{
  "dataset": "comparison_metrics",
  "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
  "generated_at": "2026-10-10T00:15:06Z",
  "description": "Energy-source comparison metrics for the Nuclear Atlas charts: capacity factor, LCOE and system cost, land use, material intensity, lifetime, construction time, life-cycle CO2, deaths per TWh, waste, dispatchability/inertia (qualitative), wildlife and landscape (qualitative) for nuclear, solar PV, onshore/offshore wind, hydrogen, gas (CCGT and peaker), coal, hydro and battery storage. One row per (source_type, metric, region/year/variant). Numbers are copied as published with their units; the only arithmetic is in rows with variant 'derived' (the 'replace one 1 GW reactor' worked example), whose formula is in notes. Unknown = null with a note.",
  "sources": [
    {
      "name": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual, Table 4.08.B Capacity factors for utility scale generators primarily using non-fossil fuels",
      "url": "https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_b.html",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "US public domain"
    },
    {
      "name": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual, Table 4.08.A Capacity factors for utility scale generators primarily using fossil fuels",
      "url": "https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_a.html",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "US public domain"
    },
    {
      "name": "World Nuclear Association, press statement on World Nuclear Performance Report 2025 (1 Sep 2025)",
      "url": "https://world-nuclear.org/news-and-media/press-statements/world-nuclear-performance-report-2025-nuclear-delivers-record-breaking-year-in-electricity-generation",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "Copyright WNA; facts cited"
    },
    {
      "name": "IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024 (July 2025), summary for policy makers",
      "url": "https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2025/Jul/IRENA_TEC_RPGC_in_2024_Summary_2025.pdf",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "Copyright IRENA; facts cited"
    },
    {
      "name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "Copyright Lazard; facts cited"
    },
    {
      "name": "IEA/NEA, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020 edition",
      "url": "https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ae17da3d-e8a5-4163-a3ec-2e6fb0b5677d/Projected-Costs-of-Generating-Electricity-2020.pdf",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "IEA/OECD terms; facts cited"
    },
    {
      "name": "NucNet, 'Nuclear is most affordable dispatchable source of low-carbon electricity' (9 Dec 2020), summarising IEA/NEA 2020",
      "url": "https://www.nucnet.org/news/nuclear-is-most-affordable-dispatchable-source-of-low-carbon-electricity-12-3-2020",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "Copyright NucNet; facts cited"
    },
    {
      "name": "OECD-NEA, The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables (2019), executive summary",
      "url": "https://cms.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/7335-system-costs-es.pdf",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "OECD terms; facts cited"
    },
    {
      "name": "IEA, Global Hydrogen Review 2025, executive summary",
      "url": "https://www.iea.org/reports/global-hydrogen-review-2025/executive-summary",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "IEA terms; facts cited"
    },
    {
      "name": "PNNL, Energy Storage Grand Challenge Cost and Performance Assessment 2020, Hydrogen chapter",
      "url": "https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/Hydrogen_Methodology.pdf",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "US public domain"
    },
    {
      "name": "OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022), based on UNECE (2021) Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options",
      "url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Life-cycle%20impacts%20of%20energy%20sources%20(UNECE)",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "OWID CC BY; UNECE report"
    },
    {
      "name": "UNECE (2021/2022), Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options (with July 2022 corrigendum on land use)",
      "url": "https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/10/reports/life-cycle-assessment-electricity-generation-options",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "UN; facts cited"
    },
    {
      "name": "OWID dataset 'Deaths per TWh energy production' (Markandya & Wilkinson 2007; Sovacool et al. 2016; OWID estimates for nuclear and hydro), used in 'What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?'",
      "url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Deaths%20per%20TWh%20energy%20production",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "OWID CC BY"
    },
    {
      "name": "OWID dataset 'Deaths per TWh from low-carbon energy (Sovacool et al., 2016)'; Sovacool et al. (2016) J. Cleaner Production 112:3952-3965",
      "url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Deaths%20per%20TWh%20from%20low-carbon%20energy%20(Sovacool%20et%20al.%2C%202016)",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "OWID CC BY; article https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652615009877"
    },
    {
      "name": "Ritchie, H. (2020, updated 2022/2024), 'What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?', Our World in Data",
      "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "CC BY"
    },
    {
      "name": "IAEA Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), World Statistics: Trend in Energy Availability Factor",
      "url": "https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/WorldTrendinEnergyAvailabilityFactor.aspx",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "IAEA; facts cited"
    },
    {
      "name": "World Nuclear Association, 'Nuclear Power in the World Today' (updated 8 Oct 2026)",
      "url": "https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "Copyright WNA; facts cited"
    },
    {
      "name": "IPCC (2014), AR5 WG3 Annex III 'Technology-specific cost and performance parameters', Table A.III.2 (p.1335), as reproduced on Wikipedia 'Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources'",
      "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "IPCC; Wikipedia CC BY-SA (reproduction); primary PDF https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf"
    },
    {
      "name": "Lovering, J., Swain, M., Blomqvist, L., Hernandez, R.R. (2022), 'Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow's energy landscape', PLOS ONE 17(7): e0270155",
      "url": "https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270155",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "CC BY 4.0; medians confirmed via https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/whats-the-land-use-intensity-of-different-energy-sources"
    },
    {
      "name": "Ritchie, H. (2022-06-16), 'How does the land use of different electricity sources compare?', Our World in Data",
      "url": "https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "CC BY"
    },
    {
      "name": "Ong, S., Campbell, C., Denholm, P., Margolis, R., Heath, G. (June 2013), 'Land-Use Requirements for Solar Power Plants in the United States', NREL/TP-6A20-56290",
      "url": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc841450/m2/1/high_res_d/1086349.pdf",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "US public domain (NREL); OSTI 1086349"
    },
    {
      "name": "Denholm, P., Hand, M., Jackson, M., Ong, S. (Aug 2009), 'Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States', NREL/TP-6A2-45834",
      "url": "https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Denholm_et_al_2009.pdf",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "US public domain (NREL); OSTI 964608"
    },
    {
      "name": "Bolinger, M. & Bolinger, G. (2022), 'Land Requirements for Utility-Scale PV: An Empirical Update on Power and Energy Density', IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, doi 10.1109/JPHOTOV.2021.3136805 (LBNL summary page)",
      "url": "https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/land-requirements-utility-scale-pv",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "LBNL; facts cited"
    },
    {
      "name": "Nuclear Energy Institute (9 Jul 2015), 'Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant's Footprint' (citing NEI 'Land Requirements for Carbon-Free Technologies', 2015)",
      "url": "https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "Copyright NEI; facts cited (industry association)"
    },
    {
      "name": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10 'Concepts in Integrated Analysis', Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies'",
      "url": "https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "US public domain"
    },
    {
      "name": "World Nuclear Association, 'Mineral Requirements for Electricity Generation' (updated 3 Dec 2024), Table 1 'IEA and World Nuclear Association analysis' reproducing IEA (2021) 'The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions'",
      "url": "https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/mineral-requirements-for-electricity-generation",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "Copyright WNA; IEA figures; chart page https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/minerals-used-in-clean-energy-technologies-compared-to-other-power-generation-sources"
    },
    {
      "name": "World Nuclear Association, 'Radioactive Waste Management' (updated 22 Nov 2025), citing IAEA inventory estimates (published Jan 2022, end-2016)",
      "url": "https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/radioactive-waste-management",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "Copyright WNA; facts cited"
    },
    {
      "name": "World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Essentials: 'What is nuclear waste and what do we do with it?' (updated 15 Jul 2026)",
      "url": "https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "Copyright WNA; facts cited"
    },
    {
      "name": "IRENA and IEA-PVPS (2016), 'End-of-Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels'",
      "url": "https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2016/IRENA_IEAPVPS_End-of-Life_Solar_PV_Panels_2016.pdf",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "Copyright IRENA; facts cited"
    },
    {
      "name": "Liu, P. & Barlow, C.Y. (2017), 'Wind turbine blade waste in 2050', Waste Management 62 (Cambridge repository record)",
      "url": "https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/263878",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "Elsevier; author manuscript in Cambridge repository; facts cited"
    },
    {
      "name": "ENTSO-E (16 Dec 2020), 'Inertia and Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF)', Version 17, System Protection & Dynamics Inertia TF",
      "url": "https://eepublicdownloads.entsoe.eu/clean-documents/SOC%20documents/Inertia%20and%20RoCoF_v17_clean.pdf",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "ENTSO-E; facts cited"
    },
    {
      "name": "US Fish & Wildlife Service, 'Threats to Birds: Migratory Bird Mortality - Questions and Answers' (estimates as of 2017; Loss et al. 2013b for wind)",
      "url": "https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "US public domain"
    },
    {
      "name": "Sovacool, B.K. (2012), 'The avian and wildlife costs of fossil fuels and nuclear power', Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 9(4): 255-278, doi 10.1080/1943815X.2012.746993 (abstract via Tethys)",
      "url": "https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/avian-wildlife-costs-fossil-fuels-nuclear-power",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "Taylor & Francis; abstract cited"
    },
    {
      "name": "Walston, L.J., Rollins, K.E., LaGory, K.E., Smith, K.P., Meyers, S.A. (2016), 'A preliminary assessment of avian mortality at utility-scale solar energy facilities in the United States', Renewable Energy 92: 405-414, doi 10.1016/j.renene.2016.02.041 (abstract via IDEAS/RePEc)",
      "url": "https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/renene/v92y2016icp405-414.html",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "Elsevier; abstract cited"
    },
    {
      "name": "Grill, G. et al. (2019), 'Mapping the world's free-flowing rivers', Nature 569: 215-221",
      "url": "https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1111-9",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "Springer Nature; abstract cited"
    },
    {
      "name": "US DOE EERE, 'Wind Turbines: the Bigger, the Better' (updated Aug 2024), citing the Land-Based Wind Market Report: 2024 Edition (LBNL)",
      "url": "https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/wind-turbines-bigger-better",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "US public domain"
    },
    {
      "name": "IEA (2024), Global Hydrogen Review 2024, executive summary",
      "url": "https://www.iea.org/reports/global-hydrogen-review-2024/executive-summary",
      "accessed": "2026-10-09",
      "licence": "IEA terms; facts cited"
    }
  ],
  "fields": {
    "metric_id": "slug; unique: source_type.metric.region.year.variant",
    "source_type": "nuclear | solar_pv | wind_onshore | wind_offshore | hydrogen | gas_ccgt | gas_peaker | coal | hydro | battery_storage",
    "metric": "capacity_factor | lcoe | lcoe_system | land_use | material_steel | material_concrete | material_copper | material_critical_minerals | lifetime_years | lifecycle_co2 | deaths_per_twh | waste_volume | waste_toxicity_note | dispatchability | inertia | wildlife | landscape | construction_time",
    "value": "number as published (or text for qualitative metrics); null when only a range or nothing is published",
    "low": "lower end of the published range, if any",
    "high": "upper end of the published range, if any",
    "unit": "unit exactly as published (incl. currency year where stated)",
    "year": "data year (or publication/assumption year for modelling assumptions)",
    "region": "world | usa | oecd_24_countries | oecd_model_country | world_ex_china | ...",
    "variant": "what the number is: fleet average, new build, unsubsidized, modelling assumption, derived ...",
    "headline": "true for the one row per metric and technology the charts show by default (rule in docs/data/comparison_metrics.md, D44); false otherwise",
    "citation": "author/org, title, year, table/page",
    "source_url": "URL read on as_of_date",
    "source_name": "name of the source as in the sources list",
    "as_of_date": "date the source was read (ISO)",
    "confidence": "high = primary document read, exact figure; medium = primary via summary/press statement or partial text extraction; low = secondary source only, unit inferred or dated",
    "notes": "definitions, caveats, neighbouring figures, formulas for derived rows"
  },
  "summary": {
    "record_count": 214,
    "by_metric": {
      "capacity_factor": 26,
      "construction_time": 8,
      "deaths_per_twh": 12,
      "dispatchability": 10,
      "inertia": 10,
      "land_use": 27,
      "landscape": 10,
      "lcoe": 31,
      "lcoe_system": 5,
      "lifecycle_co2": 17,
      "lifetime_years": 18,
      "material_concrete": 6,
      "material_copper": 6,
      "material_critical_minerals": 6,
      "material_steel": 6,
      "waste_toxicity_note": 3,
      "waste_volume": 6,
      "wildlife": 7
    },
    "by_source_type": {
      "battery_storage": 10,
      "coal": 24,
      "gas_ccgt": 23,
      "gas_peaker": 11,
      "hydro": 18,
      "hydrogen": 8,
      "nuclear": 37,
      "solar_pv": 34,
      "wind_offshore": 15,
      "wind_onshore": 34
    },
    "by_confidence": {
      "high": 141,
      "low": 18,
      "medium": 55
    },
    "null_value_rows": 9,
    "text_value_rows": 34
  },
  "known_gaps": [
    "EIA Electric Power Monthly Table 6.07.A/B (2025 full year, 2026 YTD) is only published as xlsx and could not be read in this environment; capacity factors are from the Electric Power Annual (final 2024 data; 2023 in notes).",
    "IEA/NEA 2020 LCOE figures are taken from the NucNet summary (confidence low) because the IEA PDF text extraction did not yield the numeric tables.",
    "Lazard's per-region firming costs (USD/MWh) could not be read reliably from the PDF text; only the method (Net CONE x (1-ELCC)) and ELCC/Net CONE inputs are stored (battery_storage derived row and docs). Lazard v19 contains no hydrogen (LCOH) section.",
    "IPCC AR5 Annex III PDF could not be fetched; Table A.III.2 values come from the Wikipedia reproduction (confidence medium).",
    "UNECE metal-use columns in the OWID CSV carry no unit in the OWID datapackage and the UNECE PDF could not be fetched; UNECE copper rows are confidence low. Use DOE QTR 2015 (t/TWh) and IEA 2021 (t/MW) for material intensity.",
    "IEA 2021 critical-mineral intensities are stored as technology totals (t/MW) via the WNA table; the element-level split (copper, nickel, rare earths ...) is only in the IEA chart image/CSV, not captured.",
    "Lovering et al. 2022 Table 1 is an image; medians were taken from the article text and the authors' Breakthrough Institute summary (interquartile ranges not captured).",
    "Observed nuclear construction times (median months for reactors grid-connected in 2024) not captured: WNA Performance Report 2025 PDF unreachable. Lazard construction-time rows are modelling assumptions.",
    "No ramp-rate / start-up-time table by technology was captured; dispatchability rows are qualitative with capacity-factor evidence.",
    "Battery and hydrogen rows have no land-use, materials or waste statistics; bat mortality from wind and fish mortality from hydro are qualitative only.",
    "Solar-panel composition statement (waste_toxicity_note) and coal-ash heavy-metal list are from general literature, not re-fetched today (confidence low)."
