The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Study Compares Energy Sources From 'Cradle-to-Grave'

Steve Leone, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
May 11, 2012  |  26 Comments

Print

No form of energy really emits zero emissions, and that's a point that's both missed by casual advocates and overstated by strident critics.

It takes a whole lot of energy — quite often of the coal burning variety — to test, build, transport, install and dismantle all those clean sources of renewable energy. But how do the carbon emissions produced over the lifetime of a clean source of energy compare with various forms of fossil fuels over that same period?

This week, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) released an analysis that lets users compare, contrast and better understand what a lifespan of emissions means for project permitting, environmental impacts and future policy. And at worst, it’s a great way to kill a rainy afternoon. See for yourself with the online database.

A quick look at some of the findings:

  • Greenhouse gas emissions over the life of a solar project are about 5 percent of those of a coal plant;
  • Solar and wind have about the same amount of lifetime emissions;
  • Nuclear power rates about as well as renewable energy;
  • Though natural gas generation wasn't included in the final analysis, NREL says it is generally assumed to emit about half as much greenhouse gas per kilowatt-hour as coal.

To get to these numbers, the researchers at NREL applied their modeling to more than 2,000 studies across energy technologies like bio, solar, geothermal, hydropower, ocean energy, wind, nuclear, natural gas and coal. Then they set up a database that allows viewers to compare the differences between, say, concentrated solar power trough installations and emerging ocean wave technology.

Researchers measured their findings by grams of carbon dioxide emitted per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated. For the PV projects included, the study found a median of 45 grams emitted versus a 1,001-gram median for coal. Technology specific medians for solar included 26 grams for CSP trough, 38 for CSP power towers, 20 for amorphous silicon, 14 for cadmium-telluride and 26 for copper indium gallium diselenide.

Wind energy had a harmonized range of 3 to 45 grams with a median of 11 grams. Nuclear had a very large harmonized range of 4 to 110 grams, with a median of 12.

“As a society, we need to better understand what the effects of our energy choices are. Greenhouse gases and climate change are a part of the discussion. As we try to envision what our future energy system will look like, we need an accurate picture of what that transition will mean,” said Garvin Heath, a scientist with NREL and a leader of the project. “This methodology allows you to arrive at a better precision, so you can say with more certainty that this is the benefit you get from using this technology rather than that technology,”

The findings were published in six articles and an editorial in the May special supplemental issue on Meta-Analysis of Life Cycle Assessment of the Journal of Industrial Ecology.

26 Comments

Register To Comment
SG C
SG C
June 9, 2012
HBJ, I would need to check the facts but it would really help support your argument if you could formulate it using proper English grammar, in particular sentence and punctuation rules. Also the defensive tone of your comments is unnecessary, quoting facts that are well sourced is usually enough. Tthe science behind RE appears to remain disputed, let's hope it is only an issue of methodology and interpretation soon to be clarified once and for all.
Benny Johansson
Benny Johansson
May 22, 2012
Quentin,
Methane from the Russian tundra, the shallow bottoms in Arctic sea, Antarctica land and seabottoms and Continent shelves and slopes are nearley rather filled with Methane-hydrates, i.e. frozen gas, of a very nasty composition and consisting of a very large and dangerous volume of an extremely dangerous Climate-gas, 72 times as bad? As Coal-dioxide? It will came out and hit us hard and with no pardon, as nothing else could? For every coal, oil and gas-sq.-meters we burn for producing shit we never ever need, the heath rising a bit, but with 50-billion tons of Coal-dioxide per year up into the air, we get a problem to take care of abt the same volume of methane? Not forget the effect are 70 times worse? We cant stand ONE YEAR OF IT? If you will stay alive another year you need to stopp still any and all Coal-plants and Oil-industry and close all Gas valves on Earth! That only for one year? Dont tell me what 10 years will be, please! Remember Methane-Hydrates, for ever, i.e some years! And tell the Coal-stokers to take full time leave this very evening, please!
Benny Johansson
Benny Johansson
May 20, 2012
Paul,
The age of statistic of Wind-power was from January to August
in 2010. (6,8% for Swedish Wind-power 800 Power-plants was reported, and 8% for England.) Adjusted for Plants not being inluded in statistics,=5%) Swedish Energy Authority prepared a report for the complete year 2010, for land-based Power-plants in
Sweden, average efficiency = 6%! After reduction for plants not reported, under repairs and service, - 20% = 4,8% E-Efficiency?

