Zero greenhouse gas emissions from renewable energy sources, not if science counts

An article screened 153 lifecycle studies (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.048 ):

Wind-energy: 0.4 g CO2 eq/kWH to 364.8 g

Solar PV: 1 g CO2-eq/kWH to 218 g

Another article did a similar lifecycle studies for nuclear power plants:

1.4 g CO2 eq./kWH to 288 g (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(08)00199-7).

Consequently, these three energy resources have similar negative impact (concerning CO2 emission), depending on the particular method that has been employed and the place it was installed.

Thus, nuclear energy is environmental friendly if compared to "renewable" energy sources (renewable is a trademark but not real).

As mentioned in a previous Facebook blog, Thorium molten salt reactors are even more saver with the possibility of lower environmental impact.

In a recent book (Sustainable Energy — without the hot air; David MacKay; https://www.withouthotair.com/about.html) it was calculated that our energy demand will not be satisfied without nuclear fission (indeed, we could use coal instead; 990 g CO2-e/kWh of electricity; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2007.06.014).

Summary: We are in demand of new nuclear power plants, which are safer.

Indeed, in the future it could be possible that most of our energy can be obtained by so-called "renewable" energy sources; consequently, we might not need huge nuclear power plants. Small modular reactors could be sufficient, supplying us with safe and environmental friendly energy (http://acee.princeton.edu/distillates/small-modular-reactors/).

Visit some of the start-ups to learn more:

NuScalePower: http://www.nuscalepower.com/

Terrapower: http://terrapower.com/

Terrestrial Energy: http://www.terrestrialenergy.com/

Toshiba: https://www.toshiba.co.jp/nuclearenergy/english/business/4s/features.htm