedly my position is more complex than "pro" or "anti" nuclear. But you are correct that the study in question does do a meta-survey on nuclear but not other sources; it just provided a few numbers for comparison, but notes that these have not been subject to the same methodology. Why? Doing these sorts of studies takes time, and in the interest of parity I am in the process of doing a similar study looking exclusively at 154 lifecycle studies of wind and solar. When that study is done, I'll gladly share it, as it will help put the 66 grams for nuclear number in proper context.Bksovacool (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Nuclear Bias

This article reads as though it were written by the nuclear marketing lobby. It focuses almost entirely on the very lowest estimates of g CO2/KWh for nuclear energy and liberally quotes partisan nuclear organisations when refuting other sources.

I'm going to edit out the more egregious bias, but suggest this article needs a major overhaul to introduce some balance. DavidCognito (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personnaly think other analysis are unreliable, but I'm willing to state both (maybe there too much studies, we should get 3 for each side)
The Nuclear energy institute does not produce any studies, as it was incorrectly written, it quotes the International Energy Agency. AlexH555 (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think other analyses are "unreliable"? This page was reporting mainly the most extreme low ones - all supplied by the nuclear industry directly or indirectly. And it cites nuclear advocacy organisations to supposedly refute other sources. It was highly biased and I've now edited it to introduce some balance to give people an appreciation of the wide range of credible estimates for g CO2/kWh for nuclear energy. DavidCognito (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to say that, sorry, my job is not the determine te reliability of the sources. AlexH555 (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The reference [1] only goes into data for nuclear, and lists others as comparables. Other sources should be checked, as per the paper cited, and included or discluded accordingly. In addition, study [1] discludes more sources than it sites, for various reasons. Their use of mean to get an average is a poor mathematical usage. This allows a study producing a value of 0.01 to be combined with a study of 2.01 to produce a value of 1.00, which does not seem meaningful. A median value is more suitable. No error analysis has been provided in [1], as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.61.153 (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

I removed this section:

In 2006, a UK government advisory panel, The Sustainable Development Commission, concluded that "doubling nuclear capacity would make only a small impact on reducing carbon emissions by 2035" and "that the risks of nuclear energy outweighed its advantages." [1][2]

Reason: It does not compare life-cycle emission, it does states that it's not good. Therefore, it should at least talk about 1 other source of electricity, share your thoughs David. AlexH555 (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with this page is the title of it and how you interpret it. Is the article only allowed to contain reports that offer comparisons of energy sources? Or can reports that analyse only nuclear or only biomass or only wind power be included? Also, I think it's easy to confuse which reports are doing original research and which are reporting on original research. I think there is already some confusion on that. DavidCognito (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, after reflexion, such reports should be added. I didn't saw the thing this way. I wish we could put reports (that focus on one source, put aside) on both sides. Furthermore, we should keep some comparisions because I feel that's whats some (not everyone) will look for, but that's perfectly okay to use both.
I didn't saw it this way, you can compare many power sources just by saying: "Person A says it's a very very low co2 cycle, put aside. Person B says it's a very high CO2 cycle, put aside". Depending on the credibility that the reader attribute to the respectives sources, it can make a difference. (such as Nature (journal) and Scientology). kudos.
AlexH555 (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this section:

A life cycle analysis based on the Swedish Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant estimated carbon dioxide emissions at 3.10 g/kWh[3] and 5.05 g/kWh in 2002 for the Torness Nuclear Power Station.[4] This compares to 11 g/kWh for hydroelectric power, 950 g/kWh for installed coal, 900 g/kWh for oil and 600 g/kWh for natural gas generation in the United States in 1999.[5]

An Australian life-cycle report in 2008 found greenhouse gas intensity of nuclear power to be around 60 g CO2-e/kWhel for light water reactors, and around 65 g CO2-e/kWhel for heavy water reactors.[6]

Reason: Does not really add to the debate and make the subject difficult/long to read. Besides, the first studies was kinda redundant (sourced again from www.world-nuclear.org) and the source were hard to obtain (swedish studies). The topic starts to looks small, but I rather have a few good statements then a bunch of **** AlexH555 (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Australia case, life-cycle emission

I didn't see that before but I noticed you use many Australian based study show high life-cycle emission and, as everyone knows, use low grade uranium ore. I don't know if this is somewhat justifing your point about "the low grade ore CO2 life-cycle emission". We should at least talk about this point, the low grade uranium. I never though about that. (Thinking about adding a section, or organising something to make it clear (using sections, or a time table, I don't know)). AlexH555 (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose move to new article

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Beagel (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons of life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions → Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources –

I think the title of this article is unnecessarily restrictive and excludes analyses of single power sources. I propose that it is moved / retitled to Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources". DavidCognito (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you, I though about that later but such factors (construction, growth rate) are influencial factors for global warning mitigation, yet we are only talking life-cycle emission. We should have 2 sections, 1 about life-cycle emission and others (such as growth rate or something like that). I don't think we are forced to rename now, you can add such sections right now. We'll try to make something good and we'll check for a name later. AlexH555 (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per above discussion. By one hand, the current title is limited as mentioned above. On the other hand, the title does not make a clear that it is about energy sources greenhouse gas emissions as life-cycle of greenhouse gas emissions may be calculated also for other industry branches, e.g. agriculture. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Relisted. BDD (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Beagel (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because this discussion is still relevant and, notwithstanding support that time, was never closed and implemented. Beagel (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not drop the hyphen from the compound "greenhouse gas" where it is used as a modifier. 75.37.195.231 (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Severe infection with Leeuwen and Smith