5% was a larger figure than the correct figure? For the total year 2010? Reported and calculated by Swedish Energy Authority!
Benny Johansson
Benny Johansson
May 19, 2012
Read the Wind statistics on internet, official measurments could be reported without taken into account that the not working Wind-turbines are taken out of the statistics? If you need correct figures the Wind-turbines not working need to be included! Doing that the figures time after time than change but can be calculated! The period I did that, the figures was 6.8% for that peeriod. And adjusted to be correct the result was 5%. Anyone can do the same calculation if needed! It is also a habit of the Wind-industry not to report certain Wind-powerplants at all? Keeping they out of statistics? They could be old with bad efficiency or placed incorrectly, to close in between, to give us only, the nice figures? 20% could than be taken out from statistics? Giving us wrong information, to keep up the efficiency incorrectly but "better"?

Noise? Read abt Low-frequency, and High frequency-noise, and read
also abt "Wind Turbine Syndrome" on the net! By te book 20 dollars only, read abt the investigated and reported illnesses etc. 294 pages! Very scaring! Tinnitus! Panic-Syndrome! Badly, Permanent, Brain-injuries. Epilepsi! After a night sleep in the direction of the Wind-Turbine-Noise, the children, or adults, could end up like ZOMBIES!It takes a book to cover the illnesses!
EMF:s of all kind, from the electric installations, generators and the High-tension transfer-cables. Are dangerous for us all.
paul early
paul early
May 18, 2012
Some of the above comments are a bit crazy about the negative impacts of RE. However, nobody seems to have picked up on the age of the studies used as a basis for the figures, which are usually more than 5 years old and in themselves will study even older data. Whilst this does not matter for coal and gas particularly (the carnot cycle has not changed recently), I would be willing to bet a good sum that the reduction of material use, increased production efficiency and improved construction techniques are all contributing to a continueing lowering of CO2/Kwh for RE.
Jens Stubbe
Jens Stubbe
May 18, 2012
HBJ.

You are off target big time. There are approximately 5.000 wind turbines in Denmark and very few wind turbines have been taken down without replacement as it is quite lucrative to own one.

The scrap is valuable so any owner just picks up the phone and then a profesional wind turbine maintenance company swings around and pick used wind turbines up and pay the scrap value.

A lot of the wind turbines are restored and sold of to mostly countries in East Europe.

There are no place in northern Sweden where ice is a serious problem for wind turbines.

Many of my friends have invested in wind turbines located in US and they are quite happy about their investment.

The real LCOE has for many been a whole lot better than what was promised when they invested because maintenance is less and most wind turbines just like PV installations last longer than claimed by the manufacturers.

Unlike PV the energy output of a wind turbine does not drop as it age. (Your 20% down time claim is totally of. The industry standard i about 99% operation when planned + 2-3% planned maintenance, which is mostly planned when wind speeds are low anyhow.)

I dont think a homeowner with a PV installation can hope for much better.

A PV panel losses about 16% efficiency over 10 years just to scratched surfaces and in Europe the average dirt attenuation is about 15% (just clean a patch of your window and you will know what I talk about) so unless you clean and somehow avoid scratches your PV panel will drop gradually in output as it ages.

