The Harris Ranch Tesla Supercharger station is an impressive beast. With 98 charging bays, the facility in Coalinga, California, is the largest charging station in the world. But to provide that kind of power takes something solar can’t provide — diesel generators. //

Just as these charging stations find they can’t run without some fossil fuel backup, the retirement of a coal-fired power plant in Kansas is being delayed to accommodate the energy demands of an electric vehicle battery factory that’s under construction.

Blackmon said that these stories illustrate well the lack of thought going into the demands that will be placed on the grid with increasing amounts of electric vehicle adoption.

As those demands pile on, U.S. energy policy pushes to remove coal, nuclear and natural gas from the grid.

Blackmon said he watched all summer as the Texas grid, which operates separately from the rest of the county, nearly collapsed with the incessant heat. //

Musk has also been taken to task for his solar promises. Energy expert Alex Epstein ran a fact check on Musk’s claim that we could power the world with a small area of the Sahara Desert and “some batteries.”

Epstein calculated that enough battery storage to create a reliable grid would cost $590 trillion for the batteries alone. It doesn’t include the cost of all the transmission infrastructure. And the batteries would have to be replaced every decade.

"Save the Whales" was the rallying cry of Greenpeace and other environmental extremists in the 1970s and 1980s, and it might be time for them to pull it out of the attic, dust it off, and use it again. Since 2016, 204 humpback whales have died off the east coast of the United States, most of them in the area of New Jersey to Massachusetts and North Carolina to Virginia. This number is far from norms in numbers, and the clustering is unusual. Many of the whales have been killed by boat strikes, but that still doesn't explain why the number of humpback whale deaths jumped by over 100% from 2015 to 2016.

There are several moving parts here. First, this is not the product of the imagination. The number of humpback whale deaths has skyrocketed since 2016. //

What these two pieces of data have in common is that 1) the first offshore wind farm went into operation in 2016, and 2) there are two wind farms in operation, one off of Cape Henry, VA, and another off Block Island, RI.

If you were a detective, you might call this a clue. //

You'd think the same environmental movement that put national security at risk by forcing the end of sonar testing by US submarines would be up in arms. But you'd be wrong.

The bottom line is that a huge, multi-billion dollar gift is at stake, and government, industry, and their fluffers in the media all know that if offshore wind farms are associated with the kill off of whales and other marine mammals, that industry is dead. This is the same behavior that led to the environmentalists shutting down nuclear power in Germany and replacing it with coal-burning generators.

If a nuclear overnight CAPEX of $2000/kW is possible, as the South Koreans, the Chinese, and the GKG claim, why in the world would you run $4000/kW, let alone anything higher?

The answer is we've seen nuclear CAPEXes of $8000/kW and higher. Vogtle 3/4 is above $10,000/kW. Flamanville 3 is in the same range. This cannot happen in a properly functioning, competitive market. In such a market, there is only one price, the best price. If nuclear cost is as critically important to the planet as Figure 6 claims, we must figure out what turns a $2000/kW plant into a $10,000/kW plant and eliminate it. The GKG publication Why Nuclear Power has been a Flop attempts to do just that. //

Only truly cheap nuclear offers humanity what it must have: both cheap electricity and low CO2 emissions. Expensive nuclear offers humanity the choice of impoverishment or global warming.

Matt Huber is a professor of geography at Syracuse University. He writes about energy, economies and the way that energy sources have influenced modern societies and economies.

One of his first books was Lifeblood: Oil, Freedom, and the Forces of Capital (2013) which is very briefly described as follows:

Looking beyond the usual culprits, “Lifeblood” finds a deeper and more complex explanation in everyday practices of oil consumption in American culture. Matthew Huber, associate professor of geography and the environment, uses oil to retell American political history from the triumph of New Deal liberalism to the rise of the New Right, from oil’s celebration as the lifeblood of postwar capitalism to increasing anxieties over oil addiction.

In April 2022, Huber published a significant piece in Jacobin with Fred Stafford that explains how his research has revealed that most of the financial benefits associated with renewable power system development and electricity production “deregulation” have been captured by entities that the Left is supposed to dislike.

When we look at the actually existing decentralized renewable energy industry, we see many things the Left should abhor — deregulated markets, tax shelters for corporations, a rentier development model, and an anti-union industry dependent upon a transient and insecure workforce.