The article discusses two papers in detail. Both of them are heavily affected by the absurd and non-peer-reviewed Leeuwen and Smith analyses: Sovacool includes 3 very similar publications by Leeuwen and Smith in a mean of 19 studies, while the Oxford Research Group's report simply includes Leeuwen and Smith's work as a section. It is widely known that these results are deeply flawed and impossibly high - the details are on the Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen page. The pervasive references to a widely debunked source should be removed. --Tweenk (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

title

The title of this page doesnt match the content -- it should have "nuclear" in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewB22 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest re-organising to avoid overemphasizing Sovacool study

This article, as currently written, should really be called 'the Sovacool 2008 study of nuclear greenhouse-gas emissions, plus some other studies'. The weighting is absurd - especially given that the Sovacool study is robustly discredited in the text. Suggest re-arranging to place other studies first and to delete any special emphasis given to either Sovacool or the 2007 Oxford study. Either they all get emphasised, or none of them do. Moreover, this page should really be extensively re-written to give a fair balance to other energy sources, or it should be deleted. There is no more inherent controversy/uncertainty over nuclear green-house emissions than there is for any other generating technology. 92.21.32.15 (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I added the less biased Yale university reference which throws doubt on Sovacool's high estimates.
The reason he gets added weight, in my opinion is that wikipedia is largely run by anti-nuclear activists, who could conceivably be working for the Fossil fuel industry. He's all over wikipedia! and yet no one questions the biased reports of this Lawyer.
Boundarylayer, you know very well that I am not a lawyer - I am an Associate Professor and Professor, with a PhD in Science & Technology studies. You also have yet to show any actual evidence of a "bias" found in my research. Please desist from making these baseless claims.Bksovacool (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's clearly biased and like you, I agree he is given far too much weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 17:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing your edit which has introduced a strong bias favouring nuclear and spoiled the layout. You have buried Sovacool's peer reviewed science at the bottom and added an extremely low outlier from a nuke operator at the top. The Sovacool paper @ 66 g/kWh is support by the Oxford Research Group paper @ 11 - 130 g/kWh, the University of Sydney paper @ 60 - 65 g CO2/kWh, the Beerten paper @ 8 - 58 + over 110g CO2/kWh, and the Yale University paper @ 9 to 110 g CO2-eq/kWh by 2050. You have also falsely claimed that the Yale University paper says 11- 25 g/kWh when it is actually "9 to 110 g CO2-eq/kWh". AzureAnt (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are cherry picking data once again. Read the paper by Yale and the paper by the Intergovernmental panel on climate change(IPCC). Furthermore, the Oxford Research Group are, despite the name, not in the slightest related to Oxford university. They are just a think tank. Their report has not been peer reviewed. Moreover the NREL support the 11-20g/kWh figures for both renewables and nuclear power.
Boundarylayer (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Boundarylayer, I think AzureAnt is right here. When you actually calculate a mean from both the Beerten et al. study and the Yale study, you get numbers very close to mine: between 59 grams and 66 grams of c02e/kWh. Be fair and describe these studies accurately. Also, the NREL numbers will be low because they don't account for full parts of the nuclear lifecycle.Bksovacool (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Lack of Agreement on Sovacool Study

There is a rough consensus to list the Sovacool survey as first. Armbrust The Homonculus 09:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Differing viewpoints have been made previously about the Sovacool study and the ordering of this article, and several large changes of this article have been made today. Should the Sovacool survey be listed first in this page and is the article ordered properly for a science page? Talkingwalker (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I think the key point is that this is a scientific matter, so immediately we do not want reports from partisan nuclear operators (e.g. the Vattenfall reference) that offer extremely low numbers. Quite clearly the Sovacool meta study is a threat to the nuclear agenda and we have seen editing to try and discredit it - including making false claims for linked references (e.g. IP 92.21.32.15 misrepresenting the Yale University study). I think the current layout and content is perfectly acceptable. The only change / addition might be to give the Yale University study more prominence and put it at number 1, ahead of Sovacool, because it is a more recent study. AzureAnt (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree... Reports from partisan nuclear operators should be quoted, as should other partisans such as green lobby groups. But they should be clearly identified as such, on both sides. Andrewa (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sovacool survey is a meta-analysis. WP:RS says, "Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields [i.e. 'complex and abstruse' ones]. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context." It seems to me that a good way to provide context is to present it first in the discussion. I don't see any citations in the article that refer to 'green lobby groups'. Any reports prepared by 'partisan nuclear operators' obviously can have a financial conflict of interest. WP:V says, "Questionable sources are those [...] with an apparent conflict of interest" and goes on to outline WP policy restricting the use of questionable sources. --Nigelj (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yale paper on top

The Yale paper is newer, encompasses a larger set of studies, it is free from controversy, so therefore it is more rigorous and more balanced than Sovacool's, not to mention it was produced by actual scientists rather than a lawyer.

I have supplied direct quotes to everything that the Yale paper states, as other editers were consistently misrepresenting it to suggest it was stating 9-110 g CO2 per kWh was the norm. But as the paper details, that is not the median value right now. If this article was termed- predictions on 2050 life cycle greenhouse gas emissions by source- then you guys might have case. However it is not. In fact you will find predictions to 2050 are included only for Nuclear power, no other source of power has to jump through this particular hoop to gain acceptance here. Where is all the other sources predictions projected to 2050 I ask?