If you read the link I provided you will see that Denmark plan for full renewable energy supply by 2050 and we only have top of the line coal plants that also supply district heating.
Benny Johansson
Benny Johansson
May 18, 2012
Dear Jens Stubbe,
5% efficiancy is the real measurements from open statistics of EU when the stop-for-repair and Service-plants are reducted from the statistic figures. For the whole year 2010 official in EU!
You talking of scraps being reused? Nothing at all being reused? The Wind-cheaters leave the problem with the Scrap-heaps,
and the multi thousands tons of multi-reinforced concrete in the nature and forrests, to the local farmers to take care of? No one can never in his lifetime break and crush all that armed concrete? Farmers and families never in history? Stubbe can try to crush only one thousand tons, down to gravels accepted for deposit, and send in a report from that life-lasting tremendous
work? No farmers can ever do it? But they could be easy to cheat, for doing that for free, in 25 yers? The cost for demolishing all scrap from 200 meters above ground taking care of dirty oils from generator, gear-box and turbine are not for farmers to do?
Not even climb up to that level? Above the clouds? 20% down was
the numbers of Wind-monsters not working, for service, repairs or only stalled, for bad, or none power-production at all? Frozen
in ice, for SEVEN MONTHS? As in Northen parts of Sweden! The tiny electric power from Wind-power-plants, abt. 5%, disapeare in Energy-loss during transfer in the cables. The wind-power do never reach the Coal-Powerplants Built for Power-Regulating. If any of the Wind-power appeares in Germany to be regulated, the
Coal-Powerplants can not keep up the generating capacity (E-efficiency for Coal-Plants)? The tiny Wind-Power ending up as a regulating-loss in the huge Smoke-Stacks! An Enormous Environmental SWINDLE! And an attempt to Destroy the Nature and all the Life in it! For the advantage of Coal-power-plants?
Jens Stubbe
Jens Stubbe
May 18, 2012
Christ. Is this really what some people following renewable energy knows about wind turbines. Here are some facts.

1. Every last bit of scrab from a windturbine is reused.
2. Ice on wind turbine blades in Scandinavia causing decreased production is a rarity and ice down periods are unheard of.
3. Windturbine noise is far less than trafic.
4. Only turbines that catches fire release toxic substances.
5. A windtubine is about 60% efficient relative to the theoretical limit for wind energy extraction but of cause only when there is any wind so the 5% claim is a joke.
6. 20% down period for repairs - seriously where does anyone get such nonsense from ?
7. The acclaimed superiority of PV installed capacity is false. No sun at night => 50% installed capacity gone, cloud factor more capacity gone, dirt on the panel attenuation ditto, sub optimal roof orientation ditto, shadow attenuation ditto, air particle pollution attenuation ditto, scratch attenuation ditto, heat attenuation of conversion efficiency ditto, maintenance intervals ditto (convertes last about 10 years and many roofs are damaged by installation + many roofs needs repair), converter capacity that in a well designed home PV installation should be slightly lower than the theoretical PV panel output and finally you should also take into account that PV panels are only about 50% of the theoretical max for silicon PV cells at the moment. In short installed PV capacity is by no means superior to installed wind power capacity.

Despite the above I am all for PV even though PV demand many factors more energy in production and also creates many factors more waste and pollution than wind power.

Anyone who wants facts (Arov, HBJ, genie81) can find them here Windpower.org/en
Benny Johansson
Benny Johansson
May 17, 2012
Genie!
5%-Windpower Efficiency, stands for the average energy delivered,
as statistics from England and Sweden for 2010. An average that is. And has nothing to do with CO2-releases! But the even if the figures was said to be 6.8%, the correct E-figures for that period was 5%! The Wind-power-plants under repairs and closed for service would be taken i to account for 20%less figures.
That is 5% E-efficiency! Over the total year of 2010 it is even forgetting the reduction for repairs, only 6% E-efficiency!

