Excluding the metal Neodymium from the visual makes wind power look pretty good, relative to solar.
This claim is clearly incorrect: “large solar installations take one to seven years to “break even” with coal power on the greenhouse scorecard. Wind farms take up to 12 years.” The results shown in Figure 1 here, which are derived from a comprehensive literature review of all peer-reviewed research on the topic of lifecycle GHG emissions, clearly show that wind energy's emissions impacts are a few percent of those of fossil-fired sources:
http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_results.html
Michael Goggin,
American Wind Energy Association
I think many of the costs of oil production still remain hidden from this study. Do they factor in the metals needed to make our air craft carriers, battle ships, army tanks, jeeps, armored vehicles, aircraft, bombs, missiles, submarines, rifles, and other weaponry used to protect our access to Middle Eastern oil reserves? Or the metals required to mine those metals? I'm thinking not.
And what about the new paint-on solar energy technology?
Does anyone know which "analysis last year" the author is referring to, which "found that large solar installations take one to seven years to “break even” with coal power on the greenhouse scorecard"? This doesn't sound correct to me and certainly contradicts the NREL source linked to by Mr. Goggin above.
Yes, we're all aware of the large carbon footprint required UP FRONT for the production of alternate energy generators. But that up front cost is nothing compared to the continuous spewing of C02 into the atmosphere 24/7/365 by coal fired power plants.
Very informative!
I am waiting to see graphs showing other hidden costs!
For example, the cost to biodiversity: biomass production requires massive amount of land, which destroys wildlife habitat. Nuclear or solar power are more friendly.
I think this representation is flawed. Have they generated these graphs assuming coal or oil is used for metal production? What if solar power or wind power is used to produce metals. In that case switching to greener energy will gradually reduce the carbon footprints of metal production. If not, are there any other greenhouse gas associated with metal production?
And your comments only serve to show that you are scientifically illiterate and base your comments around belief and ideology instead.
The energy costs of adapting to the climate change that fossil fuels cause needs to be included as well. Relocating millions of climate refugees and building higher seawalls isn't going to happen for free. Also, what about all the extra medical treatments people need because of the fossil fuel pollution we're all exposed to? Hospitals definitely use a lot of electricity as well.
One thing about nuclear that is neglected here is that all the uranium we would need for about 100 years has already been mined and is currently sitting in containment pools at all of our nuclear power plants waiting to be stored (which would be a huge waste) or recycled. While the recycling of this fuel will have an impact on the environment, it will save far more intensive impacts from having to mine new uranium.