Your feedback is welcome, Boundarylayer (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New 2011 aggregated results of literature reviews by the IPCC

Figure A.II.4 http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf see page 10. from the 50th percentile-

  • Biopower - 18g/kWh
  • Solar PV 46g
  • Solar CSP - 22g
  • Geothermal - 45g
  • Hydropower - 4g
  • Ocean energy - 8g
  • Wind 12g
  • Nuclear 16g
  • Natural gas - 469g
  • Oil 840g
  • Coal - 1001g

http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf see page 10 Moomaw, W., P. Burgherr, G. Heath, M. Lenzen, J. Nyboer, A. Verbruggen, 2011: Annex II: Methodology. In IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation

I think at this stage it is obvious that the Benjamin K. Sovacool figure of 66g from nuclear power is considerably skewed. Furthermore I strike that his study is given too much pride of place in this article. Especially considering his estimates for Nuclear are 4.1 times higher than what the IPCC now endorse.

Furthermore, I again request for 2050 estimates on all other energy sources. As at present Nuclear power emission predictions to that point are the only ones included. Otherwise I will remove the 2050 prediction as irrelevent. Predicting things that far into the future when new technologies, such as Generation IV reactor, will be in operation should demonstrate as much(the Yale paper only looks at the presently operating Generation II reactors but neglects to say why it dubiously assumes Gen II reactors will continue to be in operation by 2050, as they won't!).

Generation III reactors are those that are being built as we speak for example. The 3rd generation of reactors will still be in operation by 2050, but few if any Gen II reactors will. It's not a stretch of the imagination to see that all low carbon energy technologies will have lower CO2 emissions by 2050, as advances in Nuclear, Solar and Wind will similarly obviously happen by 2050. We similarly are not still going to be relying on old(present day) Solar and Wind technologies by then either, and just as extrapolating CO2 emissions out to 2050 with those technologies would be dubious, so too is it to extrapolate that far out with nuclear power.


I also want to make the observation that this wikipedia article should really look more like this - http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_results.html Boundarylayer (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with the point above that the Sovacool study occupies a disproportionate amount of space in this article. The IPCC values are the most robust and deserve the greatest attention. Sovacool in my opinion should be afforded the same space as Yale and Oxford, while the Other Studies probably deserve a little more. Wogone (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources

You recently removed one of my edits claiming it was unsourced. Here is a direct quote from the Yale paper- ...the medians of BWRs, PWRs, and all LWRs are similar, at approximately 12 g CO2-eq/kWh. Ctrl-f to your hearts content. Once satisified that the sentence is indeed in the paper, could you put that quote back into the article please? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x/full

Boundarylayer (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the comment above from my personal talk page to here, as other editors of this article may wish to comment as well. I assume that you're talking about this edit of mine.
  • In the first section of text I reverted, you claimed "greenhouse gas production, depending on which reactor design was analyzed, ranging from 11 to 25 g/kW·h". Nowhere in the cited paper is that range mentioned. The figure of 12 g CO2-eq/kWh that you mention above is indeed mentioned, but only in the context of one of the methods of statistical 'harmonization' that the paper discusses. In the paper's authors' summary they mention medians of 12, 17, and 110 g CO2-eq/kWh, and a range of '9 to 110 g CO2-eq/kWh by 2050'. They say "The harmonization process decreased the variability and increased the precision [...] However, improved precision does not imply improved accuracy." Their conclusions repeat the figures from the summary. It is at odds with WP:V when summarising a paper with just one or two sentences to cherry pick only figures from the middle of a paper when those figures are at odds with the figures that the paper's authors saw fit to use in their own summary and conclusions.
  • In the second section of text that I reverted, you say that it is 'notable' that Sovacool did not include emissions for energy storage systems and that electricity demand requires capacity factors of 90+%. I don't see any of that in the Warner and Heath paper, which anyway was cited as a source only for the preceding paragraph. There was no citation given for these statements.
So, if you want to discuss edits to a particular article, discuss them on the article's talk page; When we summarise a paper, we usually base our summary on the authors' summary and overall conclusions; Text that is not supported by a citation may be challenged and removed, and you need to find a valid citation before re-adding it; and if your additions are removed,it is for you to re-insert them after discussion and with citations, not for you to delegate the research and editing you would like to see to another editor. --Nigelj (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.73.210 (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you do not feel that writing on your talk page was appropriate, I simply wanted to ensure you saw the edit, as a gesture of courtesy to you. It won't happen again. I am also sorry to say that I don't think you read the paper. You simply read the first paragraph where the authors muse about the future, their future predictions are the authors own point of view, regarding their feelings of uncertainty about the future, and not at all anything got to do with the present day hard data namely the effect Generation III reactors and future Generation IV reactors will have on CO2 emissions.
You wrote the following -

In the first section of text I reverted, you claimed "greenhouse gas production, depending on which reactor design was analyzed, ranging from 11 to 25 g/kW·h". Nowhere in the cited paper is that range mentioned. The figure of 12 g CO2-eq/kWh that you mention above is indeed mentioned, but only in the context of one of the methods of statistical 'harmonization' that the paper discusses.

Actually if you look at the table the authors produced in their paper you will find the median value for Boiling water reactors BWRs was 11g  g/kW·h. You will also find that the median value that they arrived at for PWRs was 25g  g/kW·h. So contrary to your allegation, that range is indeed in the paper. I just summarized it for readers for easy digestion. As you then took issue with those numbers, I have now had to produce direct quotations for you.
Over all, the article is now far more balanced than it was before my edits. Do you not agree?
Furthermore, figures on Wind+energy storage CO2 emissions are important to policy makers as they may falsely assume the figures stated for wind also include energy storage. As Wind penetration into a nations grid is self limiting, due to winds intermittence, after ~30% of the grids electricity is produced by Wind power, as the wind power page notes. If a nation wishes to increase the share of Wind power to more than ~30% they will have to invest in the expense of smart grids and more energy storage systems. The creation of these two systems will clearly add to 'Winds CO2 emissions' as a hidden source of CO2. This is a clear as day reality.
So it is important for an editor to note that Winds CO2 emissions do not include energy storage devices that will be necessary if a nation wishes to increase their share of wind produced electricity to greater than ~30%. This is a salient point to make, to avoid ambiguity.
Furthermore, as I said before, where are the 2050 projections for Wind and Solar etc? If they cannot be found then it is irrelevant to include predictions about future nuclear CO2 emissions, especially considering many advances in Wind, Solar and Nuclear technologies will exist by 2050.
Do you not agree that the article should look more like this excellent one- http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_results.html
It really is alarming to see wikipedia, an encyclopedia that prides itself on balance, to have given undue weight to a single controversial paper produced by a known anti-nuclear advocate(Sovacool) for the past 5 years, all the while the IPCC figures from 2011 were no where to be seen. Shockingly telling.
Boundarylayer (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Data on 2050 nuclear projections, including fast reactors & CO2 actually saved by Wind power?