  ],
  "records": [
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.capacity_factor.usa.2024.fleet-average-utility-scale",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": 90.8,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "fleet average, utility-scale",
      "citation": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual 2024, Table 4.08.B (released 2025)",
      "source_url": "https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_b.html",
      "source_name": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual, Table 4.08.B Capacity factors for utility scale generators primarily using non-fossil fuels",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "EIA row 'Nuclear', annual capacity factor 2024 (2023: 93.0%). Definition: 'Capacity factors are a comparison of net generation with available capacity.' Final data from forms EIA-923/EIA-860. Time-adjusted capacity 2024: 98,022.9 MW. Series maximum 93.4% in 2019.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydro.capacity_factor.usa.2024.fleet-average-utility-scale",
      "source_type": "hydro",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": 34.6,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "fleet average, utility-scale",
      "citation": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual 2024, Table 4.08.B (released 2025)",
      "source_url": "https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_b.html",
      "source_name": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual, Table 4.08.B Capacity factors for utility scale generators primarily using non-fossil fuels",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "EIA row 'Hydroelectric (conventional)', annual capacity factor 2024 (2023: 35.0%). Definition: 'Capacity factors are a comparison of net generation with available capacity.' Final data from forms EIA-923/EIA-860. Time-adjusted capacity 2024: 79,883.9 MW.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.capacity_factor.usa.2024.fleet-average-utility-scale",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": 34.3,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "fleet average, utility-scale",
      "citation": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual 2024, Table 4.08.B (released 2025)",
      "source_url": "https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_b.html",
      "source_name": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual, Table 4.08.B Capacity factors for utility scale generators primarily using non-fossil fuels",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "EIA row 'Wind', annual capacity factor 2024 (2023: 33.2%). Definition: 'Capacity factors are a comparison of net generation with available capacity.' Final data from forms EIA-923/EIA-860. EIA row 'Wind' covers all US utility-scale wind; the US fleet is almost entirely onshore (first offshore projects only came online 2024). Time-adjusted capacity 2024: 149,299.0 MW.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.capacity_factor.usa.2024.fleet-average-utility-scale",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": 23.2,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "fleet average, utility-scale",
      "citation": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual 2024, Table 4.08.B (released 2025)",
      "source_url": "https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_b.html",
      "source_name": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual, Table 4.08.B Capacity factors for utility scale generators primarily using non-fossil fuels",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "EIA row 'Solar photovoltaic', annual capacity factor 2024 (2023: 23.2%). Definition: 'Capacity factors are a comparison of net generation with available capacity.' Final data from forms EIA-923/EIA-860. Utility-scale (>=1 MW) PV only; AC basis. Time-adjusted capacity 2024: 102,319.5 MW.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.capacity_factor.usa.2024.fleet-average-utility-scale",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": 42.6,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "fleet average, utility-scale",
      "citation": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual 2024, Table 4.08.A (released 2025)",
      "source_url": "https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_a.html",
      "source_name": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual, Table 4.08.A Capacity factors for utility scale generators primarily using fossil fuels",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "EIA row 'Coal', annual capacity factor 2024 (2023: 42.4%). Final data from forms EIA-923/EIA-860. Time-adjusted capacity 2024: 176,028.6 MW.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.capacity_factor.usa.2024.fleet-average-utility-scale",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": 60.5,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "fleet average, utility-scale",
      "citation": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual 2024, Table 4.08.A (released 2025)",
      "source_url": "https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_a.html",
      "source_name": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual, Table 4.08.A Capacity factors for utility scale generators primarily using fossil fuels",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "EIA row 'Natural gas combined cycle', annual capacity factor 2024 (2023: 59.7%). Final data from forms EIA-923/EIA-860. Time-adjusted capacity 2024: 292,189.2 MW.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_peaker.capacity_factor.usa.2024.fleet-average-utility-scale",
      "source_type": "gas_peaker",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": 13.9,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "fleet average, utility-scale",
      "citation": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual 2024, Table 4.08.A (released 2025)",
      "source_url": "https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_a.html",
      "source_name": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual, Table 4.08.A Capacity factors for utility scale generators primarily using fossil fuels",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "EIA row 'Natural gas combustion (gas) turbine', annual capacity factor 2024 (2023: 12.9%). Final data from forms EIA-923/EIA-860. Simple-cycle gas turbines used mainly for peaking. Time-adjusted capacity 2024: 132,099.1 MW. Other peaking types in the table: NG internal combustion 18.0% (2024), NG steam turbine 19.9%.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "battery_storage.capacity_factor.usa.2024.fleet-average-utility-scale",
      "source_type": "battery_storage",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": null,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "fleet average, utility-scale",
      "citation": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual 2024, Tables 4.08.A/B (released 2025)",
      "source_url": "https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_b.html",
      "source_name": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual, Table 4.08.B Capacity factors for utility scale generators primarily using non-fossil fuels",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "null: EIA's capacity-factor tables cover generators only; batteries and pumped storage are not included, and a conventional capacity factor is not a meaningful metric for storage (net generation is negative). Use cycles/year (Lazard LCOS assumption: 350 cycles/yr at 90% depth of discharge) instead.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.capacity_factor.world.2025.energy-availability-factor-reactors-in-commercial-operation",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": 84.1,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2025,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "energy availability factor, reactors in commercial operation (IAEA PRIS)",
      "citation": "IAEA PRIS, World Statistics: Trend in Energy Availability Factor (read 2026-10-09)",
      "source_url": "https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/WorldTrendinEnergyAvailabilityFactor.aspx",
      "source_name": "IAEA Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), World Statistics: Trend in Energy Availability Factor",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "World energy availability factor 2025: 84.1%, 'Weighted Average per year calculated from available data of reactors in commercial operation'. EAF measures energy that could have been produced (availability), so it sits slightly above the realised capacity factor (WNA: 83% in 2024). Series: 2015 79.7, 2016 79.6, 2017 78.7, 2018 79.8, 2019 81.5, 2020 80.5, 2021 82.3, 2022 80.6, 2023 82.6, 2024 83.8, 2025 84.1.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.capacity_factor.world.2024.energy-availability-factor-reactors-in-commercial-operation",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": 83.8,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "energy availability factor, reactors in commercial operation (IAEA PRIS)",
      "citation": "IAEA PRIS, World Statistics: Trend in Energy Availability Factor (read 2026-10-09)",
      "source_url": "https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/WorldTrendinEnergyAvailabilityFactor.aspx",
      "source_name": "IAEA Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), World Statistics: Trend in Energy Availability Factor",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "World energy availability factor 2024: 83.8%, 'Weighted Average per year calculated from available data of reactors in commercial operation'. EAF measures energy that could have been produced (availability), so it sits slightly above the realised capacity factor (WNA: 83% in 2024). Series: 2015 79.7, 2016 79.6, 2017 78.7, 2018 79.8, 2019 81.5, 2020 80.5, 2021 82.3, 2022 80.6, 2023 82.6, 2024 83.8, 2025 84.1.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.capacity_factor.world.2023.energy-availability-factor-reactors-in-commercial-operation",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": 82.6,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2023,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "energy availability factor, reactors in commercial operation (IAEA PRIS)",
      "citation": "IAEA PRIS, World Statistics: Trend in Energy Availability Factor (read 2026-10-09)",
      "source_url": "https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/WorldTrendinEnergyAvailabilityFactor.aspx",
      "source_name": "IAEA Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), World Statistics: Trend in Energy Availability Factor",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "World energy availability factor 2023: 82.6%, 'Weighted Average per year calculated from available data of reactors in commercial operation'. EAF measures energy that could have been produced (availability), so it sits slightly above the realised capacity factor (WNA: 83% in 2024). Series: 2015 79.7, 2016 79.6, 2017 78.7, 2018 79.8, 2019 81.5, 2020 80.5, 2021 82.3, 2022 80.6, 2023 82.6, 2024 83.8, 2025 84.1.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.capacity_factor.world.2024.fleet-average-wna-capacity-factor",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": 83,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "fleet average (WNA, capacity factor)",
      "citation": "World Nuclear Association, World Nuclear Performance Report 2025, press statement 1 Sep 2025",
      "source_url": "https://world-nuclear.org/news-and-media/press-statements/world-nuclear-performance-report-2025-nuclear-delivers-record-breaking-year-in-electricity-generation",
      "source_name": "World Nuclear Association, press statement on World Nuclear Performance Report 2025 (1 Sep 2025)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "'global average capacity factor 83% in 2024, up from 82% in 2023'; 2,667 TWh generated in 2024; >60% of reactors above 80% CF; 70 reactors under construction, 7 grid connections and 9 construction starts in 2024. Full report PDF could not be fetched; figure taken from the WNA press statement. WNA 'Nuclear Power in the World Today' (updated 2026-10-08, https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today ): 2,702 TWh in 2025, c. 9% of world electricity, 442 operable reactors / 405,227 MWe. Compare IAEA PRIS energy availability factor rows (83.8% in 2024).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.capacity_factor.world.2024.global-weighted-average-newly-commissioned-projects",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": 17,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "global weighted average, newly commissioned projects",
      "citation": "IRENA (2025), Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024, summary Table S1 (p.5)",
      "source_url": "https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2025/Jul/IRENA_TEC_RPGC_in_2024_Summary_2025.pdf",
      "source_name": "IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024 (July 2025), summary for policy makers",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "IRENA row 'Solar photovoltaic': 2024 global weighted-average capacity factor of projects commissioned in 2024 (not the operating fleet). Same table: total installed cost 691 USD/kW, LCOE 0.043 USD/kWh.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.lcoe.world.2024.global-weighted-average-newly-commissioned-projects",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": 0.043,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "USD/kWh (2024 USD)",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "global weighted average, newly commissioned projects",
      "citation": "IRENA (2025), Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024, summary Table S1 (p.5)",
      "source_url": "https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2025/Jul/IRENA_TEC_RPGC_in_2024_Summary_2025.pdf",
      "source_name": "IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024 (July 2025), summary for policy makers",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "IRENA row 'Solar photovoltaic', 2024 global weighted-average LCOE of newly commissioned utility-scale projects; weighted average cost of capital 7.5% (OECD/China) / 10% (rest of world) per IRENA method. Multiply by 1,000 for USD/MWh (43 USD/MWh).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.capacity_factor.world.2024.global-weighted-average-newly-commissioned-projects",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": 34,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "global weighted average, newly commissioned projects",
      "citation": "IRENA (2025), Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024, summary Table S1 (p.5)",
      "source_url": "https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2025/Jul/IRENA_TEC_RPGC_in_2024_Summary_2025.pdf",
      "source_name": "IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024 (July 2025), summary for policy makers",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "IRENA row 'Onshore wind': 2024 global weighted-average capacity factor of projects commissioned in 2024 (not the operating fleet). Same table: total installed cost 1041 USD/kW, LCOE 0.034 USD/kWh.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.lcoe.world.2024.global-weighted-average-newly-commissioned-projects",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": 0.034,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "USD/kWh (2024 USD)",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "global weighted average, newly commissioned projects",
      "citation": "IRENA (2025), Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024, summary Table S1 (p.5)",
      "source_url": "https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2025/Jul/IRENA_TEC_RPGC_in_2024_Summary_2025.pdf",
      "source_name": "IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024 (July 2025), summary for policy makers",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "IRENA row 'Onshore wind', 2024 global weighted-average LCOE of newly commissioned utility-scale projects; weighted average cost of capital 7.5% (OECD/China) / 10% (rest of world) per IRENA method. Multiply by 1,000 for USD/MWh (34 USD/MWh).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_offshore.capacity_factor.world.2024.global-weighted-average-newly-commissioned-projects",
      "source_type": "wind_offshore",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": 42,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "global weighted average, newly commissioned projects",
      "citation": "IRENA (2025), Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024, summary Table S1 (p.5)",
      "source_url": "https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2025/Jul/IRENA_TEC_RPGC_in_2024_Summary_2025.pdf",
      "source_name": "IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024 (July 2025), summary for policy makers",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "IRENA row 'Offshore wind': 2024 global weighted-average capacity factor of projects commissioned in 2024 (not the operating fleet). Same table: total installed cost 2852 USD/kW, LCOE 0.079 USD/kWh.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_offshore.lcoe.world.2024.global-weighted-average-newly-commissioned-projects",
      "source_type": "wind_offshore",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": 0.079,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "USD/kWh (2024 USD)",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "global weighted average, newly commissioned projects",
      "citation": "IRENA (2025), Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024, summary Table S1 (p.5)",
      "source_url": "https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2025/Jul/IRENA_TEC_RPGC_in_2024_Summary_2025.pdf",
      "source_name": "IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024 (July 2025), summary for policy makers",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "IRENA row 'Offshore wind', 2024 global weighted-average LCOE of newly commissioned utility-scale projects; weighted average cost of capital 7.5% (OECD/China) / 10% (rest of world) per IRENA method. Multiply by 1,000 for USD/MWh (79 USD/MWh).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydro.capacity_factor.world.2024.global-weighted-average-newly-commissioned-projects",
      "source_type": "hydro",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": 48,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "global weighted average, newly commissioned projects",
      "citation": "IRENA (2025), Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024, summary Table S1 (p.5)",
      "source_url": "https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2025/Jul/IRENA_TEC_RPGC_in_2024_Summary_2025.pdf",
      "source_name": "IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024 (July 2025), summary for policy makers",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "IRENA row 'Hydropower': 2024 global weighted-average capacity factor of projects commissioned in 2024 (not the operating fleet). Same table: total installed cost 2267 USD/kW, LCOE 0.057 USD/kWh.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydro.lcoe.world.2024.global-weighted-average-newly-commissioned-projects",
      "source_type": "hydro",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": 0.057,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "USD/kWh (2024 USD)",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "global weighted average, newly commissioned projects",
      "citation": "IRENA (2025), Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024, summary Table S1 (p.5)",
      "source_url": "https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2025/Jul/IRENA_TEC_RPGC_in_2024_Summary_2025.pdf",
      "source_name": "IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024 (July 2025), summary for policy makers",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "IRENA row 'Hydropower', 2024 global weighted-average LCOE of newly commissioned utility-scale projects; weighted average cost of capital 7.5% (OECD/China) / 10% (rest of world) per IRENA method. Multiply by 1,000 for USD/MWh (57 USD/MWh).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.lcoe.world.2024.global-average-fossil-fuel-fired-irena-footnote",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": 0.073,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "USD/kWh (2024 USD)",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "global average, fossil fuel-fired (IRENA footnote)",
      "citation": "IRENA (2025), Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024, summary (footnote 5, p.7)",
      "source_url": "https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2025/Jul/IRENA_TEC_RPGC_in_2024_Summary_2025.pdf",
      "source_name": "IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024 (July 2025), summary for policy makers",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "IRENA's fossil-fuel comparator: 'global average LCOE of coal' 0.073 USD/kWh (= 73 USD/MWh). Weighted average of existing-plant fuel cost estimates, not a new-build LCOE; see IRENA methodology.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.lcoe.world.2024.global-average-fossil-fuel-fired-irena-footnote",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": 0.085,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "USD/kWh (2024 USD)",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "global average, fossil fuel-fired (IRENA footnote)",
      "citation": "IRENA (2025), Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024, summary (footnote 5, p.7)",
      "source_url": "https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2025/Jul/IRENA_TEC_RPGC_in_2024_Summary_2025.pdf",
      "source_name": "IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024 (July 2025), summary for policy makers",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "IRENA's fossil-fuel comparator for combined-cycle gas turbines: 0.085 USD/kWh (= 85 USD/MWh).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "battery_storage.lcoe.world.2024.utility-scale-bess-total-installed-cost-not-lcoe",
      "source_type": "battery_storage",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": 192,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "USD/kWh of storage capacity (installed cost, 2024 USD)",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "utility-scale BESS total installed cost (not LCOE)",
      "citation": "IRENA (2025), Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024, summary (p.10)",
      "source_url": "https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2025/Jul/IRENA_TEC_RPGC_in_2024_Summary_2025.pdf",
      "source_name": "IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024 (July 2025), summary for policy makers",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Stored under `lcoe` for want of a capex metric: 'utility-scale battery storage ... 192 USD/kWh in 2024', down 93% from 2,571 USD/kWh in 2010. This is an installed-cost figure per kWh of capacity, not a levelized cost per MWh discharged (see Lazard LCOS rows).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.capacity_factor.usa.2026.lazard-modelling-assumption-new-build",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": null,
      "low": 20,
      "high": 30,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Lazard modelling assumption (new build)",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Key Assumptions' (pp.26-28)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard column 'Solar PV - Utility': capacity factor range used to produce the unsubsidized LCOE range (high CF pairs with the low LCOE). Capital cost assumption 1,250-1,850 USD/kW.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.lifetime_years.usa.2026.lazard-modelling-assumption-facility-life",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "lifetime_years",
      "value": 35,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "years",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Lazard modelling assumption (facility life)",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Key Assumptions' (pp.26-28)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Lazard column 'Solar PV - Utility', 'Facility Life (years)'. Renewables row printed '30 35 25 30 30' in the column order Solar C&I, Solar Utility, Geothermal, Wind Onshore, Wind Offshore; mapping to columns inferred from column order (text extraction), hence medium confidence.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.construction_time.usa.2026.lazard-modelling-assumption-construction-time",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "construction_time",
      "value": null,
      "low": 12,
      "high": 18,
      "unit": "months",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Lazard modelling assumption (construction time)",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Key Assumptions' (pp.26-28)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard column 'Solar PV - Utility', 'Construction Time (months)'. Modelling assumption for a new US plant, not an observed average; nuclear 84 months reflects Vogtle 3&4-based inputs.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.capacity_factor.usa.2026.lazard-modelling-assumption-new-build",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": null,
      "low": 30,
      "high": 55,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Lazard modelling assumption (new build)",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Key Assumptions' (pp.26-28)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard column 'Wind - Onshore': capacity factor range used to produce the unsubsidized LCOE range (high CF pairs with the low LCOE). Capital cost assumption 1,900-2,750 USD/kW.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.lifetime_years.usa.2026.lazard-modelling-assumption-facility-life",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "lifetime_years",
      "value": 30,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "years",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Lazard modelling assumption (facility life)",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Key Assumptions' (pp.26-28)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Lazard column 'Wind - Onshore', 'Facility Life (years)'. Renewables row printed '30 35 25 30 30' in the column order Solar C&I, Solar Utility, Geothermal, Wind Onshore, Wind Offshore; mapping to columns inferred from column order (text extraction), hence medium confidence.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.construction_time.usa.2026.lazard-modelling-assumption-construction-time",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "construction_time",
