![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I would like to draw everyone's attention to this UNECE Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options [1] just published in October 2021 that contains comparison of energy sources in the following parameters normalized per kWh:
In the article, the first one is certainly covered to some extent based on IPCC data as well as the land use, but this UNECE approach is unique in covering all these parameters, all critical from sustainability point of view, in one place, per one methodology, in normalized way. Cloud200 ( talk) 20:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Having added a summary of these findings in the article I would love if someone could have a second look as these long sequences numbers are notoriously prone to typos. I would also suggest that we rename the "Environmental issues" section into "Environmental impacts", and build on the list of impacts produced by UNECE as it's a great starting point to what actual impacts on environment need to be considered when talking about "sustainability". Cloud200 ( talk) 12:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Weighting denotes the more subjective ranking of impact categories, and a step through which normalised results are multiplied with variable coefficients (weights) to yield a single score. Weighting is the optional fourth and final step in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA), after classification, characterization and normalization. This final step is perhaps the most debated. Weighting entails multiplying the normalized results of each of the impact categories with a weighting factor that expresses the relative importance of the impact category .(emphasis in the original).
All technologies display very low freshwater eutrophication over their life cycles, with the exception of coal, the extraction of which generates tailings that leach phosphate to rivers and groundwater. CCS does not influence these emissions as they occur at the mining phase. Average P emissions from coal range from 600 to 800 g P eq./MWh, which means that a coal phase-out would virtually cut eutrophying emissions by a factor 10 (if replaced by PV) or 100 (if replaced by wind, hydro, or nuclear)
Ionising radiation occurs mainly due to radioactive emissions from radon 222, a radionuclide present in tailings from uranium mining and milling for nuclear power generation, or coal extraction for coal power generation. Coal power is a potentially significant source of radioactivity, as coal combustion may also release radionuclides such as radon 222 or thorium 230 (highly variable across regions).
Here is the table I removed: Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 00:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Technology | Type | Impact |
---|---|---|
Hard coal | PC, no CCS | 81 |
IGCC, no CCS | 67 | |
SC, no CCS | 76 | |
Natural gas | NG, no CCS | 25 |
Hard coal | PC, with CCS | 87 |
IGCC, with CCS | 69 | |
SC, with CCS | 82 | |
Natural gas | NG, with CCS | 21 |
Hydro power | 660 MW | 13 |
360 MW | 1.2 | |
Nuclear | average | 4.2 |
CSP | tower | 3.8 |
trough | 8.0 | |
PV | poly-Si, ground-mounted | 12 |
poly-Si, roof-mounted | 14 | |
CdTe, ground-mounted | 5.0 | |
CdTe, roof-mounted | 5.4 | |
CIGS, ground-mounted | 5.1 | |
CIGS, roof-mounted | 5.5 | |
Wind | onshore | 5.7 |
offshore, concrete foundation | 5.6 | |
offshore, steel foundation | 6.5 |
Strange how this seems to be ignored when solar is mentioned as sustainable. https://e360.yale.edu/features/the_greenhouse_gasthat_nobody_knew Batvette ( talk) 02:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
The article uses the word "energy" a lot – 380 times – but it doesn't define it clearly. For example, I found the following sentence quite jarring, "Eighty-five percent of the world's energy is derived from fossil fuels and the global energy system is responsible for 76% of the human-caused greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change."
Now, from a physical point of view, this is incorrect. The main source of energy for the world is the sun. This is mostly what keeps us warm and so, in summer, when the sun is shining I don't need to heat the house. And this energy is what powers all plant life and all the other creatures that depend on that. Here's what MIT says,
The sunlight that reaches Earth every day dwarfs all the planet's other energy sources. ... A total of 173,000 terawatts (trillions of watts) of solar energy strikes the Earth continuously. That's more than 10,000 times the world's total energy use.
So, when we're talking about energy, we should be clearer about what we mean. Here's how Feynman put it,
I turned the page. The answer was, for the wind-up toy, "Energy makes it go." And for the boy on the bicycle, "Energy makes it go." For everything "Energy makes it go." Now that doesn't mean anything. Suppose it's "Wakalixes." That's the general principle: "Wakalixes makes it go." There is no knowledge coming in. The child doesn't learn anything; it's just a word
In the section above, someone says "In this article, we use the colloquial English sense of "power" and "energy"". But the colloquial English sense of these words is quite fuzzy and imprecise. What are we actually talking about here? Fuel and electricity? When I eat, sunbathe or ride my bicycle, is this part of this energy total? The article has a section called Definitions and it should define what it means by this word that it uses so much.