You attached some citation needed tags in that article, I am puzzled, what specifically are you looking for? is it (1) Evidence that the Yale paper only looked at historical analyses from nuclear power plants? - Well that is evident in the Yale paper itself. They do no say anything about the CO2 emissions from Generation III reactors, only collating the findings of hundreds of papers that have already been published. Have you read the paper? There have yet to be any analyses of the CO2 emissions from Gen III reactors.

Or is it (2) you don't believe Generation III reactors are under construction? You can find plenty of evidence that they are indeed being built(one goes online this year) on the Generation III reactor page, if that is what you find contentious.

(3) Bear in mind I intend to heavily change the layout of the page to included many other studies in the coming days.(naturally I'd like your feedback when I do) There are a few things wrong with the article, The IPCC findings should be on top, and the Yale paper should be elsewhere and should not include predictions by 2050. Again, the article is not named - life cycle emissions of nuclear power by 2050. It is titled - life cycle emissions by energy source. However I do think it would be good if we included some of this material. See below*

(4) Would you like me to insert the range of findings from wind power? As has been done for nuclear power in a very unbalanced manner? I have asked, why the over analysis of nuclear power and the attempts at making it look controversial? It is no more controversial than the range of CO2 emissions from wind power. With harmonization both are ~12 g/CO2. However how much CO2 wind actually saves in practice(tied to a grid with gas turbines) contentions.**

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00464.x/full Life cycle GHG emissions of wind-powered electricity generation published since 1980 range from 1.7 to 81 g CO2-eq/kWh

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x/full

  • The deployment of nuclear power technologies that consume little to no uranium ore would reduce the chances of large uranium market ore grade decreases. Theoretical FBRs have been evaluated in the LCA literature. The limited literature that evaluates this potential future technology reports median life cycle GHG emissions similar to or lower than LWRs and purports to consume little or no uranium ore.

Fast breeder reactors are not theoretical they're old hat. Nevertheless, the paper supports that future nuclear technologies will have lower CO2 emissions.

As for Wind, surprising findings. A Large range from 1-81g/CO2 have been published. With the following section being the most illuminating(a factor the IPCC don't include). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00464.x/full

    • The thermal efficiency of fossil-based power plants is reduced when operated at fluctuating and suboptimal loads to supplement wind power, which may degrade, to a certain extent, the GHG benefits resulting from the addition of wind to the grid. A study conducted by Pehnt and colleagues (2008) reports that a moderate level of wind penetration (12%) would result in efficiency penalties of 3% to 8%, depending on the type of conventional power plant considered. Gross and colleagues (2006) report similar results, with efficiency penalties ranging from nearly 0% to 7% for up to 20% wind penetration. Pehnt and colleagues (2008) conclude that the results of adding offshore wind power in Germany on the background power systems maintaining a level supply to the grid and providing enough reserve capacity amount to adding between 20 and 80 g CO2-eq/kWh to the life cycle GHG emissions profile of wind power.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 07:25, 13 February 2013‎
It is notable that few to none of the major publications on LCA emissions from energy sources discuss that intermittent energy sources must be backed up with other dependable energy sources when they are not producing power. This when included, as the above researchers have found, will result in the extra emissions from the construction of energy storage systems, or backing up with natural gas burning, being added to the total emission value of an intermittent energy source. As this is a combination that will be necessary for intermittent and variable sources of power, such as Wind & Solar, to have a high electrical grid penetration, as electricity demand requires an electrical grid with a majority of power sources, that are dependable, termed a high capacity factors, such as those approaching 90% which is the routine value for Hydro, Nuclear power.
Boundarylayer (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Boundarylayer, your argument is somewhat disingenuous, since if there were no renewable energy sources in existence, the CO2 being generated by spinning reserve generating plants (or units) would still be operating and still be producing CO2 while they protect conventional and nuclear power plants. Adding renewable energy to the grid never created the need for spinning reserves. As transmission grids and energy storage solutions are enhanced, then spinning reserves powered by hydrocarbon fuel sources will obviously diminish and eventually be eliminated. HarryZilber (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Harryzilber's points, recent analyses, e.g. Jacobson & Delucchi 2011, suggest that it is possible to have nearly 100% of world power produced by solar and wind. Boundrylayer: you have done good work to clean up this article, but you definitely seem to have an agenda here. In particular, your recent edits sound like original research and/or POV-pushing. Maybe they just need to be rephrased? - Parejkoj (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HarryZilber, You are not grasping what the paper is describing, Intermittent power sources e.g Wind power, require far more frequent backing up than the requirements necessary to back up more dependable sources of power like hydro and nuclear power, it is this frequent throttling up and down of the back up gas plants necessary to facilitate intermittent power sources variable output that results in more total life cycle CO2 emissions being emitted from these sources of power than you might at first assume, these are termed gas plant efficiency penalties in the paper. This was, I thought, thoroughly elucidated in the study I linked above. Presently most nations are adding wind turbines to their predominately coal and gas powered grids - such as Denmark, and due to this they are not seeing the CO2 emission reductions they were expecting.
Parejkoj, how do the questionable dreams of Mark Z. Jacobson have anything got to do with the actual CO2 emissions of Wind power right now, here, in the present? I have no agenda but to present the facts about the best CO2 reducing technologies. Thank you for acknowledging my work.
Boundarylayer (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actual real world savings of CO2 from wind energy. http://joewheatley.net/emissions-savings-from-wind-power/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.163.12 (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag - for nuclear slant.