      "value": 18,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "months",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Lazard modelling assumption (construction time)",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Key Assumptions' (pp.26-28)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard column 'Wind - Onshore', 'Construction Time (months)'. Modelling assumption for a new US plant, not an observed average; nuclear 84 months reflects Vogtle 3&4-based inputs.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_offshore.capacity_factor.usa.2026.lazard-modelling-assumption-new-build",
      "source_type": "wind_offshore",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": null,
      "low": 45,
      "high": 55,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Lazard modelling assumption (new build)",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Key Assumptions' (pp.26-28)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard column 'Wind - Offshore': capacity factor range used to produce the unsubsidized LCOE range (high CF pairs with the low LCOE). Capital cost assumption 5,600-7,100 USD/kW.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_offshore.lifetime_years.usa.2026.lazard-modelling-assumption-facility-life",
      "source_type": "wind_offshore",
      "metric": "lifetime_years",
      "value": 30,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "years",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Lazard modelling assumption (facility life)",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Key Assumptions' (pp.26-28)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Lazard column 'Wind - Offshore', 'Facility Life (years)'. Renewables row printed '30 35 25 30 30' in the column order Solar C&I, Solar Utility, Geothermal, Wind Onshore, Wind Offshore; mapping to columns inferred from column order (text extraction), hence medium confidence.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_offshore.construction_time.usa.2026.lazard-modelling-assumption-construction-time",
      "source_type": "wind_offshore",
      "metric": "construction_time",
      "value": 24,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "months",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Lazard modelling assumption (construction time)",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Key Assumptions' (pp.26-28)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard column 'Wind - Offshore', 'Construction Time (months)'. Modelling assumption for a new US plant, not an observed average; nuclear 84 months reflects Vogtle 3&4-based inputs.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_peaker.capacity_factor.usa.2026.lazard-modelling-assumption-new-build",
      "source_type": "gas_peaker",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": null,
      "low": 10,
      "high": 15,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Lazard modelling assumption (new build)",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Key Assumptions' (pp.26-28)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard column 'Gas Peaking': capacity factor range used to produce the unsubsidized LCOE range (high CF pairs with the low LCOE). Capital cost assumption 1,100-1,650 USD/kW.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_peaker.lifetime_years.usa.2026.lazard-modelling-assumption-facility-life",
      "source_type": "gas_peaker",
      "metric": "lifetime_years",
      "value": 30,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "years",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Lazard modelling assumption (facility life)",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Key Assumptions' (pp.26-28)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard column 'Gas Peaking', 'Facility Life (years)'.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_peaker.construction_time.usa.2026.lazard-modelling-assumption-construction-time",
      "source_type": "gas_peaker",
      "metric": "construction_time",
      "value": 24,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "months",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Lazard modelling assumption (construction time)",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Key Assumptions' (pp.26-28)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard column 'Gas Peaking', 'Construction Time (months)'. Modelling assumption for a new US plant, not an observed average; nuclear 84 months reflects Vogtle 3&4-based inputs.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.capacity_factor.usa.2026.lazard-modelling-assumption-new-build",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": null,
      "low": 89,
      "high": 94,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Lazard modelling assumption (new build)",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Key Assumptions' (pp.26-28)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard column 'U.S. Nuclear': capacity factor range used to produce the unsubsidized LCOE range (high CF pairs with the low LCOE). Capital cost assumption 12,300-17,570 USD/kW.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.lifetime_years.usa.2026.lazard-modelling-assumption-facility-life",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "lifetime_years",
      "value": null,
      "low": 60,
      "high": 80,
      "unit": "years",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Lazard modelling assumption (facility life)",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Key Assumptions' (pp.26-28)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard column 'U.S. Nuclear', 'Facility Life (years)'. Lazard prints '80-60' years for nuclear (low LCOE case uses 80 years).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.construction_time.usa.2026.lazard-modelling-assumption-construction-time",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "construction_time",
      "value": 84,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "months",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Lazard modelling assumption (construction time)",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Key Assumptions' (pp.26-28)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard column 'U.S. Nuclear', 'Construction Time (months)'. Modelling assumption for a new US plant, not an observed average; nuclear 84 months reflects Vogtle 3&4-based inputs.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.capacity_factor.usa.2026.lazard-modelling-assumption-new-build",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": null,
      "low": 65,
      "high": 85,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Lazard modelling assumption (new build)",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Key Assumptions' (pp.26-28)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard column 'Coal': capacity factor range used to produce the unsubsidized LCOE range (high CF pairs with the low LCOE). Capital cost assumption 3,495-7,405 USD/kW.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.lifetime_years.usa.2026.lazard-modelling-assumption-facility-life",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "lifetime_years",
      "value": 40,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "years",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Lazard modelling assumption (facility life)",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Key Assumptions' (pp.26-28)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard column 'Coal', 'Facility Life (years)'.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.construction_time.usa.2026.lazard-modelling-assumption-construction-time",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "construction_time",
      "value": null,
      "low": 60,
      "high": 66,
      "unit": "months",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Lazard modelling assumption (construction time)",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Key Assumptions' (pp.26-28)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard column 'Coal', 'Construction Time (months)'. Modelling assumption for a new US plant, not an observed average; nuclear 84 months reflects Vogtle 3&4-based inputs.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.capacity_factor.usa.2026.lazard-modelling-assumption-new-build",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": null,
      "low": 30,
      "high": 90,
      "unit": "%",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Lazard modelling assumption (new build)",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Key Assumptions' (pp.26-28)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard column 'Gas Combined Cycle': capacity factor range used to produce the unsubsidized LCOE range (high CF pairs with the low LCOE). Capital cost assumption 1,450-2,100 USD/kW.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.lifetime_years.usa.2026.lazard-modelling-assumption-facility-life",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "lifetime_years",
      "value": 30,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "years",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Lazard modelling assumption (facility life)",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Key Assumptions' (pp.26-28)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard column 'Gas Combined Cycle', 'Facility Life (years)'.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.construction_time.usa.2026.lazard-modelling-assumption-construction-time",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "construction_time",
      "value": 24,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "months",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Lazard modelling assumption (construction time)",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Key Assumptions' (pp.26-28)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard column 'Gas Combined Cycle', 'Construction Time (months)'. Modelling assumption for a new US plant, not an observed average; nuclear 84 months reflects Vogtle 3&4-based inputs.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "battery_storage.lifetime_years.usa.2026.lazard-lcos-modelling-assumption-project-life",
      "source_type": "battery_storage",
      "metric": "lifetime_years",
      "value": 20,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "years",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Lazard LCOS modelling assumption (project life)",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOS v11.0), utility-scale 100 MW / 4 h case assumptions (p.38)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Project life 20 years; 350 cycles/yr at 90% depth of discharge; round-trip efficiency 86-92%; capital cost 270-365 USD/kWh; O&M 3.75-7.75 USD/kWh-yr; charging cost 40 USD/MWh.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.lcoe.usa.2026.unsubsidized-new-build",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": null,
      "low": 40,
      "high": 98,
      "unit": "USD/MWh",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "unsubsidized, new build",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison - Unsubsidized Analysis' (p.7)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard row 'Solar PV - Utility', unsubsidized LCOE range, USD/MWh. Excludes transmission, network upgrades, congestion, curtailment, integration and permitting costs (p.6, App. D p.42). Related rows in the same report: Solar PV + Storage (Utility) 61-156; Wind + Storage (Onshore) 49-140; Solar PV Community & C&I 88-197; Geothermal 67-111.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.lcoe.usa.2026.unsubsidized-new-build",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": null,
      "low": 37,
      "high": 99,
      "unit": "USD/MWh",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "unsubsidized, new build",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison - Unsubsidized Analysis' (p.7)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard row 'Wind - Onshore', unsubsidized LCOE range, USD/MWh. Excludes transmission, network upgrades, congestion, curtailment, integration and permitting costs (p.6, App. D p.42). Related rows in the same report: Solar PV + Storage (Utility) 61-156; Wind + Storage (Onshore) 49-140; Solar PV Community & C&I 88-197; Geothermal 67-111.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_offshore.lcoe.usa.2026.unsubsidized-new-build",
      "source_type": "wind_offshore",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": null,
      "low": 105,
      "high": 167,
      "unit": "USD/MWh",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "unsubsidized, new build",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison - Unsubsidized Analysis' (p.7)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard row 'Wind - Offshore', unsubsidized LCOE range, USD/MWh. Excludes transmission, network upgrades, congestion, curtailment, integration and permitting costs (p.6, App. D p.42). Related rows in the same report: Solar PV + Storage (Utility) 61-156; Wind + Storage (Onshore) 49-140; Solar PV Community & C&I 88-197; Geothermal 67-111.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_peaker.lcoe.usa.2026.unsubsidized-new-build",
      "source_type": "gas_peaker",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": null,
      "low": 144,
      "high": 276,
      "unit": "USD/MWh",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "unsubsidized, new build",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison - Unsubsidized Analysis' (p.7)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard row 'Gas Peaking', unsubsidized LCOE range, USD/MWh. Excludes transmission, network upgrades, congestion, curtailment, integration and permitting costs (p.6, App. D p.42). Related rows in the same report: Solar PV + Storage (Utility) 61-156; Wind + Storage (Onshore) 49-140; Solar PV Community & C&I 88-197; Geothermal 67-111.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.lcoe.usa.2026.unsubsidized-new-build",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": null,
      "low": 175,
      "high": 255,
      "unit": "USD/MWh",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "unsubsidized, new build",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison - Unsubsidized Analysis' (p.7)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard row 'U.S. Nuclear', unsubsidized LCOE range, USD/MWh. Excludes transmission, network upgrades, congestion, curtailment, integration and permitting costs (p.6, App. D p.42). Range reflects the Vogtle Units 3 & 4 cost estimates (footnote 4, p.7): high end = Unit 3 share of cost, low end = Unit 4 share (~30% learning). Not a generic global nuclear LCOE. Related rows in the same report: Solar PV + Storage (Utility) 61-156; Wind + Storage (Onshore) 49-140; Solar PV Community & C&I 88-197; Geothermal 67-111.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.lcoe.usa.2026.unsubsidized-new-build",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": null,
      "low": 72,
      "high": 177,
      "unit": "USD/MWh",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "unsubsidized, new build",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison - Unsubsidized Analysis' (p.7)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard row 'Coal', unsubsidized LCOE range, USD/MWh. Excludes transmission, network upgrades, congestion, curtailment, integration and permitting costs (p.6, App. D p.42). Coal new-build range is the inflation-adjusted v14.0 (2020) range (Lazard no longer re-estimates new US coal). Related rows in the same report: Solar PV + Storage (Utility) 61-156; Wind + Storage (Onshore) 49-140; Solar PV Community & C&I 88-197; Geothermal 67-111.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.lcoe.usa.2026.unsubsidized-new-build",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": null,
      "low": 51,
      "high": 129,
      "unit": "USD/MWh",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "unsubsidized, new build",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison - Unsubsidized Analysis' (p.7)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard row 'Gas Combined Cycle', unsubsidized LCOE range, USD/MWh. Excludes transmission, network upgrades, congestion, curtailment, integration and permitting costs (p.6, App. D p.42). Related rows in the same report: Solar PV + Storage (Utility) 61-156; Wind + Storage (Onshore) 49-140; Solar PV Community & C&I 88-197; Geothermal 67-111.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_peaker.lcoe.usa.2026.marginal-cost-of-existing-plant",
      "source_type": "gas_peaker",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": null,
      "low": 52,
      "high": 122,
      "unit": "USD/MWh",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "marginal cost of existing plant",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Marginal Cost of Selected Existing Conventional Generation' (p.29)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard row 'Gas Peaking': marginal (fuel + variable and fixed O&M, no capital recovery) cost of running an existing US plant, USD/MWh. Not comparable with new-build LCOE.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.lcoe.usa.2026.marginal-cost-of-existing-plant",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": null,
      "low": 26,
      "high": 36,
      "unit": "USD/MWh",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "marginal cost of existing plant",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Marginal Cost of Selected Existing Conventional Generation' (p.29)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard row 'Nuclear': marginal (fuel + variable and fixed O&M, no capital recovery) cost of running an existing US plant, USD/MWh. Not comparable with new-build LCOE.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.lcoe.usa.2026.marginal-cost-of-existing-plant",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": null,
      "low": 34,
      "high": 69,
      "unit": "USD/MWh",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "marginal cost of existing plant",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Marginal Cost of Selected Existing Conventional Generation' (p.29)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard row 'Coal': marginal (fuel + variable and fixed O&M, no capital recovery) cost of running an existing US plant, USD/MWh. Not comparable with new-build LCOE.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.lcoe.usa.2026.marginal-cost-of-existing-plant",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": null,
      "low": 32,
      "high": 51,
      "unit": "USD/MWh",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "marginal cost of existing plant",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOE v19.0), 'Marginal Cost of Selected Existing Conventional Generation' (p.29)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Lazard row 'Gas Combined Cycle': marginal (fuel + variable and fixed O&M, no capital recovery) cost of running an existing US plant, USD/MWh. Not comparable with new-build LCOE.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "battery_storage.lcoe.usa.2026.lcos-utility-scale-standalone-100-mw-4-h-unsubsidized",
      "source_type": "battery_storage",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": 251,
      "low": 210,
      "high": 292,
      "unit": "USD/MWh discharged",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "LCOS, utility-scale standalone 100 MW / 4 h, unsubsidized",
      "citation": "Lazard, LCOE+ July 2026 (LCOS v11.0), utility-scale standalone storage (pp.21, 38)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Levelized cost of storage for a 100 MW / 400 MWh lithium-ion system, unsubsidized 210-292 USD/MWh (average 251); with the US investment tax credit 148-209. 100 MW / 2 h case: 215-414 (avg 315). Charging cost assumed 40 USD/MWh.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.lcoe.oecd-24-countries.2025.new-build-noak-7-discount-rate",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": null,
      "low": 55,
      "high": 95,
      "unit": "USD/MWh (2018 USD)",
      "year": 2025,
      "region": "oecd_24_countries",
      "variant": "new build (NOAK), 7% discount rate",
      "citation": "IEA/NEA (2020), Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020, as summarised by NucNet (9 Dec 2020)",
      "source_url": "https://www.nucnet.org/news/nuclear-is-most-affordable-dispatchable-source-of-low-carbon-electricity-12-3-2020",
      "source_name": "NucNet, 'Nuclear is most affordable dispatchable source of low-carbon electricity' (9 Dec 2020), summarising IEA/NEA 2020",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "low",
      "notes": "'about $55-$95 per MWh' at 7% discount rate; overnight cost range 2,157-6,920 USD/kW. Figures are for plants commissioned in 2025, 243 plants in 24 countries, central discount rate 7%, 85% capacity factor assumed for nuclear/coal/CCGT, carbon price USD 30/t. Taken from the NucNet summary because the IEA PDF text extraction did not yield the numeric tables; IEA report page: https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020 .",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.lcoe.oecd-24-countries.2025.long-term-operation-lto-of-existing-plant-7-discount-rate",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": null,
      "low": null,
      "high": 40,
      "unit": "USD/MWh (2018 USD)",
      "year": 2025,
      "region": "oecd_24_countries",
      "variant": "long-term operation (LTO) of existing plant, 7% discount rate",
      "citation": "IEA/NEA (2020), Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020, as summarised by NucNet (9 Dec 2020)",
      "source_url": "https://www.nucnet.org/news/nuclear-is-most-affordable-dispatchable-source-of-low-carbon-electricity-12-3-2020",
      "source_name": "NucNet, 'Nuclear is most affordable dispatchable source of low-carbon electricity' (9 Dec 2020), summarising IEA/NEA 2020",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "low",
      "notes": "'less than $40/MWh' for lifetime extension (LTO overnight cost 391-629 USD/kW). Stored with high=40 and value null (only an upper bound is published). Figures are for plants commissioned in 2025, 243 plants in 24 countries, central discount rate 7%, 85% capacity factor assumed for nuclear/coal/CCGT, carbon price USD 30/t. Taken from the NucNet summary because the IEA PDF text extraction did not yield the numeric tables; IEA report page: https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020 .",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.lcoe.oecd-24-countries.2025.new-build-7-discount-rate-usd-30-t-co2",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": null,
      "low": null,
      "high": 100,
      "unit": "USD/MWh (2018 USD)",
      "year": 2025,
      "region": "oecd_24_countries",
      "variant": "new build, 7% discount rate, USD 30/t CO2",
      "citation": "IEA/NEA (2020), Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020, as summarised by NucNet (9 Dec 2020)",
      "source_url": "https://www.nucnet.org/news/nuclear-is-most-affordable-dispatchable-source-of-low-carbon-electricity-12-3-2020",
      "source_name": "NucNet, 'Nuclear is most affordable dispatchable source of low-carbon electricity' (9 Dec 2020), summarising IEA/NEA 2020",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "low",
      "notes": "'maximum of almost $100/MWh' (upper end only); overnight cost 800-4,382 USD/kW. Figures are for plants commissioned in 2025, 243 plants in 24 countries, central discount rate 7%, 85% capacity factor assumed for nuclear/coal/CCGT, carbon price USD 30/t. Taken from the NucNet summary because the IEA PDF text extraction did not yield the numeric tables; IEA report page: https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020 .",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.lcoe.oecd-24-countries.2025.new-build-7-discount-rate-usd-30-t-co2",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": 80,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "USD/MWh (2018 USD)",
      "year": 2025,
      "region": "oecd_24_countries",
      "variant": "new build, 7% discount rate, USD 30/t CO2",
      "citation": "IEA/NEA (2020), Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020, as summarised by NucNet (9 Dec 2020)",
      "source_url": "https://www.nucnet.org/news/nuclear-is-most-affordable-dispatchable-source-of-low-carbon-electricity-12-3-2020",
      "source_name": "NucNet, 'Nuclear is most affordable dispatchable source of low-carbon electricity' (9 Dec 2020), summarising IEA/NEA 2020",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "low",
      "notes": "'about $80/MWh' (single indicative figure, stored as value); overnight cost 254-1,109 USD/kW. Figures are for plants commissioned in 2025, 243 plants in 24 countries, central discount rate 7%, 85% capacity factor assumed for nuclear/coal/CCGT, carbon price USD 30/t. Taken from the NucNet summary because the IEA PDF text extraction did not yield the numeric tables; IEA report page: https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020 .",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.lcoe.oecd-24-countries.2025.new-build-7-discount-rate",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": null,
      "low": 40,
      "high": 50,
      "unit": "USD/MWh (2018 USD)",
      "year": 2025,
      "region": "oecd_24_countries",
      "variant": "new build, 7% discount rate",
      "citation": "IEA/NEA (2020), Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020, as summarised by NucNet (9 Dec 2020)",
      "source_url": "https://www.nucnet.org/news/nuclear-is-most-affordable-dispatchable-source-of-low-carbon-electricity-12-3-2020",
      "source_name": "NucNet, 'Nuclear is most affordable dispatchable source of low-carbon electricity' (9 Dec 2020), summarising IEA/NEA 2020",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "low",