But the real Efficiency taking into account that the Wind-powerplants in the Northen parts of Scandinavia during winter,
i.e. for 7 months, are frozen in layers of ice, needing a lot of imported Coal-Power from Germany to melt the ice. Resulting in an E-efficiency of negative figures? Over the Year the E-efficiency as total could be negative? NEGATIVE EFFICIANCY???
And a lot of Fossile Released Smoke, as German Coal-Power-Smoke?
Anatoly Arov
Anatoly Arov
May 17, 2012
Good article, mostly good comments, what is missing - is actual efficiency data (financial and technical) for every type of RE.
Taking wind as example, where are GWatts reported, with output 5% mentioned in comments (even this figure is overstated with GWatts counted for wind 12.5 m/s with actial average wind speed less than half reducing installed power almost 10 times,for solar even worth).
Why there is no interest in R&D for new energy sources, for new energy efficiency, even for wind energy different solution, currently exploting 18-th century technology and trying to apply this to tidal and rivers without real success.
Reason is - absence of targets to achieve, absence of goals in energy efficiency, absence in motivation when there is no targets and your site should open (continue)this avenue.
For every type of RE there should be on this site professional input and discussions, numbers and events good, but only new RE developments will allow get out of subsidizing and become competitive in fight with big emmiters.
For new energy sources, efficiency technology, new kinetic energy devices please contact pips.arov@bellnet.ca
Quentin Prideaux
Quentin Prideaux
May 16, 2012
Genie - where do you get this stuff? Rare earth metals contribute to CO2 emissions? Windmills are a form of torture? Better destroy the entire planet than have the sun glint off of some windmills?

I'm sure you've all seen this : Memo: Group Wants To Create Fake Grassroots Wind 'Subversion' Campaign That 'Should Appear As A Groundswell':

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/09/480747/memo-group-create-fake-grassroots-wind-subversion-campaign-appear-as-a-groundswell/
Marie Burton
Marie Burton
May 16, 2012
How can they say wind only emits 5% CO2 emissions. Has someone pullled the wool over their eyes? Wind contributes with their construction including rare earth minerals and if you could see what comes off industrial turbines instead of colourless gases you would be horrified. I know someone has done the research and maintains industrial turbines used in wind farms gives off harmful sustance. Along with that is the cumulative effect when built in rows. Infrasound long denied by the wind industry as it is very expensive to monitor has been used as a form of torture and crowd control. Try living near turbines for a length of time although some people do no get ill like any epidemic some od and some do not.The noise is enough from a few as some can be heard up to 20km away. You have a whoosh sound and a thump as the blades cross the nacelle. As for the night lights on top and sight of them on hilltops along with the sun flashing rays as the blades turn is sickening. DO THE RESEARCH and find the truth about turbines. THEY ARE NOT WINDMILLS
Quentin Prideaux
Quentin Prideaux
May 16, 2012
And if we have the methane leakage we suspect from natural gas it is *as bad* as coal, not 50% of the emissions.
Benny Johansson
Benny Johansson
May 16, 2012
JENS STUBBE
write that Danmark is planning to connect its Wind-power grid with China, India and Africa with HVDC cables to import energy to help Denmark regulate its Wind-power with Efficiency of Zero to 100% of installed El-Effect. But not telling us the largest
Coal-plant in Northen Europe,AAlborg, running and regulate the
existing Wind-power-Plants in Denmark? 5% E-efficiency of Wind-
Power needing up to 100% of regulating power that is 2000%!
The Wind-power cant be find or measured on any instrument after the regulation with 2000% Coal-power? HVDC-cables from China to import El-energy to Denmark for regulating the Wind-power or any use for anything need to be payed with most of Denmarks National Trust money, only for the loss of Energy from the lines and Smart-grids you talking about? The El-Reformer on Danish side end of that line, could probably sink Denmark both ways, by cost and weight, down in Great Belt! Normal loss of 10% Energy could probably reach 1000% in that distance. The sunshine from Africa ending in shadows outside Portugal? Danish Wind-power, still not reaching anywhere else than at the nearest Coal-Power-plant. The German Grid could be needed to hide the way to load the grid with 100% Coal-Power. The Wind-power-Plants still only an excuse for building new Coal-Power-plants. And the people to accept it! The German battery-cars could never on earth, be any better than the Coal-Power that generating the Electricity, they will be loaded with! As you know, Germany are 100% Coal-power! The batteries in Germany as well! Not forget that, Wind-power is 2000% CoalPower!
Jens Stubbe
Jens Stubbe
May 16, 2012
HBJ has gotten the wind power requirement for regulating power all wrong.