Though the environmental left may not want to accept it, the small-is-beautiful approach of decentralized energy provides ideological cover for a ruthless form of renewable energy capitalism. And even worse, it threatens our fight to halt climate change in its tracks.
-- In Defense of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Jacobin 40/04/2022

Huber believes that large, capital intensive power plants have been valuable investments as anchors in our electricity grid. Contrary to the characterizations offered by critics and advocates of radical transformation, he believes that the grid is one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century and that we should add to its capabilities instead of seeking to completely rebuild it with a different generation model.

Steve Milloy @JunkScience
·
14,000 panel, 5.2 MW community solar array in Nebraska destroyed by hail storm last night.

This doesn't happen to baseload power plants.

https://notrickszone.com/2023/06/28/huge-nebraska-solar-park-completely-smashed-to-pieces-by-one-single-hail-storm/
9:42 PM · Jun 28, 2023

Shanghai @thinking_panda
·
In China, in the Shanxi province, there is a huge solar energy farm right on the mountain. Solar panels stretch for 80 kilometers. It looks as if the mountain was covered with a blanket.
(Shanxi is on the Loess Plateau which has nothing but silt and dust. Nothing grows there.)
4:23 AM · May 31, 2023 //

A professor of Geochemistry explained that solar isn’t all that “green.” Solar releases nitrogen trifluoride. What’s NF3’s impact on the environment? It is 17,000 times worse for the atmosphere than the dreaded CO2.

https://www.chemservice.com/news/learn-which-chemicals-make-solar-power-possible/

American Deplorable ™
7 hours ago
Working in Texas I saw a solar array that covered hundreds of acres that was located on the edge of the desert.

The dust storms there are legendary and have been for millennia.

I was told that the dust reduces the panels ability to create power by as much as 70% at times so the utility decided to hire a full time cleaning crew to keep the panels working.

A dozen two man crews equipped with a side by side vehicle, squeegees and spray bottles spend 12 hours a day, seven days a week cleaning the panels.

Absolutely insane. //

bintexas
6 hours ago

1. Climate change hail takes out a field of solar power panels

2. Double the number of fields to combat climate change

3. Climate change hail (aka springtime in the midwest) busts up two fields of panels.

I am detecting the makings of a perfect grift

Life cycle emissions are the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted throughout a product’s existence, including its production, use, and disposal.

To compare these emissions effectively, a standardized unit called metric tons of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) is used, which accounts for different types of greenhouse gases and their global warming potential.

Here is an overview of the 2021 life cycle emissions of medium-sized electric, hybrid and ICE vehicles in each stage of their life cycles, using tCO2e. These numbers consider a use phase of 16 years and a distance of 240,000 km. //

1. The production emissions for BEVs are approximately 40% higher than those of hybrid and ICE vehicles. According to a McKinsey & Company study, this high emission intensity can be attributed to the extraction and refining of raw materials like lithium, cobalt, and nickel that are needed for batteries, as well as the energy-intensive manufacturing process of BEVs.
2. Electricity production is by far the most emission-intensive stage in a BEVs life cycle. Decarbonizing the electricity sector by implementing renewable and nuclear energy sources can significantly reduce these vehicles’ use phase emissions.

Many have forgotten that we are standing on the shoulders of legends such as Teller and Oppenheimer.

Recently the Oppenheimer grandson rallied in favor of nuclear:

"New Manhattan Project for Carbon-free Energy"

https://tucoschild.substack.com/p/oppenheimer-nuclear-energys-moment

Also note the energy density of nuclear vs other energy containers:

Li abttery : 0.5 MJ/kg

Diesel/gas : 46 MJ/kg

Nuclear, U-235, E=mc^2 : 79,390,000 MJ/kg

The forced energy transformation crowd continues to be in denial about how badly the California grid has been compromised by wind and solar, how expensive the battery solution is, and the prospect of Big Brother in the home (setting temperatures and restricting power use at will). As Ludwig von Mises observed, the failure of government intervention leads to more and more intervention, posing a choice between free markets and Leviathan.” //

AdenW
May 24, 2023 6:03 am
A simple solution. Smart meters and virtue signalling.