      "notes": "'$40-$50/MWh'; overnight cost 877-3,022 USD/kW. Figures are for plants commissioned in 2025, 243 plants in 24 countries, central discount rate 7%, 85% capacity factor assumed for nuclear/coal/CCGT, carbon price USD 30/t. Taken from the NucNet summary because the IEA PDF text extraction did not yield the numeric tables; IEA report page: https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020 .",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_offshore.lcoe.oecd-24-countries.2025.new-build-7-discount-rate",
      "source_type": "wind_offshore",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": null,
      "low": 80,
      "high": 110,
      "unit": "USD/MWh (2018 USD)",
      "year": 2025,
      "region": "oecd_24_countries",
      "variant": "new build, 7% discount rate",
      "citation": "IEA/NEA (2020), Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020, as summarised by NucNet (9 Dec 2020)",
      "source_url": "https://www.nucnet.org/news/nuclear-is-most-affordable-dispatchable-source-of-low-carbon-electricity-12-3-2020",
      "source_name": "NucNet, 'Nuclear is most affordable dispatchable source of low-carbon electricity' (9 Dec 2020), summarising IEA/NEA 2020",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "low",
      "notes": "'$80-$110/MWh'. Figures are for plants commissioned in 2025, 243 plants in 24 countries, central discount rate 7%, 85% capacity factor assumed for nuclear/coal/CCGT, carbon price USD 30/t. Taken from the NucNet summary because the IEA PDF text extraction did not yield the numeric tables; IEA report page: https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020 .",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.lcoe.oecd-24-countries.2025.new-build-utility-scale-7-discount-rate",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": null,
      "low": 40,
      "high": 80,
      "unit": "USD/MWh (2018 USD)",
      "year": 2025,
      "region": "oecd_24_countries",
      "variant": "new build utility-scale, 7% discount rate",
      "citation": "IEA/NEA (2020), Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020, as summarised by NucNet (9 Dec 2020)",
      "source_url": "https://www.nucnet.org/news/nuclear-is-most-affordable-dispatchable-source-of-low-carbon-electricity-12-3-2020",
      "source_name": "NucNet, 'Nuclear is most affordable dispatchable source of low-carbon electricity' (9 Dec 2020), summarising IEA/NEA 2020",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "low",
      "notes": "'$40-$80/MWh'; overnight cost 434-2,006 USD/kW. Figures are for plants commissioned in 2025, 243 plants in 24 countries, central discount rate 7%, 85% capacity factor assumed for nuclear/coal/CCGT, carbon price USD 30/t. Taken from the NucNet summary because the IEA PDF text extraction did not yield the numeric tables; IEA report page: https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020 .",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "battery_storage.lifetime_years.oecd-24-countries.2020.iea-nea-2020-standard-economic-lifetime-assumption",
      "source_type": "battery_storage",
      "metric": "lifetime_years",
      "value": 10,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "years",
      "year": 2020,
      "region": "oecd_24_countries",
      "variant": "IEA/NEA 2020 standard economic lifetime assumption",
      "citation": "IEA/NEA (2020), Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020, Section 2.2 'Lifetimes' (p.36)",
      "source_url": "https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ae17da3d-e8a5-4163-a3ec-2e6fb0b5677d/Projected-Costs-of-Generating-Electricity-2020.pdf",
      "source_name": "IEA/NEA, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020 edition",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Battery storage: 10 years. Standardised economic lifetimes used for the LCOE calculation, not observed retirement ages.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.lifetime_years.oecd-24-countries.2020.iea-nea-2020-standard-economic-lifetime-assumption",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "lifetime_years",
      "value": 25,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "years",
      "year": 2020,
      "region": "oecd_24_countries",
      "variant": "IEA/NEA 2020 standard economic lifetime assumption",
      "citation": "IEA/NEA (2020), Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020, Section 2.2 'Lifetimes' (p.36)",
      "source_url": "https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ae17da3d-e8a5-4163-a3ec-2e6fb0b5677d/Projected-Costs-of-Generating-Electricity-2020.pdf",
      "source_name": "IEA/NEA, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020 edition",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Solar PV: 25 years. Standardised economic lifetimes used for the LCOE calculation, not observed retirement ages.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.lifetime_years.oecd-24-countries.2020.iea-nea-2020-standard-economic-lifetime-assumption",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "lifetime_years",
      "value": 25,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "years",
      "year": 2020,
      "region": "oecd_24_countries",
      "variant": "IEA/NEA 2020 standard economic lifetime assumption",
      "citation": "IEA/NEA (2020), Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020, Section 2.2 'Lifetimes' (p.36)",
      "source_url": "https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ae17da3d-e8a5-4163-a3ec-2e6fb0b5677d/Projected-Costs-of-Generating-Electricity-2020.pdf",
      "source_name": "IEA/NEA, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020 edition",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Onshore wind: 25 years. Standardised economic lifetimes used for the LCOE calculation, not observed retirement ages.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_offshore.lifetime_years.oecd-24-countries.2020.iea-nea-2020-standard-economic-lifetime-assumption",
      "source_type": "wind_offshore",
      "metric": "lifetime_years",
      "value": 25,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "years",
      "year": 2020,
      "region": "oecd_24_countries",
      "variant": "IEA/NEA 2020 standard economic lifetime assumption",
      "citation": "IEA/NEA (2020), Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020, Section 2.2 'Lifetimes' (p.36)",
      "source_url": "https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ae17da3d-e8a5-4163-a3ec-2e6fb0b5677d/Projected-Costs-of-Generating-Electricity-2020.pdf",
      "source_name": "IEA/NEA, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020 edition",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Offshore wind: 25 years. Standardised economic lifetimes used for the LCOE calculation, not observed retirement ages.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.lifetime_years.oecd-24-countries.2020.iea-nea-2020-standard-economic-lifetime-assumption",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "lifetime_years",
      "value": 30,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "years",
      "year": 2020,
      "region": "oecd_24_countries",
      "variant": "IEA/NEA 2020 standard economic lifetime assumption",
      "citation": "IEA/NEA (2020), Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020, Section 2.2 'Lifetimes' (p.36)",
      "source_url": "https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ae17da3d-e8a5-4163-a3ec-2e6fb0b5677d/Projected-Costs-of-Generating-Electricity-2020.pdf",
      "source_name": "IEA/NEA, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020 edition",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Gas-fired plants (CCGT and OCGT): 30 years. Standardised economic lifetimes used for the LCOE calculation, not observed retirement ages.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_peaker.lifetime_years.oecd-24-countries.2020.iea-nea-2020-standard-economic-lifetime-assumption",
      "source_type": "gas_peaker",
      "metric": "lifetime_years",
      "value": 30,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "years",
      "year": 2020,
      "region": "oecd_24_countries",
      "variant": "IEA/NEA 2020 standard economic lifetime assumption",
      "citation": "IEA/NEA (2020), Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020, Section 2.2 'Lifetimes' (p.36)",
      "source_url": "https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ae17da3d-e8a5-4163-a3ec-2e6fb0b5677d/Projected-Costs-of-Generating-Electricity-2020.pdf",
      "source_name": "IEA/NEA, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020 edition",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Gas-fired plants (CCGT and OCGT): 30 years. Standardised economic lifetimes used for the LCOE calculation, not observed retirement ages.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.lifetime_years.oecd-24-countries.2020.iea-nea-2020-standard-economic-lifetime-assumption",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "lifetime_years",
      "value": 40,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "years",
      "year": 2020,
      "region": "oecd_24_countries",
      "variant": "IEA/NEA 2020 standard economic lifetime assumption",
      "citation": "IEA/NEA (2020), Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020, Section 2.2 'Lifetimes' (p.36)",
      "source_url": "https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ae17da3d-e8a5-4163-a3ec-2e6fb0b5677d/Projected-Costs-of-Generating-Electricity-2020.pdf",
      "source_name": "IEA/NEA, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020 edition",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Coal: 40 years (geothermal also 40). Standardised economic lifetimes used for the LCOE calculation, not observed retirement ages.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.lifetime_years.oecd-24-countries.2020.iea-nea-2020-standard-economic-lifetime-assumption",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "lifetime_years",
      "value": 60,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "years",
      "year": 2020,
      "region": "oecd_24_countries",
      "variant": "IEA/NEA 2020 standard economic lifetime assumption",
      "citation": "IEA/NEA (2020), Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020, Section 2.2 'Lifetimes' (p.36)",
      "source_url": "https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ae17da3d-e8a5-4163-a3ec-2e6fb0b5677d/Projected-Costs-of-Generating-Electricity-2020.pdf",
      "source_name": "IEA/NEA, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020 edition",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Nuclear: 60 years; long-term operation (LTO) adds 10 or 20 years. Standardised economic lifetimes used for the LCOE calculation, not observed retirement ages.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydro.lifetime_years.oecd-24-countries.2020.iea-nea-2020-standard-economic-lifetime-assumption",
      "source_type": "hydro",
      "metric": "lifetime_years",
      "value": 80,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "years",
      "year": 2020,
      "region": "oecd_24_countries",
      "variant": "IEA/NEA 2020 standard economic lifetime assumption",
      "citation": "IEA/NEA (2020), Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020, Section 2.2 'Lifetimes' (p.36)",
      "source_url": "https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ae17da3d-e8a5-4163-a3ec-2e6fb0b5677d/Projected-Costs-of-Generating-Electricity-2020.pdf",
      "source_name": "IEA/NEA, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020 edition",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Hydro (reservoir and run-of-river): 80 years. Standardised economic lifetimes used for the LCOE calculation, not observed retirement ages.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.lcoe_system.oecd-model-country.2019.grid-level-system-costs-of-variable-renewables-10-to-75-vre",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "lcoe_system",
      "value": null,
      "low": 10,
      "high": 50,
      "unit": "USD/MWh of VRE",
      "year": 2019,
      "region": "oecd_model_country",
      "variant": "grid-level system costs of variable renewables, 10% to 75% VRE share",
      "citation": "OECD-NEA (2019), The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables, executive summary (p.10)",
      "source_url": "https://cms.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/7335-system-costs-es.pdf",
      "source_name": "OECD-NEA, The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables (2019), executive summary",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "'System costs ... less than USD 10 per MWh of VRE for a share of 10%' rising to 'more than USD 50 per MWh of VRE for a share of 75%'; at a 50% VRE share USD 28 to almost 50 per MWh of VRE depending on flexibility options. Modelled for a stylised OECD country with a 50 gCO2/kWh constraint; covers profile, balancing, connection and grid costs (not plant-level LCOE). Applies jointly to wind and solar PV as 'VRE'.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.lcoe_system.oecd-model-country.2019.grid-level-system-costs-at-50-vre-share",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "lcoe_system",
      "value": 28,
      "low": 28,
      "high": 50,
      "unit": "USD/MWh of VRE",
      "year": 2019,
      "region": "oecd_model_country",
      "variant": "grid-level system costs at 50% VRE share",
      "citation": "OECD-NEA (2019), The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables, executive summary (p.10)",
      "source_url": "https://cms.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/7335-system-costs-es.pdf",
      "source_name": "OECD-NEA, The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables (2019), executive summary",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "At a 50% VRE share system costs are 'USD 28 per MWh of VRE' in the flexible case and 'almost USD 50' per MWh of VRE in the less flexible case. Total annual system cost rises >USD 15bn/yr vs the base case at 50% VRE (p.11).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.lcoe_system.oecd-model-country.2019.grid-level-system-costs-of-variable-renewables-10-to-75-vre",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "lcoe_system",
      "value": null,
      "low": 10,
      "high": 50,
      "unit": "USD/MWh of VRE",
      "year": 2019,
      "region": "oecd_model_country",
      "variant": "grid-level system costs of variable renewables, 10% to 75% VRE share",
      "citation": "OECD-NEA (2019), The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables, executive summary (p.10)",
      "source_url": "https://cms.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/7335-system-costs-es.pdf",
      "source_name": "OECD-NEA, The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables (2019), executive summary",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "'System costs ... less than USD 10 per MWh of VRE for a share of 10%' rising to 'more than USD 50 per MWh of VRE for a share of 75%'; at a 50% VRE share USD 28 to almost 50 per MWh of VRE depending on flexibility options. Modelled for a stylised OECD country with a 50 gCO2/kWh constraint; covers profile, balancing, connection and grid costs (not plant-level LCOE). Applies jointly to wind and solar PV as 'VRE'.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.lcoe_system.oecd-model-country.2019.grid-level-system-costs-at-50-vre-share",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "lcoe_system",
      "value": 28,
      "low": 28,
      "high": 50,
      "unit": "USD/MWh of VRE",
      "year": 2019,
      "region": "oecd_model_country",
      "variant": "grid-level system costs at 50% VRE share",
      "citation": "OECD-NEA (2019), The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables, executive summary (p.10)",
      "source_url": "https://cms.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/7335-system-costs-es.pdf",
      "source_name": "OECD-NEA, The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables (2019), executive summary",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "At a 50% VRE share system costs are 'USD 28 per MWh of VRE' in the flexible case and 'almost USD 50' per MWh of VRE in the less flexible case. Total annual system cost rises >USD 15bn/yr vs the base case at 50% VRE (p.11).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.lcoe_system.oecd-model-country.2019.grid-level-system-costs-of-dispatchable-low-carbon-generatio",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "lcoe_system",
      "value": null,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "USD/MWh",
      "year": 2019,
      "region": "oecd_model_country",
      "variant": "grid-level system costs of dispatchable low-carbon generation",
      "citation": "OECD-NEA (2019), The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables, executive summary (p.4)",
      "source_url": "https://cms.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/7335-system-costs-es.pdf",
      "source_name": "OECD-NEA, The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables (2019), executive summary",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "No numeric value published in the executive summary: it states that the system costs of nuclear (and other dispatchable technologies) are 'an order of magnitude lower' than those of variable renewables (i.e. roughly USD 1-3/MWh against USD 10-50/MWh). In the 50% VRE scenario nuclear plants are modelled ramping to 30-35% of capacity within one hour (p.9). Plant-level VRE LCOE assumed in the study: USD 60/MWh onshore wind to USD 130/MWh PV (p.11).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydrogen.lifetime_years.usa.2020.pnnl-calendar-life-bidirectional-hydrogen-storage-system",
      "source_type": "hydrogen",
      "metric": "lifetime_years",
      "value": 30,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "years",
      "year": 2020,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "PNNL calendar life, bidirectional hydrogen storage system",
      "citation": "PNNL (2020), Energy Storage Grand Challenge Cost and Performance Assessment, Hydrogen chapter",
      "source_url": "https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/Hydrogen_Methodology.pdf",
      "source_name": "PNNL, Energy Storage Grand Challenge Cost and Performance Assessment 2020, Hydrogen chapter",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Calendar life 30 years. Same chapter: round-trip efficiency 'approximately 35%' (electrolyser -> compressed storage -> fuel cell/turbine); 100 MW / 10 h system 2020 cost 3,117 USD/kW (312 USD/kWh), 2030 projection 1,612 USD/kW (161 USD/kWh); underground cavern storage 2-10 USD/kWh. PNNL's 2024 database update did not revise hydrogen (still the 2021 estimates).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydrogen.lcoe.usa.2020.pnnl-2020-bidirectional-hydrogen-storage-capital-cost-not-lc",
      "source_type": "hydrogen",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": null,
      "low": 312,
      "high": 312,
      "unit": "USD/kWh of storage capacity (installed cost, 100 MW / 10 h system)",
      "year": 2020,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "PNNL 2020 bidirectional hydrogen storage capital cost (not LCOE)",
      "citation": "PNNL (2020), Energy Storage Grand Challenge Cost and Performance Assessment, Hydrogen chapter",
      "source_url": "https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/Hydrogen_Methodology.pdf",
      "source_name": "PNNL, Energy Storage Grand Challenge Cost and Performance Assessment 2020, Hydrogen chapter",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Stored under `lcoe` for want of a capex metric: 2020 installed cost 3,117 USD/kW = 312 USD/kWh for a 100 MW / 10 h moderate-cost system; 2030 projection 1,612 USD/kW = 161 USD/kWh. Round-trip efficiency approx. 35%, so 1 MWh stored requires about 2.9 MWh of input electricity.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydrogen.lcoe.world-ex-china.2024.iea-electrolyser-installed-capex-outside-china-not-lcoe",
      "source_type": "hydrogen",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": null,
      "low": 2000,
      "high": 2600,
      "unit": "USD/kW electrolyser capex (2024)",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "world_ex_china",
      "variant": "IEA electrolyser installed capex, outside China (not LCOE)",
      "citation": "IEA (2025), Global Hydrogen Review 2025, executive summary",
      "source_url": "https://www.iea.org/reports/global-hydrogen-review-2025/executive-summary",
      "source_name": "IEA, Global Hydrogen Review 2025, executive summary",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Stored under `lcoe` for want of a capex metric. Electrolyser capex 2024: outside China USD 2,000-2,600/kW; in China USD 600-1,200/kW; Chinese electrolysers installed outside China USD 1,500-2,400/kW. Installed electrolysis capacity 2 GW (2024), >1 GW added to July 2025; low-emissions hydrogen ~1 Mt in 2025 (<1% of ~100 Mt demand). No USD/kg hydrogen cost given on the page.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydrogen.lcoe.world.2024.iea-cost-gap-renewable-vs-unabated-fossil-hydrogen-today-not",
      "source_type": "hydrogen",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": null,
      "low": 1.5,
      "high": 8,
      "unit": "USD/kg H2 (cost premium of renewable hydrogen over unabated fossil hydrogen)",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "IEA cost gap renewable vs unabated fossil hydrogen, today (not LCOE)",
      "citation": "IEA (2024), Global Hydrogen Review 2024, executive summary ('Low-emissions hydrogen will remain expensive in the short term')",
      "source_url": "https://www.iea.org/reports/global-hydrogen-review-2024/executive-summary",
      "source_name": "IEA (2024), Global Hydrogen Review 2024, executive summary",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Stored under `lcoe` for want of a hydrogen-cost metric: the cost gap between hydrogen from renewable electricity and unabated fossil hydrogen is 'USD 1.5-8/kg H2 today', shrinking to 'USD 1-3/kg H2 by 2030' in the IEA Net Zero Scenario. 1 kg H2 = 33.3 kWh LHV, so USD 1.5-8/kg is a premium of roughly USD 45-240 per MWh of hydrogen energy content (conversion for orientation only, not published by the IEA).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydrogen.lcoe.world.2030.iea-net-zero-scenario-projection-2030-not-lcoe",
      "source_type": "hydrogen",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": null,
      "low": 2,
      "high": 9,
      "unit": "USD/kg H2 (production cost from renewable electricity, NZE scenario 2030)",
      "year": 2030,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "IEA Net Zero Scenario projection 2030 (not LCOE)",
      "citation": "IEA (2024), Global Hydrogen Review 2024, executive summary",
      "source_url": "https://www.iea.org/reports/global-hydrogen-review-2024/executive-summary",
      "source_name": "IEA (2024), Global Hydrogen Review 2024, executive summary",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "'the cost of low-emissions hydrogen production from renewable electricity falls to USD 2-9/kg H2 by 2030' (NZE Scenario), described as half of today's value; under the Stated Policies Scenario the range falls only around 30%. Operational low-emissions hydrogen production 0.7 Mtpa; <1 Mt produced in 2023.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.lifecycle_co2.world.2014.ipcc-ar5-harmonised-literature-median-min-median-max",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "lifecycle_co2",
      "value": 820,
      "low": 740,
      "high": 910,
      "unit": "g CO2-eq/kWh",
      "year": 2014,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "IPCC AR5 harmonised literature median (min/median/max)",
      "citation": "IPCC (2014), AR5 WG3 Annex III, Table A.III.2 'Emissions of selected electricity supply technologies (gCO2eq/kWh)', p.1335",
      "source_url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources",
      "source_name": "IPCC (2014), AR5 WG3 Annex III 'Technology-specific cost and performance parameters', Table A.III.2 (p.1335), as reproduced on Wikipedia 'Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "IPCC row 'Coal - PC': min 740, median 820, max 910 g CO2-eq/kWh (lifecycle, incl. infrastructure and supply chain, incl. albedo effect for some rows). Taken from the Wikipedia reproduction of Table A.III.2 because the IPCC PDF could not be fetched (two attempts); values match the atlas author's prior knowledge of the table.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.lifecycle_co2.world.2014.ipcc-ar5-harmonised-literature-median-min-median-max",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "lifecycle_co2",
      "value": 490,
      "low": 410,
      "high": 650,
      "unit": "g CO2-eq/kWh",
      "year": 2014,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "IPCC AR5 harmonised literature median (min/median/max)",
      "citation": "IPCC (2014), AR5 WG3 Annex III, Table A.III.2 'Emissions of selected electricity supply technologies (gCO2eq/kWh)', p.1335",
      "source_url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources",
      "source_name": "IPCC (2014), AR5 WG3 Annex III 'Technology-specific cost and performance parameters', Table A.III.2 (p.1335), as reproduced on Wikipedia 'Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "IPCC row 'Gas - combined cycle': min 410, median 490, max 650 g CO2-eq/kWh (lifecycle, incl. infrastructure and supply chain, incl. albedo effect for some rows). Taken from the Wikipedia reproduction of Table A.III.2 because the IPCC PDF could not be fetched (two attempts); values match the atlas author's prior knowledge of the table.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydro.lifecycle_co2.world.2014.ipcc-ar5-harmonised-literature-median-min-median-max",
      "source_type": "hydro",
      "metric": "lifecycle_co2",
      "value": 24,
      "low": 1.0,
      "high": 2200,
      "unit": "g CO2-eq/kWh",
      "year": 2014,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "IPCC AR5 harmonised literature median (min/median/max)",
      "citation": "IPCC (2014), AR5 WG3 Annex III, Table A.III.2 'Emissions of selected electricity supply technologies (gCO2eq/kWh)', p.1335",
      "source_url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources",