This article is now almost entirely about nuclear power, instead of being about the the topic it intends to be about. >50% of this article is centered around nuclear power. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is fairly nuclear centric, and it was even worse before I added the IPCC table, the article used to start off by giving undue weight to the Sovacool and Stormsmith publications and didn't even tell readers that the Oxford Research Group is not in any way affiliated with Oxford University nor is anything that they write peer reviewed. - take a look at how much better the article is now The article naturally still needs work of course, such as including the actual Wind power emissions being found in practice discussed under the above talk page heading, along with the general variability of Wind and Carbon capture storage estimates. This should balance out the article without unduly removing material, and I think convey to readers that nuclear power is not alone with having a wide band of emission estimates-which it is not.
Boundarylayer (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include energy efficiency, demand-side management, passive solar, or direct geothermal?

You know, something else that is missing is energy efficiency, which often has the best (as in, the lowest) greenhouse gas footprint compared to any other source. That's why in those McKinsey & Company cost abatement curves one always sees energy efficiency as the most cost-effective. There should also be some sections added on various aspects of this resource (such as load shifting, demand response, demand side management, etc.)Bksovacool (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one denies that as the energy efficiency of electricity generating sources increases, so too, generally, will this translate into lower emission intensity's being observed from each energy source. However it appears you are confused about what this article is about, it is not about industrial, or household appliance, life cycle greenhouse gas emissions. It is about energy sources, not energy user devices. So what you are proposing is not really admissible into the article.
Secondly, your absolutist claim is false, one does not "always see energy efficiency as the most cost-effective" solution, which is why I included the "generally" italics above. For example, imagine an infinitely long tunnel in which there is one wind turbine positioned directly behind the next, in a giant row, well sure this machine, the "tunnel of wind turbines" would use up every last drop of kinetic energy that is present in the wind, that is, maximum wind power efficiency would be reached, but that is not the most cost-effective solution, on the contrary, the last wind turbine in this system would supply only a minuscule fraction of the first/it is essentially dead-weight - building energy sources that don't produce any energy, is obviously, not cost effective.
Thirdly, widespread "demand side management" is again not an energy source nor is it regarded as either a mainstream idea, nor even a likely solution to climate change without large changes to living a 1st world life. As "demand side management" essentially means - we'll serve customer demands, to boil water to have a cup of tea for example, when the power grid decides they can have the electricity to boil their kettles. Now, although I think educating people about the positive effects of personal management control is a good idea, with one piece of advice being, putting on your clothes wash at night when demand is lowest(something I practice). An automated grid wide enforcement of "demand side management" is simply yet another authoritarian control scheme. While you're at it, why not go a step further and add a section on how little greenhouse gas emissions we would all have if we just went back to living the simple amish life, were you never-ever get to use an electrical appliance at all?
Boundarylayer (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given adequate RSs I agree with Bksovacool, and refute Boundarylayers points as follows...
Re 1) The only reason this article has any WP:NOTABILITY at all is with respect to society's discussions about lowering the greenhouse gas impact of its energy system. Although I agree that demand-side energy efficiency is not technically an energy source it is part of society's discussion on this topic and can be included with appropriate text. In addition, each month my own electric company sends includes a flier in its bill offering a cash rebate for replacing old appliances with new, energy-star ones, and these fliers tell me each month that if enough people do this it's "just like building a new power plant".
Re 2)BK's remark ("That's why in those McKinsey & Company cost abatement curves one always sees energy efficiency as the most cost-effective.") was with respect to what we see in RSs; I do not know if all the known RSs on point show what he said or do not show what he said. But let's refrain from philosophic disputation and focus instead on what RSs say.
Re 3) Same as rebuttal #1, plus I find the naked assertion that demand side management is not "mainstream" rather odd. Criminy, we are pushing smart meters and selling electric cars with the hype that one can make or save money off of the battery's energy storage for pete's sake.
BKSovacool, do you have RSs to offer to support your suggestion?
IMO, this articles scope is really "Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of various infrastructure options we have of making more energy available to do useful work" but that's something of a mouthful, and so I can live with the shortened title. Along these lines, note that the article's title is "energy sources" but currently the article only discusses electricity generation. The article should be expanded, in my opinion, to also include space heating/cooling technologies other than electricity. This would include passive solar design and geothermal (other than electricity generation).
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sovacool study section (09-01-2014)

In a recent edit, someone removed the entire section on the Sovacool study. Given that this is a prominent study with 190 citations in ~3 years (on Scholar), this move does not make sense. At the very least, it should be discussed here first. Is there some Wikipediaen way to determine which studies to give prominence to? I suggest using citations per Google Schalar and year, with the most recent first. The IPCC 2011 study has 120ish on Scholar (multiple editions making it difficult to say precisely). The 2012 Yale study has 21 citations. The Oxford 2007 one has a mere 20 citations, despite being among the oldest. Van Leeuwen has 61. Clearly, the Sovacool one is the most prominent and should be given more space. The IPCC one is also very prominent with only somewhat fewer citations than the Sovacool one and being more recent.