1. Greens sign up to a Green register, get the badge they can display to show how good they are.
2. Smart meters
3. Greens have to sign up to renewables only electric supply
4. Then when the wind doesn’t blow, the sun doesn’t shine, a message is sent to the smart meter and click, they get cut off.
   Once a green, always a green, you are on for life.

President Joe Biden’s latest push for electric vehicles is reminiscent of a soliloquy by Don Quixote: short on facts, long on rhetoric, and filled with unrealistic expectations. Sadly, though, Biden’s policy mistakes are moving beyond fiction to a reality that confines consumers to cars that are unaffordable and unwanted.

Like Don Quixote tilting at harmless windmills he thinks are giants, Biden is attacking American energy and the auto industry for daring to use fossil fuels. And as Don Quixote went from quest to quest attempting to free imaginary prisoners, Biden is hellbent on freeing Americans from the imaginary captivity of their reliable, safe, flexible, and economical gasoline- and diesel-fueled engines.

That disconnect from reality perfectly encapsulates Biden’s energy policy. His Environmental Protection Agency recently proposed such strict regulations for cars and trucks that effectively mean that 54% of new vehicles sold domestically must be electric vehicles, or EVs, by 2030.

Even if Biden managed a 500% increase in EV sales by the end of the decade, he’d still fall woefully short of his goal. The only conceivable way to make half of new vehicle sales EVs by 2030 would be if Americans were so poor that they could afford few new cars, and thus the small number of electric vehicles still could amount to half of all new vehicles. That’s right out of Mao’s Great Leap Forward.

Just from the standpoint of raw materials, Biden’s EV goal is fictitious. We simply can’t get the needed materials in sufficient volume in time. Furthermore, the schizophrenic energy policy of this administration simultaneously is ramping up demand for those raw materials while hamstringing the supply. Biden continues blocking mining of lithium, graphite, nickel, and rare earth metals.

That’s inexplicable, since Biden’s green energy transition would increase demand for those materials by 4,200%, 2,500%, 1,900%, and 700%, respectively, in less than 20 years.

But when you consider that “it has taken on average over 16 years to move mining projects from discovery to first production,” then Biden’s proposals aren’t unachievable—they’re laughable.

And from where does Biden think the electricity to power these electric vehicles will come? The strained electrical grid already has brownouts and blackouts in parts of the country and couldn’t handle millions more EVs, especially when Biden also is blocking copper mining, the main ingredient in electrical wires.

The grid’s transmission capacity would need to grow 60% in less than seven years and grow 200% in less than 30 years. And this is just the grid infrastructure, not what would be needed to power it.

E-fuels sound like a panacea, but there's not enough spare electricity to make them.

“You wrote, for instance, in a Forbes column last year that renewables actually increase global emissions. Do you stand by that comment?” he said.

Furchtgott-Roth explained the piece.

“Yes. Because they’re made with coal-fired power plants in China. I did explain that if renewables were the wind turbines and solar panels are made and batteries are made with coal-fired plants in China,” she said. “I did explain that if these were made with emissions-free energy such as nuclear power, then the benefits to the environment would be much greater. But many environmentalists who are in favor of renewables are against dense emission nuclear power, and therefore making these renewables often raises emissions.” //

When Whitehouse questioned her about the human component of climate change, she was ready for him again. She pulled out a book and waved it.

“Yes. Scientists disagree on the human component of global warming,” she said. “And in this book, ‘Unsettled’ by Steve Koonin, who was under secretary of energy under President Obama, and who taught for 30 years at CalTech and has a PhD in physics from MIT, he says that, ‘It is uncertain how much human activity affects global warming. The case is unsettled,’ and I’m no better scientist than he is.”

More than 90% of used solar panels get thrown in the trash, and the world's wind industry is estimated to produce 43 million tons of blade waste each year. But some companies have found recycling solutions. Ben Tracy reports.

Earth Day is Saturday! Hooray?

“Saving humanity from the climate crisis,” says EarthDay.org, requires us to “push away from the dirty fossil fuel economy.” //

“Three billion people in the world still use less electricity than a typical refrigerator,” explains Alex Epstein, author of “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.” If they’re going to have “their first well-paying jobs,” “their first consistent supply of clean water,” “a modern life,” “that’s going to depend on fossil fuels.”