      "source_name": "IPCC (2014), AR5 WG3 Annex III 'Technology-specific cost and performance parameters', Table A.III.2 (p.1335), as reproduced on Wikipedia 'Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "IPCC row 'Hydropower': min 1.0, median 24, max 2200 g CO2-eq/kWh (lifecycle, incl. infrastructure and supply chain, incl. albedo effect for some rows). Taken from the Wikipedia reproduction of Table A.III.2 because the IPCC PDF could not be fetched (two attempts); values match the atlas author's prior knowledge of the table. The 2200 maximum reflects methane from some tropical reservoirs.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.lifecycle_co2.world.2014.ipcc-ar5-harmonised-literature-median-min-median-max",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "lifecycle_co2",
      "value": 12,
      "low": 3.7,
      "high": 110,
      "unit": "g CO2-eq/kWh",
      "year": 2014,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "IPCC AR5 harmonised literature median (min/median/max)",
      "citation": "IPCC (2014), AR5 WG3 Annex III, Table A.III.2 'Emissions of selected electricity supply technologies (gCO2eq/kWh)', p.1335",
      "source_url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources",
      "source_name": "IPCC (2014), AR5 WG3 Annex III 'Technology-specific cost and performance parameters', Table A.III.2 (p.1335), as reproduced on Wikipedia 'Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "IPCC row 'Nuclear': min 3.7, median 12, max 110 g CO2-eq/kWh (lifecycle, incl. infrastructure and supply chain, incl. albedo effect for some rows). Taken from the Wikipedia reproduction of Table A.III.2 because the IPCC PDF could not be fetched (two attempts); values match the atlas author's prior knowledge of the table. The 110 maximum stems from older studies assuming low-grade ore and gas-diffusion enrichment; the UNECE 2021 value (5.1-6.4) is at the low end.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.lifecycle_co2.world.2014.ipcc-ar5-harmonised-literature-median-min-median-max",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "lifecycle_co2",
      "value": 48,
      "low": 18,
      "high": 180,
      "unit": "g CO2-eq/kWh",
      "year": 2014,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "IPCC AR5 harmonised literature median (min/median/max)",
      "citation": "IPCC (2014), AR5 WG3 Annex III, Table A.III.2 'Emissions of selected electricity supply technologies (gCO2eq/kWh)', p.1335",
      "source_url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources",
      "source_name": "IPCC (2014), AR5 WG3 Annex III 'Technology-specific cost and performance parameters', Table A.III.2 (p.1335), as reproduced on Wikipedia 'Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "IPCC row 'Solar PV - Utility scale': min 18, median 48, max 180 g CO2-eq/kWh (lifecycle, incl. infrastructure and supply chain, incl. albedo effect for some rows). Taken from the Wikipedia reproduction of Table A.III.2 because the IPCC PDF could not be fetched (two attempts); values match the atlas author's prior knowledge of the table. Rooftop PV row in the same table: 26 / 41 / 60.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.lifecycle_co2.world.2014.ipcc-ar5-harmonised-literature-median-min-median-max",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "lifecycle_co2",
      "value": 11,
      "low": 7.0,
      "high": 56,
      "unit": "g CO2-eq/kWh",
      "year": 2014,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "IPCC AR5 harmonised literature median (min/median/max)",
      "citation": "IPCC (2014), AR5 WG3 Annex III, Table A.III.2 'Emissions of selected electricity supply technologies (gCO2eq/kWh)', p.1335",
      "source_url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources",
      "source_name": "IPCC (2014), AR5 WG3 Annex III 'Technology-specific cost and performance parameters', Table A.III.2 (p.1335), as reproduced on Wikipedia 'Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "IPCC row 'Wind onshore': min 7.0, median 11, max 56 g CO2-eq/kWh (lifecycle, incl. infrastructure and supply chain, incl. albedo effect for some rows). Taken from the Wikipedia reproduction of Table A.III.2 because the IPCC PDF could not be fetched (two attempts); values match the atlas author's prior knowledge of the table.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_offshore.lifecycle_co2.world.2014.ipcc-ar5-harmonised-literature-median-min-median-max",
      "source_type": "wind_offshore",
      "metric": "lifecycle_co2",
      "value": 12,
      "low": 8.0,
      "high": 35,
      "unit": "g CO2-eq/kWh",
      "year": 2014,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "IPCC AR5 harmonised literature median (min/median/max)",
      "citation": "IPCC (2014), AR5 WG3 Annex III, Table A.III.2 'Emissions of selected electricity supply technologies (gCO2eq/kWh)', p.1335",
      "source_url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources",
      "source_name": "IPCC (2014), AR5 WG3 Annex III 'Technology-specific cost and performance parameters', Table A.III.2 (p.1335), as reproduced on Wikipedia 'Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "IPCC row 'Wind offshore': min 8.0, median 12, max 35 g CO2-eq/kWh (lifecycle, incl. infrastructure and supply chain, incl. albedo effect for some rows). Taken from the Wikipedia reproduction of Table A.III.2 because the IPCC PDF could not be fetched (two attempts); values match the atlas author's prior knowledge of the table.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_peaker.lifecycle_co2.world.2014.ipcc-ar5-harmonised-literature-median-min-median-max",
      "source_type": "gas_peaker",
      "metric": "lifecycle_co2",
      "value": null,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "g CO2-eq/kWh",
      "year": 2014,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "IPCC AR5 harmonised literature median (min/median/max)",
      "citation": "IPCC (2014), AR5 WG3 Annex III, Table A.III.2",
      "source_url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources",
      "source_name": "IPCC (2014), AR5 WG3 Annex III 'Technology-specific cost and performance parameters', Table A.III.2 (p.1335), as reproduced on Wikipedia 'Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "null: Table A.III.2 has no separate open-cycle gas turbine row; use the combined-cycle row (490 g/kWh median) as a lower bound - a simple-cycle peaker burns roughly 1.5x more gas per kWh (efficiency ~35-40% vs ~55-60%), so its direct emissions are correspondingly higher. No published OCGT lifecycle figure captured.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.lifecycle_co2.eu28.2021.unece-2021-eu28-average-lwr",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "lifecycle_co2",
      "value": 5.1,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "g CO2-eq/kWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "eu28",
      "variant": "UNECE 2021, EU28 average LWR",
      "citation": "UNECE (2021), Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options, EU28 results as reproduced on Wikipedia 'Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources'",
      "source_url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources",
      "source_name": "IPCC (2014), AR5 WG3 Annex III 'Technology-specific cost and performance parameters', Table A.III.2 (p.1335), as reproduced on Wikipedia 'Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "UNECE EU28 table (same Wikipedia page as the IPCC reproduction): nuclear average 5.1; hard coal PC 1000; NGCC 430; hydro 660 MW 150 and 360 MW 11; PV poly-Si ground 37; CdTe ground 12; onshore wind 12; offshore wind 13 (steel) / 14 (concrete foundation) g CO2-eq/kWh. UNECE's regional nuclear range is 5.1-6.4 g/kWh; the OWID dataset carries 5.6.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.land_use.world.2022.lovering-2022-luie-median-nuclear-incl-uranium-mining",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": 7.1,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "ha/TWh/y",
      "year": 2022,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "Lovering 2022 LUIE median, nuclear (incl. uranium mining)",
      "citation": "Lovering et al. (2022), PLOS ONE 17(7): e0270155, Table 1 / text",
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270155",
      "source_name": "Lovering, J., Swain, M., Blomqvist, L., Hernandez, R.R. (2022), 'Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow's energy landscape', PLOS ONE 17(7): e0270155",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Lowest median of all sources ('nuclear with 7.1 ha/TWh/y'); US plant sample mean 15. LUIE = total direct + indirect land use per unit of electricity; indirect fuel-extraction land included for coal, gas, nuclear and biomass, but not land for material mining, transmission or offshore. Table 1 is an image in the open-access article; medians read from the article text and the authors' Breakthrough Institute summary (6 Jul 2022). 1 ha/TWh/y = 0.01 m2/MWh.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.land_use.world.2022.lovering-2022-luie-median-natural-gas-footprint-well-pads-pl",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": 410,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "ha/TWh/y",
      "year": 2022,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "Lovering 2022 LUIE median, natural gas, footprint (well pads, plant)",
      "citation": "Lovering et al. (2022), PLOS ONE 17(7): e0270155, Table 1 / text",
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270155",
      "source_name": "Lovering, J., Swain, M., Blomqvist, L., Hernandez, R.R. (2022), 'Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow's energy landscape', PLOS ONE 17(7): e0270155",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Natural gas footprint median 410; with spacing of gas fields 1,900 ha/TWh/y. LUIE = total direct + indirect land use per unit of electricity; indirect fuel-extraction land included for coal, gas, nuclear and biomass, but not land for material mining, transmission or offshore. Table 1 is an image in the open-access article; medians read from the article text and the authors' Breakthrough Institute summary (6 Jul 2022). 1 ha/TWh/y = 0.01 m2/MWh.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.land_use.world.2022.lovering-2022-luie-median-natural-gas-spacing-gas-field-area",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": 1900,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "ha/TWh/y",
      "year": 2022,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "Lovering 2022 LUIE median, natural gas, spacing (gas-field area)",
      "citation": "Lovering et al. (2022), PLOS ONE 17(7): e0270155, Table 1 / text",
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270155",
      "source_name": "Lovering, J., Swain, M., Blomqvist, L., Hernandez, R.R. (2022), 'Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow's energy landscape', PLOS ONE 17(7): e0270155",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Spacing definition: entire area within the field/farm boundary. LUIE = total direct + indirect land use per unit of electricity; indirect fuel-extraction land included for coal, gas, nuclear and biomass, but not land for material mining, transmission or offshore. Table 1 is an image in the open-access article; medians read from the article text and the authors' Breakthrough Institute summary (6 Jul 2022). 1 ha/TWh/y = 0.01 m2/MWh.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.land_use.world.2022.lovering-2022-luie-median-coal-incl-mining",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": 1000,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "ha/TWh/y",
      "year": 2022,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "Lovering 2022 LUIE median, coal (incl. mining)",
      "citation": "Lovering et al. (2022), PLOS ONE 17(7): e0270155, Table 1 / text",
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270155",
      "source_name": "Lovering, J., Swain, M., Blomqvist, L., Hernandez, R.R. (2022), 'Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow's energy landscape', PLOS ONE 17(7): e0270155",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Coal median 1,000 ha/TWh/y incl. indirect mining land. LUIE = total direct + indirect land use per unit of electricity; indirect fuel-extraction land included for coal, gas, nuclear and biomass, but not land for material mining, transmission or offshore. Table 1 is an image in the open-access article; medians read from the article text and the authors' Breakthrough Institute summary (6 Jul 2022). 1 ha/TWh/y = 0.01 m2/MWh.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydro.land_use.world.2022.lovering-2022-luie-median-hydropower-reservoir-area",
      "source_type": "hydro",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": 650,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "ha/TWh/y",
      "year": 2022,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "Lovering 2022 LUIE median, hydropower (reservoir area)",
      "citation": "Lovering et al. (2022), PLOS ONE 17(7): e0270155, Table 1 / text",
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270155",
      "source_name": "Lovering, J., Swain, M., Blomqvist, L., Hernandez, R.R. (2022), 'Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow's energy landscape', PLOS ONE 17(7): e0270155",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Median 650, mean 15,000 ha/TWh/y (n = 952 installations; variance too large for the paper's ANOVA). LUIE = total direct + indirect land use per unit of electricity; indirect fuel-extraction land included for coal, gas, nuclear and biomass, but not land for material mining, transmission or offshore. Table 1 is an image in the open-access article; medians read from the article text and the authors' Breakthrough Institute summary (6 Jul 2022). 1 ha/TWh/y = 0.01 m2/MWh.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.land_use.world.2022.lovering-2022-luie-median-wind-footprint-pads-and-roads",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": 130,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "ha/TWh/y",
      "year": 2022,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "Lovering 2022 LUIE median, wind, footprint (pads and roads)",
      "citation": "Lovering et al. (2022), PLOS ONE 17(7): e0270155, Table 1 / text",
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270155",
      "source_name": "Lovering, J., Swain, M., Blomqvist, L., Hernandez, R.R. (2022), 'Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow's energy landscape', PLOS ONE 17(7): e0270155",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Wind footprint median 130 ha/TWh/y; spacing 12,000. LUIE = total direct + indirect land use per unit of electricity; indirect fuel-extraction land included for coal, gas, nuclear and biomass, but not land for material mining, transmission or offshore. Table 1 is an image in the open-access article; medians read from the article text and the authors' Breakthrough Institute summary (6 Jul 2022). 1 ha/TWh/y = 0.01 m2/MWh.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.land_use.world.2022.lovering-2022-luie-median-wind-spacing-project-boundary",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": 12000,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "ha/TWh/y",
      "year": 2022,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "Lovering 2022 LUIE median, wind, spacing (project boundary)",
      "citation": "Lovering et al. (2022), PLOS ONE 17(7): e0270155, Table 1 / text",
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270155",
      "source_name": "Lovering, J., Swain, M., Blomqvist, L., Hernandez, R.R. (2022), 'Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow's energy landscape', PLOS ONE 17(7): e0270155",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Entire area within the wind farm boundary incl. land between turbines (still usable for farming). LUIE = total direct + indirect land use per unit of electricity; indirect fuel-extraction land included for coal, gas, nuclear and biomass, but not land for material mining, transmission or offshore. Table 1 is an image in the open-access article; medians read from the article text and the authors' Breakthrough Institute summary (6 Jul 2022). 1 ha/TWh/y = 0.01 m2/MWh.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.land_use.world.2022.lovering-2022-luie-median-ground-mounted-solar-pv",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": 2000,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "ha/TWh/y",
      "year": 2022,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "Lovering 2022 LUIE median, ground-mounted solar PV",
      "citation": "Lovering et al. (2022), PLOS ONE 17(7): e0270155, Table 1 / text",
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270155",
      "source_name": "Lovering, J., Swain, M., Blomqvist, L., Hernandez, R.R. (2022), 'Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow's energy landscape', PLOS ONE 17(7): e0270155",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Ground-mounted PV 2,000 ha/TWh/y; rooftop/integrated PV footprint 'close to zero'. Dedicated biomass 58,000 (highest). LUIE = total direct + indirect land use per unit of electricity; indirect fuel-extraction land included for coal, gas, nuclear and biomass, but not land for material mining, transmission or offshore. Table 1 is an image in the open-access article; medians read from the article text and the authors' Breakthrough Institute summary (6 Jul 2022). 1 ha/TWh/y = 0.01 m2/MWh.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.land_use.world.2022.owid-own-calculation-23-large-wind-farms-project-area",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": null,
      "low": 8,
      "high": 184,
      "unit": "m2 per MWh (project site area incl. spacing)",
      "year": 2022,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "OWID own calculation, 23 large wind farms, project area",
      "citation": "Ritchie (2022-06-16), 'How does the land use of different electricity sources compare?', Our World in Data",
      "source_url": "https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source",
      "source_name": "Ritchie, H. (2022-06-16), 'How does the land use of different electricity sources compare?', Our World in Data",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "OWID's own calculation from 23 large wind farms using total project site area (land between turbines included): Roscoe Wind Farm (Texas) 184 m2/MWh; Fantanele-Cogealac (Romania) and Tehachapi Pass (California) 8 m2/MWh. The UNECE figures count only direct impact area (foundations, excavation). Offshore wind is marine area and not counted.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.land_use.usa.2012.large-pv-20-mw-total-area-capacity-weighted-average",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": 7.9,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "acres/MWac (total area, capacity-weighted)",
      "year": 2012,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "large PV (>20 MW), total area, capacity-weighted average",
      "citation": "Ong et al. (2013), NREL/TP-6A20-56290, Table ES-1 'Summary of Land-Use Requirements for PV and CSP Projects in the United States'",
      "source_url": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc841450/m2/1/high_res_d/1086349.pdf",
      "source_name": "Ong, S., Campbell, C., Denholm, P., Margolis, R., Heath, G. (June 2013), 'Land-Use Requirements for Solar Power Plants in the United States', NREL/TP-6A20-56290",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Large PV (>20 MW): total area 7.9 acres/MWac capacity-weighted (fixed 7.5, 1-axis 8.3, 2-axis CPV 8.1); direct area 7.2 acres/MWac. Small PV (1-20 MW) total 8.3. All solar (PV+CSP) total-area capacity-weighted average 8.9 acres/MWac. 'Total area' = all land enclosed by the site boundary; 'direct area' = land occupied by arrays, roads, substations, buildings. Projects through Q3 2012 (72% of US utility-scale capacity). 1 acre/MW = 0.405 ha/MW.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.land_use.usa.2012.large-pv-20-mw-total-area-generation-weighted-average",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": 3.4,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "acres/GWh/yr (total area, generation-weighted)",
      "year": 2012,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "large PV (>20 MW), total area, generation-weighted average",
      "citation": "Ong et al. (2013), NREL/TP-6A20-56290, Table ES-1 'Summary of Land-Use Requirements for PV and CSP Projects in the United States'",
      "source_url": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc841450/m2/1/high_res_d/1086349.pdf",
      "source_name": "Ong, S., Campbell, C., Denholm, P., Margolis, R., Heath, G. (June 2013), 'Land-Use Requirements for Solar Power Plants in the United States', NREL/TP-6A20-56290",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Large PV (>20 MW): total area 3.4 acres/GWh/yr generation-weighted (fixed 3.7, 1-axis 3.3); direct area 3.1 acres/GWh/yr. All-solar total-area generation-weighted average 3.5 acres/GWh/yr; direct 2.9. Densities have since risen: Bolinger & Bolinger (2022, IEEE J. Photovoltaics) find median power density of US utility PV +52% (fixed-tilt) / +43% (tracking) and energy density +33% / +25% between 2011 and 2019 builds ( https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/land-requirements-utility-scale-pv ), so 2013 figures overstate land per GWh for new plants.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.land_use.usa.2009.total-project-area-capacity-weighted-161-projects",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": 34.5,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "ha/MW (total project area; +/- 22.4 std dev)",
      "year": 2009,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "total project area, capacity-weighted, 161 projects",
      "citation": "Denholm et al. (2009), NREL/TP-6A2-45834, Table 1 and Conclusions",
      "source_url": "https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Denholm_et_al_2009.pdf",
      "source_name": "Denholm, P., Hand, M., Jackson, M., Ong, S. (Aug 2009), 'Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States', NREL/TP-6A2-45834",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "'34.5 +/- 22.4 ha/MW' total area (161 projects with total-area data, 25,438 MW; 172 projects / 26,462 MW analysed in all), equal to a capacity density of '3.0 +/- 1.7 MW/km2'. Total area = 'the area within a perimeter surrounding all of the turbines'; boundaries are not uniformly defined by developers/states. Most of this land remains in agricultural or other use.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.land_use.usa.2009.direct-impact-area-permanent-temporary",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": 1.0,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "ha/MW (direct impact area; +/- 0.7 std dev)",
      "year": 2009,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "direct impact area (permanent + temporary)",
      "citation": "Denholm et al. (2009), NREL/TP-6A2-45834, Table 1 and Conclusions",
      "source_url": "https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Denholm_et_al_2009.pdf",
      "source_name": "Denholm, P., Hand, M., Jackson, M., Ong, S. (Aug 2009), 'Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States', NREL/TP-6A2-45834",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "'a total direct surface area disruption of about 1.0 +/- 0.7 hectares/MW': permanent direct impact 0.3 +/- 0.3 ha/MW (93 projects, 13,897 MW: turbine pads, roads, substations) plus temporary 0.7 +/- 0.6 ha/MW (52 projects, 8,984 MW: construction areas).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.land_use.usa.2015.median-us-nuclear-plant-site-area-nei-analysis",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": 1.3,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "square miles per 1,000 MW (plant site area)",
      "year": 2015,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "median US nuclear plant site area, NEI analysis",
      "citation": "Nuclear Energy Institute (2015-07-09), 'Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant's Footprint'",
      "source_url": "https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants",
      "source_name": "Nuclear Energy Institute (9 Jul 2015), 'Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant's Footprint' (citing NEI 'Land Requirements for Carbon-Free Technologies', 2015)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "'about 1.3 square miles per 1,000 megawatts of installed capacity', the median land area of 59 US nuclear plant sites, assuming a 90% capacity factor. Industry-association figure (NEI 'Land Requirements for Carbon-Free Technologies', 2015). 1.3 sq mi = 3.4 km2 = 832 acres.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.land_use.usa.2015.nei-equivalent-output-comparison-1-900-2-800-mw-at-32-47-cf",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": null,
      "low": 260,
      "high": 360,
      "unit": "square miles for output equal to a 1,000 MW nuclear plant",
      "year": 2015,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "NEI equivalent-output comparison (1,900-2,800 MW at 32-47% CF)",
      "citation": "Nuclear Energy Institute (2015-07-09), 'Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant's Footprint'",
      "source_url": "https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants",
      "source_name": "Nuclear Energy Institute (9 Jul 2015), 'Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant's Footprint' (citing NEI 'Land Requirements for Carbon-Free Technologies', 2015)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Wind needs 'between 260 square miles and 360 square miles' (1,900-2,800 MW installed at 32-47% capacity factor) to match a 1,000 MW nuclear plant - 'up to 360 times as much land area'. Uses total project area incl. spacing; industry-association analysis.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.land_use.usa.2015.nei-equivalent-output-comparison-3-300-5-400-mw-at-17-28-cf",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": null,
      "low": 45,
      "high": 75,
      "unit": "square miles for output equal to a 1,000 MW nuclear plant",
      "year": 2015,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "NEI equivalent-output comparison (3,300-5,400 MW at 17-28% CF)",
      "citation": "Nuclear Energy Institute (2015-07-09), 'Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant's Footprint'",
      "source_url": "https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants",
