• Hugohase@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    This map underrepresents emissions from NPPs. The emissions that are assumed for nuclear are lower than everything you find in literature and are 1/5th to 1/10th of what reputable sources state. That being said, this map is otherwise a great resource and i like it very much.

    • Thorry84@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Really? Because they use the figure given by UNECE, that’s a pretty good source I feel? The report it comes from is also very thorough.

      What sources have you seen that state a number 10 times higher? Would be interesting to see where the difference is and what numbers they give for other sources.

      • Hugohase@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        It will take some time but I will answer with sources. Can you post the source used in the map i have never been able to find anything that came close.

        • Thorry84@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Sure! This is the report: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL March 2022.pdf

          It has a description of the methods and the ISO standards they use to determine life-cycle CO2, from the cradle to the grave numbers. It also includes all the references and sources. I’m sure there’s a lot more info available about the research they did, but this is the high-level report.

          The UN seems like a pretty reliable source and the report seems very thorough, but I’m not qualified to say where they went wrong. So I would love to see what other sources say on the subject.

          Edit: They even state in their report why the value they give for nuclear is on the low end of most accepted literature:

          This value is comparable to the lower range of literature values because of the following assumptions: revised energy inputs for mining and milling, including electricity inputs for ISL, centrifugation-only enrichment, longer lifetime assumed for nuclear power plant (60 years instead of 40).

          But even if you double the amount, it’s still the best or at least one of the best.

    • Davidchan@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Lifetime CO2 numbers listed here are accurate. The only time NPPs have worse CO2 figures is when they are shut down prematurely (see: Germany.) The actual act of nuclear generation produces no CO2, and mining Uranium is difficult but significantly more efficient than than coal and when comparing the amount of silicon needed for solar to make 1mw compared to uranium needed for NPPs to produce 1mw, the uranium still has has better a better track record. Hydro is a mess with so many different designs that some aren’t that impactful where others devastate entire ecosystems just by existing so it’s difficult to realistically talk about it objectively.

      We need NPPs, Wind and Solar if we want a dependable and sustainable power grid, but that’s just one small part of a sustainable future that we desperately need to change the way we live to avert global climate catastrophe.