In Europe: That cement (which is used to create concrete) is by far mostly going into the huge foundations needed for the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of 150m+ tall wind power plants that only produce power sometimes.
Yes, but compare their CO2 footprints to nuclear. Have you a source that shows Nuclear is better?
I hunted around a while back and got a large range of answers, but nuclear seemed consistent worse. Eg see page 29 of this link.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...
In that figure, if you look at the median (the black line), it's quite small.
There is this one very anti-nuclear Stanford professor, who has managed to publish some estimates where the carbon footprint of nuclear power is way larger than in other estimates. These numbers are probably now forever part of the literature, and they make the range of published numbers quite large in every literature survey.
Sometimes this activist professor also sues people for libel, if they publish results disagreeing with his.
Wow.
Have you any idea how much his study pushed up the mean or got a summary of how his study differed? As you say, the estimates vary wildly and I haven’t really got any idea where his sit relative to others
For this thread, your previous uninformed comments sadly made my post three levels up end up at -2, so all of this is kinda hidden. Please post again with this "newfound knowledge" in future threads.
I find ideology-driven scientists to be very dangerous to humanity prosperity and progress. Of course he's insanely active on Twitter. Last post 8 minutes ago.
That’s exactly the point I was trying to make - it isn’t clear that nuclear power has less C02 emissions than wind turbines.
It’s also something that needs a very long view to calculate - nuclear waste needs storing and protecting and wind turbines aren’t being decommissioned all that much.