      "source_name": "Nuclear Energy Institute (9 Jul 2015), 'Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant's Footprint' (citing NEI 'Land Requirements for Carbon-Free Technologies', 2015)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Solar PV needs 'between 45 and 75 square miles' (3,300-5,400 MW at 17-28% capacity factor) to match a 1,000 MW nuclear plant - 'up to 75 times the land area'. Industry-association analysis.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.material_steel.usa.2015.doe-qtr-2015-table-10-4-generator-only",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "material_steel",
      "value": 310,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per TWh",
      "year": 2015,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "DOE QTR 2015 Table 10.4, generator only",
      "citation": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10, Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies' (ton/TWh)",
      "source_url": "https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf",
      "source_name": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10 'Concepts in Integrated Analysis', Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "DOE QTR Table 10.4 column 'Coal' (generator only); tonnes per TWh of electricity over the plant life, fuel excluded. Other materials in the column: Aluminum 3, Iron 1; cement, glass, lead, plastic, silicon 0. Biomass and geothermal columns omitted here (geothermal steel 3,300, concrete 1,100). Table cites its own source as reference 52 of the chapter (not retrievable: PDF text truncated). Life-cycle scope differs between columns (fossil/nuclear = generator only).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.material_concrete.usa.2015.doe-qtr-2015-table-10-4-generator-only",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "material_concrete",
      "value": 870,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per TWh",
      "year": 2015,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "DOE QTR 2015 Table 10.4, generator only",
      "citation": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10, Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies' (ton/TWh)",
      "source_url": "https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf",
      "source_name": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10 'Concepts in Integrated Analysis', Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "DOE QTR Table 10.4 column 'Coal' (generator only); tonnes per TWh of electricity over the plant life, fuel excluded. Other materials in the column: Aluminum 3, Iron 1; cement, glass, lead, plastic, silicon 0. Biomass and geothermal columns omitted here (geothermal steel 3,300, concrete 1,100). Table cites its own source as reference 52 of the chapter (not retrievable: PDF text truncated). Life-cycle scope differs between columns (fossil/nuclear = generator only).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.material_copper.usa.2015.doe-qtr-2015-table-10-4-generator-only",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "material_copper",
      "value": 1,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per TWh",
      "year": 2015,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "DOE QTR 2015 Table 10.4, generator only",
      "citation": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10, Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies' (ton/TWh)",
      "source_url": "https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf",
      "source_name": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10 'Concepts in Integrated Analysis', Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "DOE QTR Table 10.4 column 'Coal' (generator only); tonnes per TWh of electricity over the plant life, fuel excluded. Other materials in the column: Aluminum 3, Iron 1; cement, glass, lead, plastic, silicon 0. Biomass and geothermal columns omitted here (geothermal steel 3,300, concrete 1,100). Table cites its own source as reference 52 of the chapter (not retrievable: PDF text truncated). Life-cycle scope differs between columns (fossil/nuclear = generator only).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.material_steel.usa.2015.doe-qtr-2015-table-10-4-generator-only",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "material_steel",
      "value": 170,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per TWh",
      "year": 2015,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "DOE QTR 2015 Table 10.4, generator only",
      "citation": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10, Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies' (ton/TWh)",
      "source_url": "https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf",
      "source_name": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10 'Concepts in Integrated Analysis', Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "DOE QTR Table 10.4 column 'NGCC' (generator only); tonnes per TWh of electricity over the plant life, fuel excluded. Other materials in the column: Aluminum 1, Iron 1; others 0. Biomass and geothermal columns omitted here (geothermal steel 3,300, concrete 1,100). Table cites its own source as reference 52 of the chapter (not retrievable: PDF text truncated). Life-cycle scope differs between columns (fossil/nuclear = generator only).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.material_concrete.usa.2015.doe-qtr-2015-table-10-4-generator-only",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "material_concrete",
      "value": 400,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per TWh",
      "year": 2015,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "DOE QTR 2015 Table 10.4, generator only",
      "citation": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10, Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies' (ton/TWh)",
      "source_url": "https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf",
      "source_name": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10 'Concepts in Integrated Analysis', Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "DOE QTR Table 10.4 column 'NGCC' (generator only); tonnes per TWh of electricity over the plant life, fuel excluded. Other materials in the column: Aluminum 1, Iron 1; others 0. Biomass and geothermal columns omitted here (geothermal steel 3,300, concrete 1,100). Table cites its own source as reference 52 of the chapter (not retrievable: PDF text truncated). Life-cycle scope differs between columns (fossil/nuclear = generator only).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.material_copper.usa.2015.doe-qtr-2015-table-10-4-generator-only",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "material_copper",
      "value": 0,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per TWh",
      "year": 2015,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "DOE QTR 2015 Table 10.4, generator only",
      "citation": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10, Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies' (ton/TWh)",
      "source_url": "https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf",
      "source_name": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10 'Concepts in Integrated Analysis', Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "DOE QTR Table 10.4 column 'NGCC' (generator only); tonnes per TWh of electricity over the plant life, fuel excluded. Other materials in the column: Aluminum 1, Iron 1; others 0. Biomass and geothermal columns omitted here (geothermal steel 3,300, concrete 1,100). Table cites its own source as reference 52 of the chapter (not retrievable: PDF text truncated). Life-cycle scope differs between columns (fossil/nuclear = generator only).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.material_steel.usa.2015.doe-qtr-2015-table-10-4-generator-only",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "material_steel",
      "value": 160,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per TWh",
      "year": 2015,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "DOE QTR 2015 Table 10.4, generator only",
      "citation": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10, Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies' (ton/TWh)",
      "source_url": "https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf",
      "source_name": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10 'Concepts in Integrated Analysis', Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "DOE QTR Table 10.4 column 'Nuclear PWR' (generator only); tonnes per TWh of electricity over the plant life, fuel excluded. Other materials in the column: Iron 5, Lead 2; aluminum, cement, glass, plastic, silicon 0. Biomass and geothermal columns omitted here (geothermal steel 3,300, concrete 1,100). Table cites its own source as reference 52 of the chapter (not retrievable: PDF text truncated). Life-cycle scope differs between columns (fossil/nuclear = generator only).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.material_concrete.usa.2015.doe-qtr-2015-table-10-4-generator-only",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "material_concrete",
      "value": 760,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per TWh",
      "year": 2015,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "DOE QTR 2015 Table 10.4, generator only",
      "citation": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10, Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies' (ton/TWh)",
      "source_url": "https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf",
      "source_name": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10 'Concepts in Integrated Analysis', Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "DOE QTR Table 10.4 column 'Nuclear PWR' (generator only); tonnes per TWh of electricity over the plant life, fuel excluded. Other materials in the column: Iron 5, Lead 2; aluminum, cement, glass, plastic, silicon 0. Biomass and geothermal columns omitted here (geothermal steel 3,300, concrete 1,100). Table cites its own source as reference 52 of the chapter (not retrievable: PDF text truncated). Life-cycle scope differs between columns (fossil/nuclear = generator only).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.material_copper.usa.2015.doe-qtr-2015-table-10-4-generator-only",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "material_copper",
      "value": 3,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per TWh",
      "year": 2015,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "DOE QTR 2015 Table 10.4, generator only",
      "citation": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10, Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies' (ton/TWh)",
      "source_url": "https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf",
      "source_name": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10 'Concepts in Integrated Analysis', Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "DOE QTR Table 10.4 column 'Nuclear PWR' (generator only); tonnes per TWh of electricity over the plant life, fuel excluded. Other materials in the column: Iron 5, Lead 2; aluminum, cement, glass, plastic, silicon 0. Biomass and geothermal columns omitted here (geothermal steel 3,300, concrete 1,100). Table cites its own source as reference 52 of the chapter (not retrievable: PDF text truncated). Life-cycle scope differs between columns (fossil/nuclear = generator only).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydro.material_steel.usa.2015.doe-qtr-2015-table-10-4-upstream-energy-collection-plus-gene",
      "source_type": "hydro",
      "metric": "material_steel",
      "value": 67,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per TWh",
      "year": 2015,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "DOE QTR 2015 Table 10.4, upstream energy collection plus generator",
      "citation": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10, Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies' (ton/TWh)",
      "source_url": "https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf",
      "source_name": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10 'Concepts in Integrated Analysis', Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "DOE QTR Table 10.4 column 'Hydro' (upstream energy collection plus generator); tonnes per TWh of electricity over the plant life, fuel excluded. Other materials in the column: All other listed materials 0. Biomass and geothermal columns omitted here (geothermal steel 3,300, concrete 1,100). Table cites its own source as reference 52 of the chapter (not retrievable: PDF text truncated). Life-cycle scope differs between columns (fossil/nuclear = generator only).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydro.material_concrete.usa.2015.doe-qtr-2015-table-10-4-upstream-energy-collection-plus-gene",
      "source_type": "hydro",
      "metric": "material_concrete",
      "value": 14000,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per TWh",
      "year": 2015,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "DOE QTR 2015 Table 10.4, upstream energy collection plus generator",
      "citation": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10, Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies' (ton/TWh)",
      "source_url": "https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf",
      "source_name": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10 'Concepts in Integrated Analysis', Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "DOE QTR Table 10.4 column 'Hydro' (upstream energy collection plus generator); tonnes per TWh of electricity over the plant life, fuel excluded. Other materials in the column: All other listed materials 0. Biomass and geothermal columns omitted here (geothermal steel 3,300, concrete 1,100). Table cites its own source as reference 52 of the chapter (not retrievable: PDF text truncated). Life-cycle scope differs between columns (fossil/nuclear = generator only).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydro.material_copper.usa.2015.doe-qtr-2015-table-10-4-upstream-energy-collection-plus-gene",
      "source_type": "hydro",
      "metric": "material_copper",
      "value": 1,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per TWh",
      "year": 2015,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "DOE QTR 2015 Table 10.4, upstream energy collection plus generator",
      "citation": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10, Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies' (ton/TWh)",
      "source_url": "https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf",
      "source_name": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10 'Concepts in Integrated Analysis', Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "DOE QTR Table 10.4 column 'Hydro' (upstream energy collection plus generator); tonnes per TWh of electricity over the plant life, fuel excluded. Other materials in the column: All other listed materials 0. Biomass and geothermal columns omitted here (geothermal steel 3,300, concrete 1,100). Table cites its own source as reference 52 of the chapter (not retrievable: PDF text truncated). Life-cycle scope differs between columns (fossil/nuclear = generator only).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.material_steel.usa.2015.doe-qtr-2015-table-10-4-upstream-energy-collection-plus-gene",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "material_steel",
      "value": 1800,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per TWh",
      "year": 2015,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "DOE QTR 2015 Table 10.4, upstream energy collection plus generator",
      "citation": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10, Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies' (ton/TWh)",
      "source_url": "https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf",
      "source_name": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10 'Concepts in Integrated Analysis', Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "DOE QTR Table 10.4 column 'Wind' (upstream energy collection plus generator); tonnes per TWh of electricity over the plant life, fuel excluded. Other materials in the column: Aluminum 35, Glass 92, Iron 120, Plastic 190. Biomass and geothermal columns omitted here (geothermal steel 3,300, concrete 1,100). Table cites its own source as reference 52 of the chapter (not retrievable: PDF text truncated). Life-cycle scope differs between columns (fossil/nuclear = generator only).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.material_concrete.usa.2015.doe-qtr-2015-table-10-4-upstream-energy-collection-plus-gene",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "material_concrete",
      "value": 8000,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per TWh",
      "year": 2015,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "DOE QTR 2015 Table 10.4, upstream energy collection plus generator",
      "citation": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10, Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies' (ton/TWh)",
      "source_url": "https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf",
      "source_name": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10 'Concepts in Integrated Analysis', Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "DOE QTR Table 10.4 column 'Wind' (upstream energy collection plus generator); tonnes per TWh of electricity over the plant life, fuel excluded. Other materials in the column: Aluminum 35, Glass 92, Iron 120, Plastic 190. Biomass and geothermal columns omitted here (geothermal steel 3,300, concrete 1,100). Table cites its own source as reference 52 of the chapter (not retrievable: PDF text truncated). Life-cycle scope differs between columns (fossil/nuclear = generator only).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.material_copper.usa.2015.doe-qtr-2015-table-10-4-upstream-energy-collection-plus-gene",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "material_copper",
      "value": 23,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per TWh",
      "year": 2015,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "DOE QTR 2015 Table 10.4, upstream energy collection plus generator",
      "citation": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10, Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies' (ton/TWh)",
      "source_url": "https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf",
      "source_name": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10 'Concepts in Integrated Analysis', Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "DOE QTR Table 10.4 column 'Wind' (upstream energy collection plus generator); tonnes per TWh of electricity over the plant life, fuel excluded. Other materials in the column: Aluminum 35, Glass 92, Iron 120, Plastic 190. Biomass and geothermal columns omitted here (geothermal steel 3,300, concrete 1,100). Table cites its own source as reference 52 of the chapter (not retrievable: PDF text truncated). Life-cycle scope differs between columns (fossil/nuclear = generator only).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.material_steel.usa.2015.doe-qtr-2015-table-10-4-upstream-energy-collection-plus-gene",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "material_steel",
      "value": 7900,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per TWh",
      "year": 2015,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "DOE QTR 2015 Table 10.4, upstream energy collection plus generator",
      "citation": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10, Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies' (ton/TWh)",
      "source_url": "https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf",
      "source_name": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10 'Concepts in Integrated Analysis', Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "DOE QTR Table 10.4 column 'Solar PV (silicon)' (upstream energy collection plus generator); tonnes per TWh of electricity over the plant life, fuel excluded. Other materials in the column: Aluminum 680, Cement 3,700, Glass 2,700, Plastic 210, Silicon 57. Biomass and geothermal columns omitted here (geothermal steel 3,300, concrete 1,100). Table cites its own source as reference 52 of the chapter (not retrievable: PDF text truncated). Life-cycle scope differs between columns (fossil/nuclear = generator only).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.material_concrete.usa.2015.doe-qtr-2015-table-10-4-upstream-energy-collection-plus-gene",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "material_concrete",
      "value": 350,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per TWh",
      "year": 2015,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "DOE QTR 2015 Table 10.4, upstream energy collection plus generator",
      "citation": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10, Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies' (ton/TWh)",
      "source_url": "https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf",
      "source_name": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10 'Concepts in Integrated Analysis', Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "DOE QTR Table 10.4 column 'Solar PV (silicon)' (upstream energy collection plus generator); tonnes per TWh of electricity over the plant life, fuel excluded. Other materials in the column: Aluminum 680, Cement 3,700, Glass 2,700, Plastic 210, Silicon 57. Biomass and geothermal columns omitted here (geothermal steel 3,300, concrete 1,100). Table cites its own source as reference 52 of the chapter (not retrievable: PDF text truncated). Life-cycle scope differs between columns (fossil/nuclear = generator only).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.material_copper.usa.2015.doe-qtr-2015-table-10-4-upstream-energy-collection-plus-gene",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "material_copper",
      "value": 850,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per TWh",
      "year": 2015,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "DOE QTR 2015 Table 10.4, upstream energy collection plus generator",
      "citation": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10, Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies' (ton/TWh)",
      "source_url": "https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf",
      "source_name": "US DOE (2015), Quadrennial Technology Review, Chapter 10 'Concepts in Integrated Analysis', Table 10.4 'Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "DOE QTR Table 10.4 column 'Solar PV (silicon)' (upstream energy collection plus generator); tonnes per TWh of electricity over the plant life, fuel excluded. Other materials in the column: Aluminum 680, Cement 3,700, Glass 2,700, Plastic 210, Silicon 57. Biomass and geothermal columns omitted here (geothermal steel 3,300, concrete 1,100). Table cites its own source as reference 52 of the chapter (not retrievable: PDF text truncated). Life-cycle scope differs between columns (fossil/nuclear = generator only).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.material_critical_minerals.world.2021.iea-2021-total-critical-mineral-intensity-excl-steel-and-alu",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "material_critical_minerals",
      "value": 2.5,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per MW of capacity (kg/MW x 1000)",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "IEA 2021 total critical-mineral intensity (excl. steel and aluminium)",
      "citation": "IEA (2021), The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions, 'Minerals used in selected power generation technologies' (kg/MW), as tabulated by WNA 'Mineral Requirements for Electricity Generation', Table 1",
      "source_url": "https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/mineral-requirements-for-electricity-generation",
      "source_name": "World Nuclear Association, 'Mineral Requirements for Electricity Generation' (updated 3 Dec 2024), Table 1 'IEA and World Nuclear Association analysis' reproducing IEA (2021) 'The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "WNA Table 1 row 'Coal': plant 2.5 t/MW (= 2500 kg/MW) of critical minerals (copper, nickel, manganese, cobalt, chromium, molybdenum, zinc, rare earths, silicon); steel and aluminium excluded (IEA). WNA adds an indicative capacity factor 85% and lifetime 50 y to give 7 t per TWh over the plant life. IEA assumptions: offshore wind = direct-drive permanent-magnet generator incl. array cables; onshore = doubly-fed induction generator; coal = ultra-supercritical; gas = CCGT. Element-level split is only in the IEA chart image (chart data CSV not retrievable here); IEA text: offshore wind ~15.5 t/MW, onshore ~10 t/MW, solar PV ~7 t/MW, onshore wind needs ~9x the minerals of a gas plant per MW.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.material_critical_minerals.world.2021.iea-2021-total-critical-mineral-intensity-excl-steel-and-alu",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "material_critical_minerals",
      "value": 5.3,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per MW of capacity (kg/MW x 1000)",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "IEA 2021 total critical-mineral intensity (excl. steel and aluminium)",
      "citation": "IEA (2021), The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions, 'Minerals used in selected power generation technologies' (kg/MW), as tabulated by WNA 'Mineral Requirements for Electricity Generation', Table 1",
      "source_url": "https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/mineral-requirements-for-electricity-generation",
      "source_name": "World Nuclear Association, 'Mineral Requirements for Electricity Generation' (updated 3 Dec 2024), Table 1 'IEA and World Nuclear Association analysis' reproducing IEA (2021) 'The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "WNA Table 1 row 'Nuclear': plant 5.3 t/MW (= 5300 kg/MW) of critical minerals (copper, nickel, manganese, cobalt, chromium, molybdenum, zinc, rare earths, silicon); steel and aluminium excluded (IEA). WNA adds an indicative capacity factor 85% and lifetime 60 y to give 12 t per TWh over the plant life. IEA assumptions: offshore wind = direct-drive permanent-magnet generator incl. array cables; onshore = doubly-fed induction generator; coal = ultra-supercritical; gas = CCGT. Element-level split is only in the IEA chart image (chart data CSV not retrievable here); IEA text: offshore wind ~15.5 t/MW, onshore ~10 t/MW, solar PV ~7 t/MW, onshore wind needs ~9x the minerals of a gas plant per MW.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.material_critical_minerals.world.2021.iea-2021-total-critical-mineral-intensity-excl-steel-and-alu",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "material_critical_minerals",