Perhaps they should simply be ordered by their prominence. A section for those with >100 citations. One for those with <100. And then sorted by year within those categories. In that way, everybody gets to add their own relatively unknown study to the less prominent list.

Thoughts? --Deleet (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I summarised the Sovacool section, thinking it a necessary and uncontroversial change.
My reasoning was simple: per WP:UNDUE, a minority opinion should not receive more screen time than all the other studies' sections combined. I decreased it in size to approximately the relevance I felt it had in relation to the organisational studies. In estimating this relevance, I did not take into account citations, as a simple citation count is a poor metric for relevance.
Summarising the study also removed the need for the awkward discussion of why the study is flawed, and in turn improved the flow of the article. --pmj (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The shortcomings of the (apparently popular) Sovacool study should be plainly detailed to readers. I am also in favor of keeping it where it is, well under the two more robust papers, that of the IPCC & Yale. As I do agree with pmj, citation count is a poor metric of scientific rigour, for example, Andrew Wakefield's controversial paper on autism has been widely cited, but that doesn't mean real scientist's think its a good paper. Lastly, the Sovacool section could do with being shorter, we could probably lose his table without much loss, right?
86.46.191.135 (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I wanted to provide an important clarification and update here. This part of the page is now out of date: "Had he likewise assessed renewable technologies by the same averaging/mean criteria that he lay down in his nuclear power paper, he would not have concluded this. Instead, Sovacool applied his particular methodology to nuclear power only and then simply compared his averaging result, from nuclear power, with the renewable values found by other researchers following entirely different methodologies." I just applied this methodology in a new study and still concluded that renewables, at least wind and solar in this instance, are better than nuclear. The study used the exact same methodology as the first one. It is available here http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.048. I have therefore edited that part of the page though I am uncomfortable about my POV - as the section is about me, I am a bit biased, so I please ask others to read it over to ensure it is neutral and fair.Bksovacool (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed and summarised a discussion about outlier bias and percentiles that has been in the article for a while, but seemed to be going into too much detail. Without it the conclusion to the section seems to flow better. --Nigelj (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "'No Quick Fix' From Nuclear Power". BBC News. 2006-03-06. Retrieved 2006-11-10.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  2. ^ "Is nuclear the answer?". Sustainable Development Commission. 2006. Retrieved 2006-12-22.
  3. ^ Vattenfall 2004, Forsmark EPD for 2002 and SwedPower LCA data 2005.
  4. ^ "Energy Analysis of Power Systems]". World Nuclear Association. July 2009. Retrieved 31 January 2010.
  5. ^ Electric Power Industry CO2 Emissions accessed 20 October 2007
  6. ^ Lenzen M. (2008) Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: A review. Energy Conversion and Management 49, 2178-99.

Title change?

Shouldn't this article be titled "life-cycle global warming potential of electricity sources", as the most recent IPCC study doesn't limit itself to just greenhouse gases. Thoughts in support or against welcome. 92.251.132.148 (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update references

The current references to the 2014 IPCC report points to a 404 page. I have updated the url to the final report, but I'm uncertain if page numbers etc are still valid. Any help verifying this would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.137.3 (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "cleanup" tag

I've done an edit of the article for clarity—shortening sentences and re-wording, where possible. I note the following:

  1. The nature of the article is technical and the concepts are complex.
  2. Editors have made several improvements to the article since the tag was placed on the article in May 2015.
  3. The article is rated "C-class" and seems appropriately rated.

I think there could be a push to get it to a higher level, but for now, the article seems fine, so I've removed the tag. Sunray (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Units

What does "gCO2eq/kWh" mean?

I had assumed it meant grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt-hour.

However I am trying to compare the emission values from this page which are given as:

  • CO2 Emissions: 353,166 tons (2006)
  • Electricity Production: 138,063 MWh (2005)

Converting the emissions to grams, i get 3.2e+11 g, and the production is 1.38e+8 kWh. That would seem to give 2321 g / kWh which is way off that chart.

Either the production must have massively increased from 2005 to 2006, or I'm not understanding that number right. Can anyone help?

Thanks Sysys (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It means grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt-hour, as you said. Your calculations seem correct. However, the capacity factor for 2005, given a nameplate capacity of 53 MW, would be 138063/(53*8760)=0.297. It is possible that the next year the capacity factor increased substantially, and emissions per kWh would come close to the average level of emissions from a coal power plant. Also the efficiency may be lower than average coal power plants, given the age of the plant. Inefficient plants must burn more coal for the same energy output. Just a guess. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"What does "gCO2eq/kWh" mean?"...I thought I added a link to the article Carbon dioxide equivalent in the introduction that explains it Sysys? Your numbers may seem high if you're looking and thinking in just physical amounts of CO2 Ita140188, however the agencies are looking at the full-life-cycle and changing the color of vast areas of land with surface mining and everything else, impacts on albedo which affects the heat budget of the earth, so the figures are in CO2 eq.
Boundarylayer (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the max for hydroelectric power so high

It's max is at 2200, which is higher than the max CO2 output for coal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.249.96.18 (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has to do with the fact that hydropower reservoirs can release large amount of greenhouse gases, especially methane, from different processes. The magnitude of this is very variable depending on the specific situation, but in certain cases can be very significant (especially because methane is a much stronger GHG than CO2). --Ita140188 (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct Ita140188, which is especially event in hydro dams built in rain forest areas as found with plans to flood vast areas of the amazon rainforest to make a hydroelectric facility, alongside this 128.249.96.18 the agencies are also looking at the full-life-cycle and reservoirs change the color of vast areas of land with flood reservoir water,that impacts on the earth' albedo which affects the heat budget of the earth.
Boundarylayer (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Potential heating from wind turbines" is out-dated