In Denmark we have more windpower installed than we can use even in the most frenzied peak power scenario.

On average windpower covers 1/3 of the electric power demand.

Wind blows stronger during the day and stronger during the winter so it actually fits well with the energy consumption and mix well with solar power that delivers most energy during the day and the summer.

Regulating power in Denmark is mainly supplied by hydro power plants in Norway and Sweden that has a huge peak power production capacity but contain limited amounts of energy dependent upon rain fall which frequently vary from season to season and year to year.

Denmark is also connected to Germany and the EU Commission plans to connect all of Europe via low loss HVDC cables so the renewable energy produced in one end of the continent can be delivered with little loss to an other end of the continent.

HVDC cables are also planned to China, India and North Africa where there are huge wind and solar ressources.

Further the EU commission has also decided to make smart GRID and smart meters a high priority, which in connection with expected increase in battery driven cars and ground source heating will provide controllable power dump opportunities.

So HBJ do not expect regulating power to be a real issue for renewable energy - but this is maybe not true in US where the GRID is so fragile and sub standard that a violent solar flare with bad timing could wreck the electric GRID for months.
Jens Stubbe
Jens Stubbe
May 16, 2012
Hi Philip Hammad - Just the roads and rooftops in US increase the Albedo effect, which produce more heat energy than all the power consumption worldwide put together, so Philip Hammad heat from power generation is absolutely insignificant regarding rising temperatures.

3% of the Sahara or about the area of Spain fitted with standard solar cells is sufficient to cover the entire worlds total power consumption.

The fastest way to reduce climate change is to reduce the Albedo effect. It is probably impractical to paint roads white due to the glare problem but there is a very important albedo effect generator that we could reduce very fast to achieve instant positive climate cooling.

Black carbon is responsible for discoloring gletchers, snow and icecaps, which increase their temperature and in turn increase melting and uncovers baren land that absorb more solar energy and increase temperature, which is bad in permafrost areas as they contain a lot of frozen in methane that when released can create a run away climate system.

Farmers in semiaride countries sometimes pint their land white to prevent heating and thus water evaporation.

Major black carbon polluters are;
Oil sand production
Bunker oil for ship propulsion
Forrest fires
Coal power plants
Philip Haddad
Philip Haddad
May 16, 2012
Every body seems to have accepted the declaration that CO2 is the cause of global warming, but it is much easier to show that the heat that is emitted from our energy consumption accounts for the temperature rise. Nuclear power emits twice the total heat as its electrical output. Can anyone dispute this?
Jens Stubbe
Jens Stubbe
May 16, 2012
Every materials except the materials used for the wings are reusable in wind turbine and the cables and sometimes the fundament is fully operational when the wind turbine is decommissioned.

Studies in Denmark show complete return on invested energy within 3 month and as a wind turbine generator usually is in service for at least 15 years the NREL numbers must be seriously wrong.

Longwatchers argument is true here in Denmark where 1/3 of the energy is from renewable sources.

Why do NREL not conduct a simple desk research and invite the relevant researchers to a meeting where they can collect the huge amount of knowledge that is already accumulated.

To HBJ I can inform you that hydro electric power is severely harmful to nature and a massive net contributor to runaway climate changes.

The damage is done when rivers free flow is discontinued and the bio material sink to the bottom of still dams where anaerob microbes combust the biomaterial at the bottom and released great amounts of methane.

The river flow past the hydro electric without much of the nourishing biomaterial is bad for agriculture and requires extra supplement of manure and it is also very bad for the sea because the sea will lack these nutrients and thus capture less CO2 and produce less plankton, less fish etc.

Fish and wild life in regulated river systems are destroyed.