But the greens say we have a better replacement: wind and solar power. //

So I push back at Epstein: “Solar is getting cheaper all the time. It’s already cheaper than fossil fuels.”

“When we look at solar and wind around the world,” he answers, “it always correlates to rising prices and declining reliability. Why? Because solar and wind are intermittent. At any time, they can go near zero.” //

That means wind turbines and solar farms don’t replace fossil-fuel plants. You have to build them in addition to fossil-fuel plants.

Backing up all solar and wind with batteries would cost “multiples of global” gross domestic product, responds Epstein. “This is a total fantasy.”

“You say unaffordable,” I push back, “but who’s to determine what that is?”

“The general narrative is we’re destroying the planet with fossil fuels, so who cares how much energy costs?” Epstein says. “The truth is, the planet is only livable because of low-cost, reliable energy from fossil fuels.”

Before fossil fuels, “Life expectancy was below 30. Income was basically nonexistent. The population was stagnant because people had such a high death rate. The basic reason is that nature is not a very livable place for human beings.”

By contrast, thanks to cheap fossil fuels, “We make it unnaturally safe by producing all forms of climate protection. We produce drought relief . . . sturdy buildings. We produce heat when it’s cold, we produce cold when it’s hot. We have this amazing, productive ability. That’s the only reason we experience the planet as livable.” //

If we want more of the poorest people to have decent lives, we need to invest in both fossil fuels and nuclear power.

For all leftists, climate alarmists, and other dwellers in fantasy land, happy Earth Day! Unfortunately for “climate change” true believers, not only have climate predictions been consistently and wildly wrong for 50 years now, but “clean” or “green” energy is toxic for the environment, inefficient, and unprofitable. //

First, it’s literally impossible to produce the amount of energy and electricity society currently uses with “green” energy. That’s why climate propagandists like World Economic Forum tell people to get used to being poorer. But also, much of that “green” energy is actually terrible for the environment. Solar panels and wind turbines have killed billions of birds, and offshore wind turbines can be deadly for whales. //

EV batteries, which have to be replaced every few years, are very toxic to dispose of. The “mining, manufacturing, and disposal of [EV] batteries threatens to be a major environmental concern in the coming years.” Solar panels and wind turbines also generate lots of toxic waste. //

Any reasonable person who has seen wind or solar farms has to notice they take up massive amounts of land. In other words, to put up wind turbines or solar panels, huge swathes of natural scenery and farmland must be ruined. This includes killing literally millions of trees.

Back in 2016, a planned solar panel farm in New Jersey required cutting down 15,000 trees. 200-year-old rainforest trees were axed in Tasmania in 2019 to clear land for a wind farm. In Scotland, as of 2020, almost 14 million trees had been cut down to make way for wind turbines. By 2021, Scotland was reportedly still cutting down an estimated 1,600 trees a day to make way for wind turbines. In 2022, Germany was planning to clear a large swathe of the thousand-year-old forest known as the “treasure house of European forests” to make way for a wind power plant.

When you hear the words “clean energy,” what comes to mind?

Most people immediately think of solar panels or wind turbines, but how many of you thought of nuclear energy?

Nuclear is often left out of the “clean energy” conversation despite it being the second largest source of low-carbon electricity in the world behind hydropower.

So, just how clean and sustainable is nuclear?

Try these quick facts for starters.

1. Nuclear energy protects air quality

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the United States avoided more than 471 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2020. That’s the equivalent of removing 100 million cars from the road and more than all other clean energy sources combined. //

2. Nuclear energy’s land footprint is small

A typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear facility in the United States needs a little more than 1 square mile to operate. NEI says wind farms require 360 times more land area to produce the same amount of electricity and solar photovoltaic plants require 75 times more space.

To put that in perspective, you would need more than 3 million solar panels to produce the same amount of power as a typical commercial reactor or more than 430 wind turbines (capacity factor not included). //

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-how-much-power-does-nuclear-reactor-produce

3. Nuclear energy produces minimal waste

All of the used nuclear fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry over the last 60 years could fit on a football field at a depth of less than 10 yards!

This year, however, Biden has supported growing the production of off-shore wind energy “by a factor of 714 by 2030.”