Andrew🐉( talk) 09:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Why shouldn't we use the definition from energy in physics? I think that's generally what is being described in the article. It's true that immediate concerns revolve around power production/consumption, but ultimately it is energy production that matters. The power-draw on an energy supply is a matter of energy distribution, storage, and use. It really has no immediate bearing on the question as to whether the energy in question was produced sustainably. There are secondary effects, of course (if you go overcapacity on a grid, then fallback to problematic and less-sustainable energy production methods can occur), but surely it is the production itself that matters. jps ( talk) 13:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A few thoughts: 1) The term power in this article is used as a synonym for electricity (see the Cambridge dictionary's fourth meaning of "power" here). 2) I agree with Femke that the definition of energy in physics textbooks would be a distraction in this article, but could be useful in the article on renewable energy. The way we use the term energy in this article is basically the way it's used in everyday English, [5] [6] which is why we don't define it. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 16:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
It's not different from the meaning used in physics. Rather it is a specific type of energy that is being sold. In contrast, the term energy (esotericism) is an entirely different meaning. jps ( talk) 11:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
While I appreciate that the text I proposed in addition may not have risen to the occasion (as it were) in describing the full context of sustainablility, I do think we need some explanation of energy in the article so that people who do not really understand energy as a resource can have that concept explained. If the article energy is too technical in its exposition, perhaps we can recreate (and cleanup?) the explanations that are almost provided in energy development. jps ( talk) 11:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there are any newer sources at that level, but I will investigate. Enjoy your break! jps ( talk) 17:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I have added a bunch of "Citation needed" since this whole article seems very oriented towards a certain idea, rather than reflecting the facts as they are; one good example of this, would be this sentence: "Carbon capture and storage can be built into power plants to remove their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, but is expensive and has seldom been implemented." - which has no basis in reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seithx ( talk • contribs)
eployment of this technology is still very limited, with only 21 large-scale CCS plants in operation worldwide as of 2020. Has the situation changed much since? Femke ( talk) 18:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
My suggestion for the See also list was this:
I think it's quite elegant as it helps people easily find the related articles without making the See also link long. I've seen it used at wetland. You don't like it, Clayoquot? You wrote: "Sorry, I don't see how this addresses the proliferation problem. MOS:SEEALSO says to keep links to a "reasonable number" which would be difficult for this article." - do others also don't like it and under which circumstances would people say that this template is useful? EMsmile ( talk) 12:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I would like to draw everyone's attention to this UNECE Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options [1] just published in October 2021 that contains comparison of energy sources in the following parameters normalized per kWh:
In the article, the first one is certainly covered to some extent based on IPCC data as well as the land use, but this UNECE approach is unique in covering all these parameters, all critical from sustainability point of view, in one place, per one methodology, in normalized way. Cloud200 ( talk) 20:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Having added a summary of these findings in the article I would love if someone could have a second look as these long sequences numbers are notoriously prone to typos. I would also suggest that we rename the "Environmental issues" section into "Environmental impacts", and build on the list of impacts produced by UNECE as it's a great starting point to what actual impacts on environment need to be considered when talking about "sustainability". Cloud200 ( talk) 12:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Weighting denotes the more subjective ranking of impact categories, and a step through which normalised results are multiplied with variable coefficients (weights) to yield a single score. Weighting is the optional fourth and final step in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA), after classification, characterization and normalization. This final step is perhaps the most debated. Weighting entails multiplying the normalized results of each of the impact categories with a weighting factor that expresses the relative importance of the impact category .(emphasis in the original).
All technologies display very low freshwater eutrophication over their life cycles, with the exception of coal, the extraction of which generates tailings that leach phosphate to rivers and groundwater. CCS does not influence these emissions as they occur at the mining phase. Average P emissions from coal range from 600 to 800 g P eq./MWh, which means that a coal phase-out would virtually cut eutrophying emissions by a factor 10 (if replaced by PV) or 100 (if replaced by wind, hydro, or nuclear)
Ionising radiation occurs mainly due to radioactive emissions from radon 222, a radionuclide present in tailings from uranium mining and milling for nuclear power generation, or coal extraction for coal power generation. Coal power is a potentially significant source of radioactivity, as coal combustion may also release radionuclides such as radon 222 or thorium 230 (highly variable across regions).