      "value": 1.2,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per MW of capacity (kg/MW x 1000)",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "IEA 2021 total critical-mineral intensity (excl. steel and aluminium)",
      "citation": "IEA (2021), The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions, 'Minerals used in selected power generation technologies' (kg/MW), as tabulated by WNA 'Mineral Requirements for Electricity Generation', Table 1",
      "source_url": "https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/mineral-requirements-for-electricity-generation",
      "source_name": "World Nuclear Association, 'Mineral Requirements for Electricity Generation' (updated 3 Dec 2024), Table 1 'IEA and World Nuclear Association analysis' reproducing IEA (2021) 'The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "WNA Table 1 row 'Gas': plant 1.2 t/MW (= 1200 kg/MW) of critical minerals (copper, nickel, manganese, cobalt, chromium, molybdenum, zinc, rare earths, silicon); steel and aluminium excluded (IEA). WNA adds an indicative capacity factor 60% and lifetime 30 y to give 8 t per TWh over the plant life. IEA assumptions: offshore wind = direct-drive permanent-magnet generator incl. array cables; onshore = doubly-fed induction generator; coal = ultra-supercritical; gas = CCGT. Element-level split is only in the IEA chart image (chart data CSV not retrievable here); IEA text: offshore wind ~15.5 t/MW, onshore ~10 t/MW, solar PV ~7 t/MW, onshore wind needs ~9x the minerals of a gas plant per MW.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.material_critical_minerals.world.2021.iea-2021-total-critical-mineral-intensity-excl-steel-and-alu",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "material_critical_minerals",
      "value": 6.8,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per MW of capacity (kg/MW x 1000)",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "IEA 2021 total critical-mineral intensity (excl. steel and aluminium)",
      "citation": "IEA (2021), The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions, 'Minerals used in selected power generation technologies' (kg/MW), as tabulated by WNA 'Mineral Requirements for Electricity Generation', Table 1",
      "source_url": "https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/mineral-requirements-for-electricity-generation",
      "source_name": "World Nuclear Association, 'Mineral Requirements for Electricity Generation' (updated 3 Dec 2024), Table 1 'IEA and World Nuclear Association analysis' reproducing IEA (2021) 'The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "WNA Table 1 row 'Solar': plant 6.8 t/MW (= 6800 kg/MW) of critical minerals (copper, nickel, manganese, cobalt, chromium, molybdenum, zinc, rare earths, silicon); steel and aluminium excluded (IEA). WNA adds an indicative capacity factor 25% and lifetime 25 y to give 124 t per TWh over the plant life. IEA assumptions: offshore wind = direct-drive permanent-magnet generator incl. array cables; onshore = doubly-fed induction generator; coal = ultra-supercritical; gas = CCGT. Element-level split is only in the IEA chart image (chart data CSV not retrievable here); IEA text: offshore wind ~15.5 t/MW, onshore ~10 t/MW, solar PV ~7 t/MW, onshore wind needs ~9x the minerals of a gas plant per MW.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.material_critical_minerals.world.2021.iea-2021-total-critical-mineral-intensity-excl-steel-and-alu",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "material_critical_minerals",
      "value": 10.1,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per MW of capacity (kg/MW x 1000)",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "IEA 2021 total critical-mineral intensity (excl. steel and aluminium)",
      "citation": "IEA (2021), The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions, 'Minerals used in selected power generation technologies' (kg/MW), as tabulated by WNA 'Mineral Requirements for Electricity Generation', Table 1",
      "source_url": "https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/mineral-requirements-for-electricity-generation",
      "source_name": "World Nuclear Association, 'Mineral Requirements for Electricity Generation' (updated 3 Dec 2024), Table 1 'IEA and World Nuclear Association analysis' reproducing IEA (2021) 'The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "WNA Table 1 row 'Onshore wind': plant 10.1 t/MW (= 10100 kg/MW) of critical minerals (copper, nickel, manganese, cobalt, chromium, molybdenum, zinc, rare earths, silicon); steel and aluminium excluded (IEA). WNA adds an indicative capacity factor 35% and lifetime 25 y to give 130 t per TWh over the plant life. IEA assumptions: offshore wind = direct-drive permanent-magnet generator incl. array cables; onshore = doubly-fed induction generator; coal = ultra-supercritical; gas = CCGT. Element-level split is only in the IEA chart image (chart data CSV not retrievable here); IEA text: offshore wind ~15.5 t/MW, onshore ~10 t/MW, solar PV ~7 t/MW, onshore wind needs ~9x the minerals of a gas plant per MW.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_offshore.material_critical_minerals.world.2021.iea-2021-total-critical-mineral-intensity-excl-steel-and-alu",
      "source_type": "wind_offshore",
      "metric": "material_critical_minerals",
      "value": 15.5,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per MW of capacity (kg/MW x 1000)",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "IEA 2021 total critical-mineral intensity (excl. steel and aluminium)",
      "citation": "IEA (2021), The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions, 'Minerals used in selected power generation technologies' (kg/MW), as tabulated by WNA 'Mineral Requirements for Electricity Generation', Table 1",
      "source_url": "https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/mineral-requirements-for-electricity-generation",
      "source_name": "World Nuclear Association, 'Mineral Requirements for Electricity Generation' (updated 3 Dec 2024), Table 1 'IEA and World Nuclear Association analysis' reproducing IEA (2021) 'The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "WNA Table 1 row 'Offshore wind': plant 15.5 t/MW (= 15500 kg/MW) of critical minerals (copper, nickel, manganese, cobalt, chromium, molybdenum, zinc, rare earths, silicon); steel and aluminium excluded (IEA). WNA adds an indicative capacity factor 35% and lifetime 25 y to give 200 t per TWh over the plant life. IEA assumptions: offshore wind = direct-drive permanent-magnet generator incl. array cables; onshore = doubly-fed induction generator; coal = ultra-supercritical; gas = CCGT. Element-level split is only in the IEA chart image (chart data CSV not retrievable here); IEA text: offshore wind ~15.5 t/MW, onshore ~10 t/MW, solar PV ~7 t/MW, onshore wind needs ~9x the minerals of a gas plant per MW.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.waste_volume.world.2016.iaea-inventory-of-solid-high-level-waste-incl-spent-fuel-dec",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "waste_volume",
      "value": 29000,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "m3 (global HLW disposal-volume inventory, end-2016)",
      "year": 2016,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "IAEA inventory of solid high-level waste (incl. spent fuel declared as waste) in storage",
      "citation": "WNA, 'Radioactive Waste Management' (updated 22 Nov 2025), citing IAEA estimates published Jan 2022 for end-2016",
      "source_url": "https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/radioactive-waste-management",
      "source_name": "World Nuclear Association, 'Radioactive Waste Management' (updated 22 Nov 2025), citing IAEA inventory estimates (published Jan 2022, end-2016)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "'The disposal volume of the solid HLW inventory is approximately 29,000 m3, according to the IAEA.' Same inventory (m3, storage / disposal): VLLW 2,918,000 / 11,842,000; LLW 1,471,000 / 18,499,000; ILW 2,740,000 / 133,000; HLW 29,000 / 0. About 263,000 tonnes of used fuel in storage. Figures are cumulative over the history of civil nuclear power, not annual.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.waste_volume.world.2026.typical-1-000-mwe-reactor-vitrified-hlw-after-reprocessing",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "waste_volume",
      "value": 3,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "m3 solid HLW per year per 1,000 MWe station (if fuel is reprocessed)",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "typical 1,000 MWe reactor, vitrified HLW after reprocessing",
      "citation": "WNA, Nuclear Essentials: 'What is nuclear waste and what do we do with it?' (updated 15 Jul 2026)",
      "source_url": "https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it",
      "source_name": "World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Essentials: 'What is nuclear waste and what do we do with it?' (updated 15 Jul 2026)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "'it produces only about three cubic metres of solid high-level waste each year when the fuel is reprocessed.' Without reprocessing the used fuel itself (about 25-30 t heavy metal per GWe-year, not re-verified today) is the HLW. 'About 450,000 tonnes of used nuclear fuel has been produced since the first nuclear power reactor'; 'Approximately 97% ... could be made into new fuel'.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.waste_toxicity_note.world.2025.qualitative-wna-iaea",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "waste_toxicity_note",
      "value": "High-level waste is ~3% of the volume but ~95% of the radioactivity of all radioactive waste; it is heat-generating and requires shielding and isolation for thousands of years; radioactivity of used fuel falls to one-thousandth of its initial level after 40 years. Low-level waste is ~90% of volume and 1% of radioactivity.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2025,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative, WNA/IAEA",
      "citation": "WNA, 'Radioactive Waste Management' (updated 22 Nov 2025) and WNA Nuclear Essentials (updated 15 Jul 2026)",
      "source_url": "https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/radioactive-waste-management",
      "source_name": "World Nuclear Association, 'Radioactive Waste Management' (updated 22 Nov 2025), citing IAEA inventory estimates (published Jan 2022, end-2016)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Quotes: 'HLW accounts for just 3% of the volume, but 95% of the total radioactivity of produced waste'; 'LLW comprises some 90% of the volume but only 1% of the radioactivity'; ILW 'some 7% of the volume and has 4% of the radioactivity'; 'After 40 years, the radioactivity of used fuel has fallen to one-thousandth of its initial level' (Nuclear Essentials page). Deep geological disposal: Finland's Onkalo repository is the first for spent fuel (status not re-verified in this task).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.waste_volume.world.2025.coal-combustion-ash-global-annual-arisings-wna-citing-tenorm",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "waste_volume",
      "value": 280000000,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t per year (coal ash arising globally)",
      "year": 2025,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "coal combustion ash, global annual arisings (WNA citing TENORM data)",
      "citation": "WNA, 'Radioactive Waste Management' (updated 22 Nov 2025)",
      "source_url": "https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/radioactive-waste-management",
      "source_name": "World Nuclear Association, 'Radioactive Waste Management' (updated 22 Nov 2025), citing IAEA inventory estimates (published Jan 2022, end-2016)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "low",
      "notes": "'The largest Tenorm waste stream is coal ash, with around 280 million tonnes arising globally each year'. Secondary mention on a nuclear-industry page; the underlying statistic (TENORM = technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material) is not re-verified against a primary coal-ash statistic (e.g. ACAA/EPA for the US).",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.waste_toxicity_note.world.2025.qualitative",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "waste_toxicity_note",
      "value": "Coal ash concentrates heavy metals (arsenic, mercury, lead, selenium) and naturally occurring radionuclides (uranium, thorium, radium) from the coal; it is the largest TENORM waste stream and is mostly landfilled or ponded rather than isolated.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2025,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "WNA, 'Radioactive Waste Management' (updated 22 Nov 2025), section on TENORM; element list from general literature (not re-verified today)",
      "source_url": "https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/radioactive-waste-management",
      "source_name": "World Nuclear Association, 'Radioactive Waste Management' (updated 22 Nov 2025), citing IAEA inventory estimates (published Jan 2022, end-2016)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "low",
      "notes": "The WNA page supports the TENORM classification and the 280 Mt/yr volume; the specific heavy-metal list is general knowledge from coal-combustion-residual literature (e.g. US EPA CCR rule) and was not re-fetched in this task.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.waste_volume.world.2050.irena-iea-pvps-projection-regular-loss-to-early-loss-scenari",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "waste_volume",
      "value": null,
      "low": 60,
      "high": 78,
      "unit": "million t (cumulative PV panel waste by 2050)",
      "year": 2050,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "IRENA/IEA-PVPS projection, regular-loss to early-loss scenario",
      "citation": "IRENA and IEA-PVPS (2016), 'End-of-Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels', executive summary",
      "source_url": "https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2016/IRENA_IEAPVPS_End-of-Life_Solar_PV_Panels_2016.pdf",
      "source_name": "IRENA and IEA-PVPS (2016), 'End-of-Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "'60 - 78 million tonnes' cumulative by 2050 (regular-loss to early-loss scenario) for a projected 4,500 GW of PV installed by 2050 with a 30-year panel lifetime; 1.7-8 million tonnes by 2030; 43,500-250,000 tonnes at end-2016. Recoverable raw materials by 2050 ~78 million tonnes worth >USD 15 billion.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.waste_toxicity_note.world.2016.qualitative",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "waste_toxicity_note",
      "value": "Crystalline-silicon panels are mostly glass, aluminium frame, silicon and polymer with small amounts of copper, silver, tin and lead solder; thin-film CdTe panels contain cadmium. Panels are bulky but low-toxicity waste; recycling recovers glass, aluminium and copper.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2016,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "IRENA and IEA-PVPS (2016), 'End-of-Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels' (panel composition chapter; composition statement not re-verified today)",
      "source_url": "https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2016/IRENA_IEAPVPS_End-of-Life_Solar_PV_Panels_2016.pdf",
      "source_name": "IRENA and IEA-PVPS (2016), 'End-of-Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "low",
      "notes": "The IRENA report's quantitative waste projections were read today; the composition statement is from the report's composition chapter as remembered by the atlas author and should be verified before publication.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.waste_volume.world.2050.liu-barlow-2017-projection",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "waste_volume",
      "value": 43,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "million t (cumulative wind turbine blade waste by 2050)",
      "year": 2050,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "Liu & Barlow 2017 projection",
      "citation": "Liu, P. & Barlow, C.Y. (2017), 'Wind turbine blade waste in 2050', Waste Management 62",
      "source_url": "https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/263878",
      "source_name": "Liu, P. & Barlow, C.Y. (2017), 'Wind turbine blade waste in 2050', Waste Management 62 (Cambridge repository record)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "'there will be 43 million tonnes of blade waste worldwide by 2050 with China possessing 40% of the waste, Europe 25%, the United States 16% and the rest of the world 19%.' Blades are glass/carbon-fibre composites that are hard to recycle; towers (steel) and nacelles are largely recyclable. Applies to onshore and offshore blades together.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "battery_storage.waste_volume.world.2026.not-sourced-in-this-task",
      "source_type": "battery_storage",
      "metric": "waste_volume",
      "value": null,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "t",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "not sourced in this task",
      "citation": "Lazard LCOS v11.0 (project life 20 years) - no battery waste-volume statistic captured",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "low",
      "notes": "null: no primary battery end-of-life volume statistic was captured in this task (IEA Global EV Outlook / Critical Minerals Outlook publish stationary-storage battery retirement projections). Lazard assumes a 20-year project life for utility-scale lithium-ion systems.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.dispatchability.world.2026.qualitative",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "dispatchability",
      "value": "Dispatchable, normally run as baseload at 85-94% capacity factor; modern PWRs can load-follow - the NEA's 50%-VRE scenario has nuclear ramping to 30-35% of capacity within one hour.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "OECD-NEA (2019), The Costs of Decarbonisation, exec. summary p.9; IEA/NEA (2020) classification of dispatchable low-carbon sources",
      "source_url": "https://cms.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/7335-system-costs-es.pdf",
      "source_name": "OECD-NEA, The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables (2019), executive summary",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "NEA 2019: 'nuclear plants ramping up to 30-35% of capacity in one hour' in the 50% VRE case (p.9); IEA/NEA 2020 and NucNet summary call nuclear 'the most affordable dispatchable low-carbon' option. US fleet CF 90.8% (EIA 2024) shows baseload operation in practice; load-following is routine in France.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.dispatchability.world.2026.qualitative",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "dispatchability",
      "value": "Variable (non-dispatchable): output follows daylight and weather; can be curtailed but not increased on demand. Firming needs storage or backup; US fleet capacity factor 23.2% (2024).",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "OECD-NEA (2019), The Costs of Decarbonisation (definition of variable renewables); US EIA Electric Power Annual 2024, Table 4.08.B",
      "source_url": "https://cms.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/7335-system-costs-es.pdf",
      "source_name": "OECD-NEA, The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables (2019), executive summary",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "NEA 2019 treats wind and solar PV as 'variable renewable energy (VRE)' whose profile, balancing, grid and connection costs rise with share (USD <10/MWh at 10% to >50/MWh at 75% VRE). Lazard LCOE+ v19 treats firming via ELCC (MISO solar ELCC 39%, CAISO 14%, PJM 12%).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.dispatchability.world.2026.qualitative",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "dispatchability",
      "value": "Variable (non-dispatchable): output follows wind speed; curtailable; US fleet capacity factor 34.3% (2024). Firming needs storage, backup or interconnection.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "OECD-NEA (2019), The Costs of Decarbonisation; US EIA Electric Power Annual 2024, Table 4.08.B",
      "source_url": "https://cms.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/7335-system-costs-es.pdf",
      "source_name": "OECD-NEA, The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables (2019), executive summary",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "NEA 2019 VRE definition as above; Lazard v19 wind ELCC: MISO 26%, CAISO 27%, SPP 20%, PJM 38%, ERCOT 24%, NYISO 17% (p.34, data as of May 2026).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_offshore.dispatchability.world.2026.qualitative",
      "source_type": "wind_offshore",
      "metric": "dispatchability",
      "value": "Variable (non-dispatchable) but steadier and higher capacity factor than onshore (Lazard assumption 45-55%; IRENA 2024 global average 42%).",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "Lazard LCOE+ v19 (2026) key assumptions pp.26-28; IRENA (2025) Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024, Table S1",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Offshore wind remains weather-driven; its higher and smoother output reduces but does not remove the need for firming.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydrogen.dispatchability.world.2026.qualitative",
      "source_type": "hydrogen",
      "metric": "dispatchability",
      "value": "Dispatchable as a storage medium: electrolysers absorb surplus power and hydrogen can be stored for weeks/months and re-converted in turbines or fuel cells on demand, at ~35% round-trip efficiency (PNNL).",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "PNNL (2020), Energy Storage Grand Challenge Cost and Performance Assessment, Hydrogen chapter",
      "source_url": "https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/Hydrogen_Methodology.pdf",
      "source_name": "PNNL, Energy Storage Grand Challenge Cost and Performance Assessment 2020, Hydrogen chapter",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "PNNL: bidirectional hydrogen system round-trip efficiency 'approximately 35%'; cavern storage 2-10 USD/kWh makes long-duration storage cheap per kWh but conversion losses are large. Hydrogen is thus suited to seasonal firming, not daily cycling.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.dispatchability.world.2026.qualitative",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "dispatchability",
      "value": "Dispatchable, mid-merit to baseload: US fleet capacity factor 60.5% (2024); start-up in ~1-3 hours, flexible ramping; Lazard models 30-90% CF.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "US EIA Electric Power Annual 2024, Table 4.08.A; Lazard LCOE+ v19 (2026) key assumptions",
      "source_url": "https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_a.html",
      "source_name": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual, Table 4.08.A Capacity factors for utility scale generators primarily using fossil fuels",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "EIA 2024 CF 60.5% (2023: 59.7%). Lazard CF assumption 30-90% reflects both peaking and baseload duty. Start-up times are not from a source read today (IEA Status of Power System Transformation 2018 case studies cite warm/cold starts of 2-8 h for thermal plants in Kyushu).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_peaker.dispatchability.world.2026.qualitative",
      "source_type": "gas_peaker",
      "metric": "dispatchability",
      "value": "Dispatchable, peaking: simple-cycle gas turbines start within minutes and run only at times of high demand; US fleet capacity factor 13.9% (2024); Lazard assumes 10-15% CF.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "US EIA Electric Power Annual 2024, Table 4.08.A; Lazard LCOE+ v19 (2026) key assumptions",
      "source_url": "https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_a.html",
      "source_name": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual, Table 4.08.A Capacity factors for utility scale generators primarily using fossil fuels",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Low capacity factor and high marginal cost (Lazard: 52-122 USD/MWh existing-plant marginal cost; 144-276 USD/MWh new-build LCOE) are the signature of peaking duty.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.dispatchability.world.2026.qualitative",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "dispatchability",
      "value": "Dispatchable, traditionally baseload but now cycling in the US (fleet capacity factor 42.6% in 2024); slow starts (hours) and limited ramping compared with gas.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "US EIA Electric Power Annual 2024, Table 4.08.A; Lazard LCOE+ v19 (2026) key assumptions (CF 65-85%)",
      "source_url": "https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_a.html",
      "source_name": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual, Table 4.08.A Capacity factors for utility scale generators primarily using fossil fuels",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "EIA 2024 CF 42.6% vs Lazard's design-basis 65-85% shows US coal plants being dispatched well below baseload. Flexibility retrofits (e.g. Neurath, Germany: minimum load cut from 440 to 270 MW, ramp 5 to 15 MW/min) are documented in IEA Status of Power System Transformation 2018 case studies (ADB presentation, June 2018).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydro.dispatchability.world.2026.qualitative",
      "source_type": "hydro",
      "metric": "dispatchability",
      "value": "Dispatchable where there is a reservoir (fast ramping, seconds to minutes, also pumped storage); run-of-river output is seasonal/variable. US fleet capacity factor 34.6% (2024), IRENA 2024 new-project average 48%.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "US EIA Electric Power Annual 2024, Table 4.08.B; IRENA (2025) Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024, Table S1",