Yet nowhere in the Biden plan is there mention of its potential environmental hazards. For instance, there seems to be a connection between off-shore wind turbines and recent whale deaths. By disrupting communication between marine animals, noise from the turbines is hazardous to whales, dolphins, and other underwater creatures, according to the federal government’s own research. And environmentalists say that disruption could even be deadly. Yet corporate media are trying to cover for the Biden administration by characterizing these observations as a Republican “conspiracy theory.”

The problems with wind turbines are bigger than the ocean. They’re known to slaughter eagles, disrupt wildlife habitats, and displace bird feeding and nesting areas. A 2013 study found that wind turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds each year in the U.S. — a number that’s surely higher after another decade of climate-crazed activism. That’s to say nothing of the negative effects wind turbines have on people. //

Yet with all the disastrous effects wind turbines have wrought on both human and animal life, they are no real substitute for coal or nuclear energy. Not only are turbines unreliable as they depend on wind to operate, but they only make up a small fraction of American energy consumption; in 2020, wind and solar production combined accounted for less than 5 percent of total energy consumption. //

“Indigenous rights, human rights, must go hand-in-hand with climate protection and climate action. That can’t happen at the expense of some people. Then it is not climate justice,” Thunberg told Reuters.

This time, she’s right. When environmental policy becomes anti-human and anti-nature, it should be resisted.

Last month, RedState reported on the spate of dead whales washing up on beaches in New York and New Jersey. The pace has not slowed, and there now have been 25 reported deaths of the huge animals just since the beginning of December 2022. //

Catturd ™
@catturd2
·
Follow
1990 - liberals - "SAVE THE WHALES!"

2023 - liberals - "KILL THE WHALES!"
Brett Alexander
@Brett1Alexander
23 Whales dead with only 2 wind turbines in place.

Plans for THOUSANDS of wind turbines may wipe out whales forever.
11:39 AM · Mar 3, 2023 //

Many blame the construction of massive offshore wind turbines, but the federal government insists there’s no connection, with the Marine Mammal Commission, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), and the National Ocean Atmospheric Association (NOAA) rejecting the claims. //

The main takeaway from the dead whales on the East Coast, the heinous conditions in the Congo cobalt mines, and the traumatized reindeer in Norway? Green energy is not so easy.

Mainspring’s linear generator may speed the transition to a zero-carbon electrical grid. //

The linear generator can quickly switch between different types of green (and not-so-green, if need be) fuel, including biogas, ammonia, and hydrogen. It has the potential to make the decarbonized power system available, reliable, and resilient against the vagaries of weather and of fuel supplies. And it’s not a fantasy; it’s been developed, tested, and deployed commercially. //

It is currently installed at tens of sites, producing 230 to 460 kilowatts at each. We expect linear generators at many more locations to come on line within the next year. //

So rather than mimicking an engine, we designed a new machine that ties the compression and expansion motion directly to the generation of electricity, and in doing so provides the necessary reaction control. This machine ended up looking completely different from—and having almost no parts in common with—a conventional engine. So we felt a new name was needed, and we called it the linear generator.

How the linear generator works
Picture a series of five cylindrical assemblies arranged in a line, held within a boxlike frame. The central tube is the reaction chamber; it’s where the fuel and air go. On either side of it sits a linear electromagnetic machine (LEM) that converts the push from pressure directly into electric power. At each end of the generator is an air-filled cylindrical chamber that acts as a spring to bounce the moving part of the LEM back to the center. The whole arrangement—two air springs, two LEMS, and a reaction chamber—forms a linear generator core. It’s long and skinny: A machine rated at 115 kW is about 5.5 meters long and about 1 meter high and wide.

The LEM, in principle, is an electric motor that has been unrolled to form a line instead of a circle. It consists of a moving part—the translator—and a stationary part—the stator. //

One real-world example of the system working this way pairs our generators with a 3.3-megawatt rooftop solar array. When the sun is shining, our generators turn off, and when the sun goes down or goes behind a cloud, our generators automatically turn on within seconds, immediately providing precisely as much power as the building requires.