The 2009 study has been found overstated by the follow-up research the author requested. I believe we should remove the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampenrose (talk • contribs) 16:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this section even here? It has nothing whatsoever to do with the article topic. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you all actually for real? This section is here, like the respective "heating from thermal plants", precisely because in an article on greenhouse-gas emissions, or in other words lifecycle future warming potential from various energy sources, discussion of future warming from these energy production methods, is not only obviously pertinent but the very thing researchers in the field have all pointed out how grossly flawed these analyses are, when the system boundaries of the analysis are not realistic and frequently far too isolated. Therefore discussion on widening the system boundaries, that is, models analyzing both 2050 to 2100 temperature changes from human energy production, is by definition the type of system wide impacts that researchers in the field and for that matter, the IPCC, are both not only constantly drawing attention to, but also the very essence of what this whole article is about. The whole reason for these analyses in the first place. To find out the lifecycle future warming potential from operating various energy sources.
Indeed attacking the inclusion of papers on warming, is like attacking all and every inclusion of where you might find mention to the unit of carbon dioxide equivalents, a unit which the field of study evolved into using to reflect the effects on land-use changes. So it's not actually strictly about physical "greenhouse gas emissions" at all but it is instead about answering the question - how much warming potential will happen if humanity uses this energy source.
By the way Maury, I really can't help noticing that you first initially tried to downplay one report with hand-wavey wording that was not at all informative to readers interested in the question of potential warming and now you're here attacking the very idea of the models being included in this article? I don't know about you, but I'm getting the feeling that what is going on here, is perhaps a case of WP:IDONTLIKE?
As none of you seem or even seemed, in the slightest bit motivated to remove the comparable potential heating from thermal plants section, nor for that matter discusson on another frequently "overlooked" system-wide area in the field, that of emission equivalents from decommissioning facilities. So consistency, is definitely not the impression I'm getting from you on this at all.
Instead, your absolute entire bone-of-contention is focused on this solitary section, now why is that? Is it perhaps because you see it as unfavorable to wind energy's image? Perhaps you could tell me your interest in explaining, why a section that has stood here completely unmolested for years, suddenly is garnering a flurry of edits and now talk page discussions attempting to have it in essence bagged, taken out back and disappeared, at the exact moment that a Harvard study is published that updated predictions on future warming?
Boundarylayer (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete Source Data ?

This is a secondary study. The figures, in my opinion, do not match their energy costs (without (hidden) subsidies) in the wind industry and PV. So I think it is very likely that large parts of the primary energy use for production, construction, maintenance, complete disposal (including foundations) and recycling (including the energy network) in the underlying primary studies have gone undetected. DG8FZ 08:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bad naming ?

Hello

Don't you think the page should be renamed "Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of electrical energy sources" ? Effco (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I think it should be expanded to include e.g. energy for residential heating Chidgk1 (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should "Missing life cycle phases" be deleted?

As far as I can tell the info in the section either predates the IPCC 2014 report or (with realistic assumptions rather than assuming all global electricity from one source) is not significant compared to global warming. But have I missed anything post-2014 that might be significant compared to global warming?Chidgk1 (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section meets the WP:CONTROVERSY criteria. It also is, contrary to what you suggest, completely unknown of it is or will be a significant contribution. How could you tell? Moreover it is notable that some studies cast a much wider net and others, do not. The IPCC did not screen for these or make a distinction, instead simply summarizing and finding the median value for a given energy source, from the available literature.
Literature or screening that isn't standardized and therefore comparisons are kind of like comparing two fish, one that swims ok on Monday and the other fish studied for the whole week but when it comes to writing a report on who swims the longest, the Monday fish is put at the same level as the week long guy. Something that researchers have pointed out as a pertinent, on topic WP:CONTROVERSY within the field of study.
Boundarylayer (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need anything from before IPCC 2014?

Chidgk1 (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...because this article isn't named "IPCC data". Instead it is for the sake of completeness and to present the history, the notable attempted public media splashes, by sovacool and various analyses and detailing the methodologies. To what otherwise is a very opague "trust us" subject.
Feel free to put back what I deleted and certainly more info on (or links to) modern methodologies for calculating life cycle emissions would be welcome, but I think it would be useful if you could summarise it in the process as there was a lot of historical detail which may not be of interest to the general reader. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We need whatever was WP:NOTABLE and controversial on the topic, that was ever written since the beginning of time. While the IPCC publication is the most authoritative and notable, the impetus for them writing it was the controversy surrounding the subject, a controversy that continues with the newer models that point to a large and specific warming by the use of wind turbines, which alter surface wind and therefore cooling patterns. So as time evolved from 2014, things have been discovered which have begun to date the now 6 year old IPCC summary of the known research at that time.
I see and other editors can check, that you've completely removed everything that remotely spoke of this recently controversial topic. Can you explain why you have done so? WP:VANDALISM?
Boundarylayer (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mention "large ..... warming by the use of wind turbines". You may be right about it being large for a very local area around the wind farm itself - I don't know - but it is not significant globally when compared to warming due to CO2 from fossil generated electricity. Therefore if you have reliable sources I believe you should put such interesting info in a wind power specific article. This would be similar to putting warming of sea or river water due to a thermal power station in an article about thermal power stations, as although it may be significant locally it is insignificant globally. This article is not about warming itself but about greenhouse gas emissions. However if you put back all the historical detail I am not going to edit war with you - I just think the readers deserve summary style to avoid wasting their time. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing citations?