And regulated rivers even pose deadly threats for humans. Lakes such as lake Geneva has become deadly because huge floods can erupt from the bottom driven by bubbles of deadly gasses caused by anaerob microbes eating bio debris. The lakes natural balance is disturbed because there spring floods of cold oxygen rich water from the mountains that can mix up the anaerob bottom water.

So do not recommend hydro electric dams they are a pest.
Benny Johansson
Benny Johansson
May 16, 2012
Nice Try!
But what about "OCEAN HEAT ENERGY CONVERTERS", and Geothermal Energy / heating? Hydro-power is something in Sweden! And its
stay for ever and deliver more and more by modernizing generators
and intake! More Rain Expecting plus 30%? But one very hard thing abt "Wind-power", is the need for regulation-power, i.e. Coal-power? The Efficiency for WIND- POWER is abt 5%. And the wind pendelum are from Zero to 100%?
20 times of regulating energy could be needed? That is not 10% not even 100%? IT IS 2000%? 20 TIMES REGULATING POWER NEEDED STAND-BY, WITHIN HOURS, TO TAKE ON THE GREAT WORK TO REGULATE, THE VERY INSTABLE WIND-POWER? THE COAL-POWER-PLANT DOING THAT LOOSING A LOT EFFICIENCY AND NEEDING MORE COAL AND POWER IN THE PROCESS THAN THE WIND-POWER IN QUESTION EVER CAN GUARANTEE TO DELIVER? THE RESULTING WIND-POWER WILL BE NEGATIVE, I E LOST IN THE SMOKE-STACK AS BLACK SMOKE. NEVER SHOWING UP ANYWHERE? A BIG LOSE OF ENERGY AND MONEY, BUT THE LARGEST LOOSERS ARE THE GLOBE,
THE ENVIRONMENT, ALL NATURE, LIFE AND HUMANS! THATS NOT ACCEPTED!
Ralph Perez
Ralph Perez
May 16, 2012
Yes solar panels do have a longer life than the warranty covers. So much additional free energy from the natural sunshine, what a bonus.
No military protection needed. No health problems. Virtually no pollution. Consumer get $o energy bill and with an electric car infinite mileage.
Lets hope our grandchildren are picking up on some of this so they can tell their grandkids. Consumer owned solar. Nice.
JAMES JARVIS
JAMES JARVIS
May 15, 2012
Four things pop out of this literature study:

1) It's a good beginning toward understanding life-cycle costing for various sources of energy.

2) Bio-mass is considered 'renewable', while coal is not.
The difference would seem to be a time constant, rather than a category. It is true that oak trees from little acorns grow..
but it will take 40-50 years, and the environmental cost of harvesting that wood isn't considered in the literature.

3) Both the manufacturing costs for PV and the predicted lifetimes for panels and inverter systems are open to debate. We're seeing systems fail that have been in service <15 years, in the states. Are the environmental impacts of the fabs taken into account?

4) Not only does nuclear understate the environmental impact of construction, but waste disposal is wholly ignored.
Tim Dolan
Tim Dolan
May 15, 2012
One of the interesting things was how much the energy used to produce c-Si panels has an affect on the results. It looks like if you can change the manufacturing itself to renewable power you lower their lifetime results.

Really can't change the mining that much, but if you could build the cells and panels themselves using panels (and in theory you can)then you would get even better results over time. May not be 100% practical, but the more the better.

Meanwhile if the electricity comes from coal of course the results are certainly not as good, I think the study said around a 50% increase for average US based electricity.