On the 50th Anniversary of the Endangered Species Act, green groups throw their once-sacred "precautionary principle" to the wind. //

Since the passage of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, environmentalists have fought for strict protections for endangered species. They have demanded that the government apply what is known as the “precautionary principle,” which states that if there is any risk that a human activity will make a species extinct, it should be illegal.

And yet here we are, on the 50th anniversary of the Endangered Species Act, watching the whole of the environmental movement — from the Audubon Society and the National Wildlife Federation to scientific groups like the Woods Hole Institute, New England Aquarium, and Mystic Aquarium — betray the precautionary principle by risking the extinction of the North Atlantic right whale.

The cause of this environmental betrayal is massive industrial wind energy projects off the East Coast of the U.S. The wind turbine blades are the length of a football field. Sitting atop giant poles they will reach three times higher than the Statue of Liberty. The towers will be directly inside critical ocean habitat for the North Atlantic right whale.

There are only 340 of the whales left, down from 348 just one year earlier. So many North Atlantic right whales are killed by man-made factors that there have been no documented cases of any of them dying of natural causes in decades. Their average life expectancy has declined from a century to 45 years. A single additional unnatural and unnecessary death could risk the loss of the entire species. //

North Atlantic right whale population declined from 480 to 340 whales between 2010 and 2022

Is the net output of CO₂ from Nuclear Energy lower than the net output of other energy sources?

A:

• Low range estimate: 1.4 g CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hr
• Mean estimate: 66 g CO2 equivalent per kWh
• High range estimate: 288 g CO2 equivalent per kWh

This is from a metastudy of 103 studies

You can access the full text from this page on the Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Here is a link to the PDF: Sovacool, B. K. 2008. Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey. Energy Policy v. 36 (8): 2950-2963.

For comparison, a natural gas-fired power plant might emit 515.29 g CO2 per kWh (per wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Carbon_dioxide; (conversion to metric mine & therefore mistakes are as well.) Coal and Oil-fired plants will emit more CO2 than a natural gas plant.

ETA: After more thorough checking, confirmed the neighborhood for CO2 equivalents emitted throughout the life cycle for natural gas and coal plants from Jarmillo et al. "Comparative Life-Cycle Air Emissions of Coal, Domestic Natural Gas, LNG, and SNG for Electricity Generation" in Environmental Science and Technology from 2007, link: http://www.ce.cmu.edu/~gdrg/readings/2007/09/13/Jaramillo_ComparativeLCACoalNG.pdf Natural Gas midpoint: 499 g CO2 equivalent per kWh Coal midpoint: 953 g CO2 equivalent per kWh These are close enough to the wikipedia figures (although not exactly the same) that it appears wiki is also using the lifecycle emissions. Again, the conversion to metric is mine & etc.

A lot of science and policy work treats nuclear power as having 0 CO2 emissions, but that's not quite true, and especially is less true if the higher emissions numbers are more correct. //

• I'm not sure "maximum" and "high estimate" are meant to refer to the same concept. Anyway, please take notice that nowadays gaseous diffusion is not used anymore. Lowering worst estimates by around 60-70 g/CO2 – mirh Apr 28, 2017 at 12:41
• The study cited above is Benjamin Sovacool's now (in)famous meta study. Sovacool is an ardent opponent to nuclear power and this study has been severely criticized. First: it does not include 103 studies, because the majority of those were discarded. The actual number is about 20. Second... of these 20, van Leeuwen & Smith's wildly inaccurate study is included 3 times directly and 1 time indirectly. van Leeuwen & Smith have been even more criticized for missing the goal wildly, peer review finding them to be off the mark up to 8000%. – MichaelK Oct 27, 2017 at 11:09 //

Answer: Yes, lower than combustion based sources like coal, oil, and gas. Not lower than renewable sources like solar and hydro.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory performed a similar study to that posted by @FlyingSquidwithGoggles. This might be a less biased source (NIRS page header says "Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change" and contains much anti-nuke literature).

After screening articles by their criteria, they ended up with ~300 article inputs to the data, and ~1000 data points total.

Here are some of the figures listed by source: (Min, Median, Max)(in g CO2/kWh).

• Hydro: 0, 4, 43
• Solar: 5-7, 22-46, 89-217
• Nuclear: 1, 16, 220
• Nat Gas: 290, 469, 930
• Coal: 675, 1001, 1689

Source: "Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"