Following a message on my talk page from Boundarylayer I have fixed a mistake I made with ref 8. I have put this article on my watchlist so if anyone notices statements missing cites please could you tag them with [citation needed] (or indeed other mistakes with the relevant tag) and if they have not been fixed after a few days they can be deleted. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may come as a shock to you but that isn't how vandalism is repaired. Either the, albeit perhaps in good faith, vandal reverts or other editors simply do a full revert and (to be fair) go through what you've added for any semblance of redeeming value. Which could remain. Usually things cited, notable and/or controversial. That means not what some fluffy guardian article wrote about this "one time at band camp".
Certain other things you may not be consciously aware of is the unsuitable point of view you've inserted into the article. For example no one cares about the UK or Turkey and it does not come as a surprise to see, that you are a Turk. If you feel like creating an article specifically on Turkey or the UK(do you have family there?) then please do so, as these 2 places are what you're most keenly interested in. Instead the attempt to tilt this much wider article towards each specific country, when there are hundreds globally, is (1) not something of much value in how absolutely scattered the end result would be and (2) Not what this article is about, which to re-iterate is about the WP:NOTABLE and WP:CONTROVERSY related material on global warming potential of various energy sources. That field of study. It is not a public policy advocacy springboard for country X or Y and it is not to be captured by various industry lobbyist activity or country specific providers at that.
Boundarylayer (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the "original research" tag as simple arithmetic is allowed. You are right that as this is a global article I was wrong to mention a particular country twice - therefore I have removed the second mention. Also thank you for pointing out that the geothermal cite was not rock solid - I have replaced it with one which is hopefully more reliable. 17:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Chidgk1 (talk)

IPCC 2022?

I cannot find any values in the WG3 report - did I miss them or have IPCC stopped providing them? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lifecycle vs direct emissions

EMsmile, I've removed the following table. The data in this table are not lifecycle emissions, which would include emissions associated with extraction, refining, transport, leakage, etc. The numbers in this table appear to be for direct emissions at the point of combustion only. Please be aware that when you cut content from one article and add it in another one, the content can be incorrect in the new context. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True. Do you think the table could add value in any other Wikipedia article? I guess it's quite outdated so it's probably not worth trying to "save" it. I had moved it on 21 June from greenhouse gas emissions because I felt it didn't fit there (too detailed for this kind of high level overview article). Thought it might fit here but it's true that this is not date for the entire life cycle. EMsmile (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a table that excludes indirect emissions is appropriate in any article. Indirect emissions are important, e.g. all of the emissions of hydrogen are indirect. When you remove content from an article and aren't confident that it belongs in another article, I suggest copying it to a Talk page instead of adding it somewhere where it might not belong. Often, stuff that's inappropriate for one article is either inappropriate for Wikipedia or is already in the article you're thinking of adding it to. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relative CO2 emission from various fuels

One liter of gasoline, when used as a fuel, produces 2.32 kg (about 1300 liters or 1.3 cubic meters) of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. One US gallon produces 19.4 lb (1,291.5 gallons or 172.65 cubic feet).[1][2][3]

Mass of carbon dioxide emitted per quantity of energy for various fuels[4]
Fuel name CO2

emitted (lbs/106 Btu)

CO2

emitted (g/MJ)

CO2

emitted (g/kWh)

Hydrogen gas 0 0.0 0.0
Natural gas 117 50.30 181.08
Liquefied petroleum gas 139 59.76 215.14
Propane 139 59.76 215.14
Aviation gasoline 153 65.78 236.81
Automobile gasoline 156 67.07 241.45
Kerosene 159 68.36 246.10
Fuel oil 161 69.22 249.19
Tires/tire derived fuel 189 81.26 292.54
Wood and wood waste 195 83.83 301.79
Coal (bituminous) 205 88.13 317.27
Coal (sub-bituminous) 213 91.57 329.65
Coal (lignite) 215 92.43 332.75
Petroleum coke 225 96.73 348.23
Coal (anthracite) 227 97.59 351.32

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey example

I have removed this sentence for the following reason: it doesn't fit here in the logical flow of this section. Also the plant is now not being built. Moved to talk page in case someone feels it needs to go back in. Pinging User:Chidgk1?). EMsmile (talk) 08:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] 

++++++

Turkey has approved building Afşin-Elbistan C,[5] near an opencast lignite mine, which would make the lignite powerplant at over 5400 gCO2eq/kWh far less carbon efficient than other thermal power plants.[note 1] EMsmile (talk) 08:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle" (PDF). Epa.gov. US Environment Protection Agency. Retrieved 11 September 2011.
  2. ^ Engber, Daniel (1 November 2006). "How gasoline becomes CO2, Slate Magazine". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 11 September 2011.
  3. ^ "Volume calculation for carbon dioxide". Icbe.com. Retrieved 11 September 2011.
  4. ^ "Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program". Energy Information Administration. Archived from the original on 1 November 2004. Retrieved 21 August 2009.
  5. ^ a b "EÜAŞ 1800 MW'lık Afşin C Termik Santrali için çalışmalara başlıyor" [Electricity Generation Company starts work on 1800 MW Afşin C thermal power plant]. Enerji Günlüğü (in Turkish). 27 February 2020. Archived from the original on 2 March 2020. Retrieved 2 March 2020.
  6. ^ Çınar (2020), p. 319: "Atmosfere Verilecek CO2 Miktarı: ... = 61.636.279,98 tCO2/yıl" means "Amount of CO2 which will be emitted to the atmosphere: ... = 61,636,279.98 tCO2/year"

EMsmile (talk) 08:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I am 99% sure now it won’t be built so you were right to take it out Chidgk1 (talk) 08:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources&oldid=1207081401"