Here is the table I removed: Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 00:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Technology | Type | Impact |
---|---|---|
Hard coal | PC, no CCS | 81 |
IGCC, no CCS | 67 | |
SC, no CCS | 76 | |
Natural gas | NG, no CCS | 25 |
Hard coal | PC, with CCS | 87 |
IGCC, with CCS | 69 | |
SC, with CCS | 82 | |
Natural gas | NG, with CCS | 21 |
Hydro power | 660 MW | 13 |
360 MW | 1.2 | |
Nuclear | average | 4.2 |
CSP | tower | 3.8 |
trough | 8.0 | |
PV | poly-Si, ground-mounted | 12 |
poly-Si, roof-mounted | 14 | |
CdTe, ground-mounted | 5.0 | |
CdTe, roof-mounted | 5.4 | |
CIGS, ground-mounted | 5.1 | |
CIGS, roof-mounted | 5.5 | |
Wind | onshore | 5.7 |
offshore, concrete foundation | 5.6 | |
offshore, steel foundation | 6.5 |
Strange how this seems to be ignored when solar is mentioned as sustainable. https://e360.yale.edu/features/the_greenhouse_gasthat_nobody_knew Batvette ( talk) 02:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
The article uses the word "energy" a lot – 380 times – but it doesn't define it clearly. For example, I found the following sentence quite jarring, "Eighty-five percent of the world's energy is derived from fossil fuels and the global energy system is responsible for 76% of the human-caused greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change."
Now, from a physical point of view, this is incorrect. The main source of energy for the world is the sun. This is mostly what keeps us warm and so, in summer, when the sun is shining I don't need to heat the house. And this energy is what powers all plant life and all the other creatures that depend on that. Here's what MIT says,
The sunlight that reaches Earth every day dwarfs all the planet's other energy sources. ... A total of 173,000 terawatts (trillions of watts) of solar energy strikes the Earth continuously. That's more than 10,000 times the world's total energy use.
So, when we're talking about energy, we should be clearer about what we mean. Here's how Feynman put it,
I turned the page. The answer was, for the wind-up toy, "Energy makes it go." And for the boy on the bicycle, "Energy makes it go." For everything "Energy makes it go." Now that doesn't mean anything. Suppose it's "Wakalixes." That's the general principle: "Wakalixes makes it go." There is no knowledge coming in. The child doesn't learn anything; it's just a word
In the section above, someone says "In this article, we use the colloquial English sense of "power" and "energy"". But the colloquial English sense of these words is quite fuzzy and imprecise. What are we actually talking about here? Fuel and electricity? When I eat, sunbathe or ride my bicycle, is this part of this energy total? The article has a section called Definitions and it should define what it means by this word that it uses so much.
Andrew🐉( talk) 09:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Why shouldn't we use the definition from energy in physics? I think that's generally what is being described in the article. It's true that immediate concerns revolve around power production/consumption, but ultimately it is energy production that matters. The power-draw on an energy supply is a matter of energy distribution, storage, and use. It really has no immediate bearing on the question as to whether the energy in question was produced sustainably. There are secondary effects, of course (if you go overcapacity on a grid, then fallback to problematic and less-sustainable energy production methods can occur), but surely it is the production itself that matters. jps ( talk) 13:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A few thoughts: 1) The term power in this article is used as a synonym for electricity (see the Cambridge dictionary's fourth meaning of "power" here). 2) I agree with Femke that the definition of energy in physics textbooks would be a distraction in this article, but could be useful in the article on renewable energy. The way we use the term energy in this article is basically the way it's used in everyday English, [5] [6] which is why we don't define it. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 16:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
It's not different from the meaning used in physics. Rather it is a specific type of energy that is being sold. In contrast, the term energy (esotericism) is an entirely different meaning. jps ( talk) 11:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
While I appreciate that the text I proposed in addition may not have risen to the occasion (as it were) in describing the full context of sustainablility, I do think we need some explanation of energy in the article so that people who do not really understand energy as a resource can have that concept explained. If the article energy is too technical in its exposition, perhaps we can recreate (and cleanup?) the explanations that are almost provided in energy development. jps ( talk) 11:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there are any newer sources at that level, but I will investigate. Enjoy your break! jps ( talk) 17:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I have added a bunch of "Citation needed" since this whole article seems very oriented towards a certain idea, rather than reflecting the facts as they are; one good example of this, would be this sentence: "Carbon capture and storage can be built into power plants to remove their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, but is expensive and has seldom been implemented." - which has no basis in reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seithx ( talk • contribs)
eployment of this technology is still very limited, with only 21 large-scale CCS plants in operation worldwide as of 2020. Has the situation changed much since? Femke ( talk) 18:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
My suggestion for the See also list was this:
I think it's quite elegant as it helps people easily find the related articles without making the See also link long. I've seen it used at wetland. You don't like it, Clayoquot? You wrote: "Sorry, I don't see how this addresses the proliferation problem. MOS:SEEALSO says to keep links to a "reasonable number" which would be difficult for this article." - do others also don't like it and under which circumstances would people say that this template is useful? EMsmile ( talk) 12:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)