And based on what I have read 40 years seems to be a more realistic estimate for a c-Si PV panel lifetime to 75%. But NREL probably has to be conservative in their estimates at this point.
Robert Hilbun
Robert Hilbun
May 15, 2012
These are the kind of studies we all really need to address and figure out, The Real Cost of Energy. How much to Build, Maintain (O&M), decommission and recycle all these cost are part of the equation. I have never even heard a figure, in fact have they even figured out how to do it yet? of how much it is going to cost to store or recycle spent nuclear waste and I would be willing to bet if someone came up with a $ # it would just be a guess. Does anyone know or have a good guess for real cost of decommissioning/recycling and storing of radioactive waste? And while you are at that one how much is the real cost of large Hydro projects, losing all fish and salmon runs and ocean nutrient cycling back into Rocky Mtns just for starters? How many different animals, birds, trees and all kinds of plants, insects, mosses, and the like have really been affected and what is the cost? Red Fish Lake in Idaho, named for the yearly salmon runs. Are there any salmon runs, someone told me they haven't had them in over 30 years? Is that true and if it is, what's the cost?
Kevin Meyerson
Kevin Meyerson
May 14, 2012
It's great to see these kinds of studies being created, however, I did find significant faults to the studies:

1. Solar PV (both Silicon and Thin Film) lifetimes were assumed to be 30 years. In the real world (at least here in Japan) the lifetime of solar panels is far longer, studies and actual panel recyclers indicate up to 80 to 100 years. The actual emissions would be significantly lower if real lifetimes are counted.

2. Nuclear emissions did not include plant construction, spent fuel disposal, and plant decommissioning. These are all major contributors to emissions and therefore the lack of inclusion probably causes a serious problem under estimation of the data.

Regarding the solar panels, I wonder if the 30 year lifespan has been incorporated into the levelized costs of energy for solar PV? In the past the LCOE estimations were based on 20 year lifespans which exaggerated the actual cost per kWh.
ANONYMOUS
May 13, 2012
It's good to see this type of discussion beginning to take place regarding the true cost of RE vs. "conventional" sources. In the US we have a highly manipulated and variously regulated economy that offers copious "free" returns for producing "conventional" (i.e., fossil-fuel) energy. And in this economy, there is always a free lunch for those fossil fuel producers who have managed over the decades to avoid internalizing the full costs of their operations, shifting these costs to the general public. If our government puts regulations in place to ensure equal allocation of costs - including subsidies - across all forms of energy, the fossil fuel market would rapidly fade into oblivion. Fossil fuel energy subsidies and other economic externalities are a massive global problem that encourage waste, hinder energy security and impede development of modern, clean energy.

I'd love to see "Renewable Energy World" take a more objective approach on fossil fuel energy in what it publishes. Modern RE technology to replace obsolescent fossil fuel technology is a very worthy, necessary and entirely logical pursuit. RE is already successful in competing economically with fossil fuel energy, and it will be vastly more successful when the fossil fuel industry and its apologists cease throwing up barriers to a much needed clean energy economy.
ANONYMOUS
May 13, 2012
It's good to see this type of discussion beginning to take place regarding the true cost of RE vs. conventional sources. In the US we thankfully have a somewhat free-market economy. And in a free-market economy there is no such thing as a free lunch. If our government puts regulations in place requiring the use of certain sources of energy that are more expensive than what other countries allow, then that domestic cost will need to be absorbed somewhere.

Like it or not, low cost energy plays a huge part in the US economy, and fossil fuel production and consumption produces a huge percentage of our state and federal government revenues.

I'd love to see "Renewable Energy World" take a more objective approach in what it publishes. RE technology is a very worthy pursuit, but it will never truly be successful until it can compete economically with conventional sources.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create an Account!
  • Sign-In
Steve Leone

Steve Leone

Steve Leone has been a journalist for more than 15 years and has worked for news organizations in Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia and California.
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13 Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13
  • Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems
  • Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables” Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables”
  • Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy
  • Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options

Most Commented

  • 9
    Country-Based Action to Achieve Universal Access to Energy
  • 4
    California Energy Storage Plan May Require $3 Billion Investment
  • 2
    Big Apple Anticipates Solar Explosion for 2013
  • 2
    Integrated Distribution Planning: A Path to Sustaining Growth

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Martifer Solar USA, Inc.
  • Talesun Solar USA, Ltd.
  • Richardson RFPD, Inc.
  • Standard Solar Inc.
  • SolarFlairLighting.com
  • Borrego Solar Systems, Inc.
  • Upsolar
  • DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hydro Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information