      "source_url": "https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_b.html",
      "source_name": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual, Table 4.08.B Capacity factors for utility scale generators primarily using non-fossil fuels",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Reservoir hydro is the classic flexible low-carbon resource; the low US CF reflects energy-limited operation (water availability), not unavailability. Ramp-rate figures were not captured from a source read today.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "battery_storage.dispatchability.world.2026.qualitative",
      "source_type": "battery_storage",
      "metric": "dispatchability",
      "value": "Dispatchable within its energy limit: lithium-ion systems respond in milliseconds but typical utility systems hold 2-4 hours of output (Lazard: 100 MW / 4 h, 350 cycles/yr), so they shift energy within a day rather than across weather weeks.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "Lazard LCOE+ v19 (2026), LCOS v11.0 case assumptions (p.38); ENTSO-E (2020) Inertia and RoCoF (battery fast frequency response)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "ENTSO-E: battery storage is 'a good technical solution to provide fast frequency response'. Lazard firming analysis uses storage ELCC of 55-96% depending on ISO (p.34).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.inertia.europe.2020.qualitative",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "inertia",
      "value": "Synchronous generator: the rotating turbine-generator mass inherently provides system inertia (kinetic energy that resists frequency change in the first seconds after a disturbance). Large nuclear units (1,000+ MW) are among the biggest single contributors of inertia on a grid.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2020,
      "region": "europe",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "ENTSO-E (2020), 'Inertia and Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF)', v17, 16 Dec 2020",
      "source_url": "https://eepublicdownloads.entsoe.eu/clean-documents/SOC%20documents/Inertia%20and%20RoCoF_v17_clean.pdf",
      "source_name": "ENTSO-E (16 Dec 2020), 'Inertia and Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF)', Version 17, System Protection & Dynamics Inertia TF",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "ENTSO-E: system inertia H is 'the ratio of the kinetic energy of rotating masses of the system and the rated power S'; with more converter-connected generation 'the synchronous inertia will inevitably decline'; RoCoF above 1 Hz/s is 'not manageable by system protections'; remedies: synchronous condensers, synthetic inertia, fast frequency response from batteries, minimum-inertia requirements. Hydrogen row is the atlas author's reading of the technology types against ENTSO-E's synchronous/converter distinction.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.inertia.europe.2020.qualitative",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "inertia",
      "value": "Synchronous generator: the rotating turbine-generator mass inherently provides system inertia (kinetic energy that resists frequency change in the first seconds after a disturbance).",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2020,
      "region": "europe",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "ENTSO-E (2020), 'Inertia and Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF)', v17, 16 Dec 2020",
      "source_url": "https://eepublicdownloads.entsoe.eu/clean-documents/SOC%20documents/Inertia%20and%20RoCoF_v17_clean.pdf",
      "source_name": "ENTSO-E (16 Dec 2020), 'Inertia and Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF)', Version 17, System Protection & Dynamics Inertia TF",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "ENTSO-E: system inertia H is 'the ratio of the kinetic energy of rotating masses of the system and the rated power S'; with more converter-connected generation 'the synchronous inertia will inevitably decline'; RoCoF above 1 Hz/s is 'not manageable by system protections'; remedies: synchronous condensers, synthetic inertia, fast frequency response from batteries, minimum-inertia requirements. Hydrogen row is the atlas author's reading of the technology types against ENTSO-E's synchronous/converter distinction.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.inertia.europe.2020.qualitative",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "inertia",
      "value": "Synchronous generator: the rotating turbine-generator mass inherently provides system inertia (kinetic energy that resists frequency change in the first seconds after a disturbance). Both the gas turbine and the steam turbine generators are synchronous.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2020,
      "region": "europe",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "ENTSO-E (2020), 'Inertia and Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF)', v17, 16 Dec 2020",
      "source_url": "https://eepublicdownloads.entsoe.eu/clean-documents/SOC%20documents/Inertia%20and%20RoCoF_v17_clean.pdf",
      "source_name": "ENTSO-E (16 Dec 2020), 'Inertia and Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF)', Version 17, System Protection & Dynamics Inertia TF",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "ENTSO-E: system inertia H is 'the ratio of the kinetic energy of rotating masses of the system and the rated power S'; with more converter-connected generation 'the synchronous inertia will inevitably decline'; RoCoF above 1 Hz/s is 'not manageable by system protections'; remedies: synchronous condensers, synthetic inertia, fast frequency response from batteries, minimum-inertia requirements. Hydrogen row is the atlas author's reading of the technology types against ENTSO-E's synchronous/converter distinction.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_peaker.inertia.europe.2020.qualitative",
      "source_type": "gas_peaker",
      "metric": "inertia",
      "value": "Synchronous generator: the rotating turbine-generator mass inherently provides system inertia (kinetic energy that resists frequency change in the first seconds after a disturbance). Open-cycle gas turbines provide inertia only while running (low capacity factor).",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2020,
      "region": "europe",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "ENTSO-E (2020), 'Inertia and Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF)', v17, 16 Dec 2020",
      "source_url": "https://eepublicdownloads.entsoe.eu/clean-documents/SOC%20documents/Inertia%20and%20RoCoF_v17_clean.pdf",
      "source_name": "ENTSO-E (16 Dec 2020), 'Inertia and Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF)', Version 17, System Protection & Dynamics Inertia TF",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "ENTSO-E: system inertia H is 'the ratio of the kinetic energy of rotating masses of the system and the rated power S'; with more converter-connected generation 'the synchronous inertia will inevitably decline'; RoCoF above 1 Hz/s is 'not manageable by system protections'; remedies: synchronous condensers, synthetic inertia, fast frequency response from batteries, minimum-inertia requirements. Hydrogen row is the atlas author's reading of the technology types against ENTSO-E's synchronous/converter distinction.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydro.inertia.europe.2020.qualitative",
      "source_type": "hydro",
      "metric": "inertia",
      "value": "Synchronous generator: the rotating turbine-generator mass inherently provides system inertia (kinetic energy that resists frequency change in the first seconds after a disturbance). Hydro units can also run as synchronous condensers to supply inertia without generating.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2020,
      "region": "europe",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "ENTSO-E (2020), 'Inertia and Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF)', v17, 16 Dec 2020",
      "source_url": "https://eepublicdownloads.entsoe.eu/clean-documents/SOC%20documents/Inertia%20and%20RoCoF_v17_clean.pdf",
      "source_name": "ENTSO-E (16 Dec 2020), 'Inertia and Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF)', Version 17, System Protection & Dynamics Inertia TF",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "ENTSO-E: system inertia H is 'the ratio of the kinetic energy of rotating masses of the system and the rated power S'; with more converter-connected generation 'the synchronous inertia will inevitably decline'; RoCoF above 1 Hz/s is 'not manageable by system protections'; remedies: synchronous condensers, synthetic inertia, fast frequency response from batteries, minimum-inertia requirements. Hydrogen row is the atlas author's reading of the technology types against ENTSO-E's synchronous/converter distinction.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.inertia.europe.2020.qualitative",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "inertia",
      "value": "Converter (inverter)-connected: 'delivers, therefore, in principle no additional inertia to the power system' (ENTSO-E); synthetic inertia or fast frequency response can be programmed but is not inherent.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2020,
      "region": "europe",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "ENTSO-E (2020), 'Inertia and Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF)', v17, 16 Dec 2020",
      "source_url": "https://eepublicdownloads.entsoe.eu/clean-documents/SOC%20documents/Inertia%20and%20RoCoF_v17_clean.pdf",
      "source_name": "ENTSO-E (16 Dec 2020), 'Inertia and Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF)', Version 17, System Protection & Dynamics Inertia TF",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "ENTSO-E: system inertia H is 'the ratio of the kinetic energy of rotating masses of the system and the rated power S'; with more converter-connected generation 'the synchronous inertia will inevitably decline'; RoCoF above 1 Hz/s is 'not manageable by system protections'; remedies: synchronous condensers, synthetic inertia, fast frequency response from batteries, minimum-inertia requirements. Hydrogen row is the atlas author's reading of the technology types against ENTSO-E's synchronous/converter distinction.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.inertia.europe.2020.qualitative",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "inertia",
      "value": "Converter (inverter)-connected: 'delivers, therefore, in principle no additional inertia to the power system' (ENTSO-E); synthetic inertia or fast frequency response can be programmed but is not inherent. ENTSO-E notes wind 'synthetic inertia' can reduce the frequency nadir and RoCoF but may cause a second nadir.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2020,
      "region": "europe",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "ENTSO-E (2020), 'Inertia and Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF)', v17, 16 Dec 2020",
      "source_url": "https://eepublicdownloads.entsoe.eu/clean-documents/SOC%20documents/Inertia%20and%20RoCoF_v17_clean.pdf",
      "source_name": "ENTSO-E (16 Dec 2020), 'Inertia and Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF)', Version 17, System Protection & Dynamics Inertia TF",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "ENTSO-E: system inertia H is 'the ratio of the kinetic energy of rotating masses of the system and the rated power S'; with more converter-connected generation 'the synchronous inertia will inevitably decline'; RoCoF above 1 Hz/s is 'not manageable by system protections'; remedies: synchronous condensers, synthetic inertia, fast frequency response from batteries, minimum-inertia requirements. Hydrogen row is the atlas author's reading of the technology types against ENTSO-E's synchronous/converter distinction.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_offshore.inertia.europe.2020.qualitative",
      "source_type": "wind_offshore",
      "metric": "inertia",
      "value": "Converter (inverter)-connected: 'delivers, therefore, in principle no additional inertia to the power system' (ENTSO-E); synthetic inertia or fast frequency response can be programmed but is not inherent. Offshore wind connected via HVDC cannot yet provide inertia ('not state of the art yet', ENTSO-E).",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2020,
      "region": "europe",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "ENTSO-E (2020), 'Inertia and Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF)', v17, 16 Dec 2020",
      "source_url": "https://eepublicdownloads.entsoe.eu/clean-documents/SOC%20documents/Inertia%20and%20RoCoF_v17_clean.pdf",
      "source_name": "ENTSO-E (16 Dec 2020), 'Inertia and Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF)', Version 17, System Protection & Dynamics Inertia TF",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "ENTSO-E: system inertia H is 'the ratio of the kinetic energy of rotating masses of the system and the rated power S'; with more converter-connected generation 'the synchronous inertia will inevitably decline'; RoCoF above 1 Hz/s is 'not manageable by system protections'; remedies: synchronous condensers, synthetic inertia, fast frequency response from batteries, minimum-inertia requirements. Hydrogen row is the atlas author's reading of the technology types against ENTSO-E's synchronous/converter distinction.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "battery_storage.inertia.europe.2020.qualitative",
      "source_type": "battery_storage",
      "metric": "inertia",
      "value": "Converter (inverter)-connected: 'delivers, therefore, in principle no additional inertia to the power system' (ENTSO-E); synthetic inertia or fast frequency response can be programmed but is not inherent. Batteries are the preferred fast-frequency-response resource (ENTSO-E: 'a good technical solution to provide fast frequency response'); grid-forming inverters can emulate inertia.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2020,
      "region": "europe",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "ENTSO-E (2020), 'Inertia and Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF)', v17, 16 Dec 2020",
      "source_url": "https://eepublicdownloads.entsoe.eu/clean-documents/SOC%20documents/Inertia%20and%20RoCoF_v17_clean.pdf",
      "source_name": "ENTSO-E (16 Dec 2020), 'Inertia and Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF)', Version 17, System Protection & Dynamics Inertia TF",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "ENTSO-E: system inertia H is 'the ratio of the kinetic energy of rotating masses of the system and the rated power S'; with more converter-connected generation 'the synchronous inertia will inevitably decline'; RoCoF above 1 Hz/s is 'not manageable by system protections'; remedies: synchronous condensers, synthetic inertia, fast frequency response from batteries, minimum-inertia requirements. Hydrogen row is the atlas author's reading of the technology types against ENTSO-E's synchronous/converter distinction.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydrogen.inertia.europe.2020.qualitative",
      "source_type": "hydrogen",
      "metric": "inertia",
      "value": "Depends on the re-conversion technology: hydrogen burned in a gas turbine drives a synchronous generator (inherent inertia); a fuel cell is inverter-connected (no inherent inertia). Electrolysers are flexible loads that can provide demand-side frequency response.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2020,
      "region": "europe",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "ENTSO-E (2020), 'Inertia and Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF)', v17, 16 Dec 2020",
      "source_url": "https://eepublicdownloads.entsoe.eu/clean-documents/SOC%20documents/Inertia%20and%20RoCoF_v17_clean.pdf",
      "source_name": "ENTSO-E (16 Dec 2020), 'Inertia and Rate of Change of Frequency (RoCoF)', Version 17, System Protection & Dynamics Inertia TF",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "ENTSO-E: system inertia H is 'the ratio of the kinetic energy of rotating masses of the system and the rated power S'; with more converter-connected generation 'the synchronous inertia will inevitably decline'; RoCoF above 1 Hz/s is 'not manageable by system protections'; remedies: synchronous condensers, synthetic inertia, fast frequency response from batteries, minimum-inertia requirements. Hydrogen row is the atlas author's reading of the technology types against ENTSO-E's synchronous/converter distinction.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.wildlife.usa.2017.usfws-compilation-of-loss-et-al-2013b",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "wildlife",
      "value": 234012,
      "low": 140438,
      "high": 327586,
      "unit": "birds killed per year, US land-based wind (median; min-max)",
      "year": 2017,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "USFWS compilation of Loss et al. 2013b",
      "citation": "US Fish & Wildlife Service, 'Threats to Birds' (estimates as of 2017), citing Loss, Will & Marra (2013b)",
      "source_url": "https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds",
      "source_name": "US Fish & Wildlife Service, 'Threats to Birds: Migratory Bird Mortality - Questions and Answers' (estimates as of 2017; Loss et al. 2013b for wind)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Wind turbines (land-based, collisions): 140,438-327,586, median 234,012 birds/yr. For scale, the same USFWS table lists building glass 599 million, cats 2.4 billion, vehicles 214.5 million, communication towers 6.6 million, electrocutions 5.6 million, oil pits 750,000. Bats: wind turbines are also a leading cause of bat mortality (several hundred thousand per year in North America per Hayes 2013 / Smallwood 2013) - not re-verified in this task.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.wildlife.usa.2012.sovacool-2012-whole-fuel-cycle-estimate",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "wildlife",
      "value": 0.27,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "avian fatalities per GWh",
      "year": 2012,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Sovacool 2012 whole-fuel-cycle estimate",
      "citation": "Sovacool, B.K. (2012), J. Integrative Environmental Sciences 9(4): 255-278",
      "source_url": "https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/avian-wildlife-costs-fossil-fuels-nuclear-power",
      "source_name": "Sovacool, B.K. (2012), 'The avian and wildlife costs of fossil fuels and nuclear power', Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 9(4): 255-278, doi 10.1080/1943815X.2012.746993 (abstract via Tethys)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "'wind farms are responsible for roughly 0.27 avian fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity'; ~46,000 US bird deaths from wind in 2009 vs ~460,000 for nuclear and ~24 million for fossil-fuelled plants. The fossil and nuclear figures include upstream (mining, uranium milling) and, for fossil fuels, climate-change-attributed mortality, so the estimates are contested; the wind figure is collision-based.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.wildlife.usa.2012.sovacool-2012-whole-fuel-cycle-estimate",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "wildlife",
      "value": 0.6,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "avian fatalities per GWh",
      "year": 2012,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Sovacool 2012 whole-fuel-cycle estimate",
      "citation": "Sovacool, B.K. (2012), J. Integrative Environmental Sciences 9(4): 255-278",
      "source_url": "https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/avian-wildlife-costs-fossil-fuels-nuclear-power",
      "source_name": "Sovacool, B.K. (2012), 'The avian and wildlife costs of fossil fuels and nuclear power', Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 9(4): 255-278, doi 10.1080/1943815X.2012.746993 (abstract via Tethys)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "low",
      "notes": "'nuclear power plants involve 0.6 fatalities per GWh' - includes uranium mining/milling habitat effects and cooling-tower/transmission collisions; the method has been criticised for attributing diffuse habitat impacts; treat as an upper-bound order of magnitude. Direct plant-site impacts are mainly cooling-water intake effects on fish and thermal discharge (qualitative).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.wildlife.usa.2012.sovacool-2012-whole-fuel-cycle-estimate-fossil-fuels-combine",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "wildlife",
      "value": 9.4,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "avian fatalities per GWh (fossil-fuelled power stations)",
      "year": 2012,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Sovacool 2012 whole-fuel-cycle estimate (fossil fuels combined)",
      "citation": "Sovacool, B.K. (2012), J. Integrative Environmental Sciences 9(4): 255-278",
      "source_url": "https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/avian-wildlife-costs-fossil-fuels-nuclear-power",
      "source_name": "Sovacool, B.K. (2012), 'The avian and wildlife costs of fossil fuels and nuclear power', Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 9(4): 255-278, doi 10.1080/1943815X.2012.746993 (abstract via Tethys)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "low",
      "notes": "'fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 9.4 fatalities per GWh' - dominated by coal (mountaintop-removal mining habitat loss, acid rain, mercury, and modelled climate-change mortality). Not coal-specific; applies to the fossil fleet as a whole.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.wildlife.usa.2012.sovacool-2012-whole-fuel-cycle-estimate-fossil-fuels-combine",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "wildlife",
      "value": 9.4,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "avian fatalities per GWh (fossil-fuelled power stations)",
      "year": 2012,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Sovacool 2012 whole-fuel-cycle estimate (fossil fuels combined)",
      "citation": "Sovacool, B.K. (2012), J. Integrative Environmental Sciences 9(4): 255-278",
      "source_url": "https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/avian-wildlife-costs-fossil-fuels-nuclear-power",
      "source_name": "Sovacool, B.K. (2012), 'The avian and wildlife costs of fossil fuels and nuclear power', Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 9(4): 255-278, doi 10.1080/1943815X.2012.746993 (abstract via Tethys)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "low",
      "notes": "Same combined fossil-fuel figure as the coal row; gas-specific avian mortality is lower (no ash, no mining) and mostly from well pads, pipelines and flaring - no gas-only figure captured.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.wildlife.usa.2016.walston-et-al-2016-extrapolation-installed-and-under-constru",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "wildlife",
      "value": null,
      "low": 37800,
      "high": 138600,
      "unit": "birds killed per year at US utility-scale solar facilities",
      "year": 2016,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "Walston et al. 2016 extrapolation (installed and under-construction USSE)",
      "citation": "Walston et al. (2016), Renewable Energy 92: 405-414",
      "source_url": "https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/renene/v92y2016icp405-414.html",
      "source_name": "Walston, L.J., Rollins, K.E., LaGory, K.E., Smith, K.P., Meyers, S.A. (2016), 'A preliminary assessment of avian mortality at utility-scale solar energy facilities in the United States', Renewable Energy 92: 405-414, doi 10.1016/j.renene.2016.02.041 (abstract via IDEAS/RePEc)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "'between 16,200 and 59,400 birds in the southern California region ... extrapolated to between 37,800 and 138,600 birds for all USSE facilities across the United States'. Covers PV and CSP (incl. solar-flux 'streamer' deaths at power towers). Habitat conversion of desert land is the larger ecological concern at utility-scale sites.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydro.wildlife.world.2019.qualitative-grill-et-al-2019",
      "source_type": "hydro",
      "metric": "wildlife",
      "value": "Dams and reservoirs are 'the leading contributors to the loss of river connectivity': only 37% of rivers longer than 1,000 km remain free-flowing over their entire length (Grill et al. 2019). Barriers block fish migration, alter flow and temperature regimes and flood terrestrial habitat.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2019,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative, Grill et al. 2019",
      "citation": "Grill, G. et al. (2019), 'Mapping the world's free-flowing rivers', Nature 569: 215-221",
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1111-9",
      "source_name": "Grill, G. et al. (2019), 'Mapping the world's free-flowing rivers', Nature 569: 215-221",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Quote: 'Only 37 per cent of rivers longer than 1,000 kilometres remain free-flowing over their entire length'; assessment of 12 million km of rivers. Fish-mortality rates per TWh were not sourced in this task.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.landscape.world.2026.qualitative",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "landscape",
      "value": "Compact: a 1,000 MW plant occupies about 1.3 square miles (3.4 km2) of site (NEI, median of 59 US sites); visual impact concentrated in cooling towers (up to ~200 m) or a coastal/lakeside site with the dome. Fuel-cycle land (uranium mining) is small per TWh (Lovering 2022: 7.1 ha/TWh/y total).",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "NEI (2015) land-needs comparison; Lovering et al. (2022) PLOS ONE",
      "source_url": "https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants",
      "source_name": "Nuclear Energy Institute (9 Jul 2015), 'Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant's Footprint' (citing NEI 'Land Requirements for Carbon-Free Technologies', 2015)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Qualitative synthesis of the cited quantitative sources; no landscape-perception survey data were sourced in this task.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.landscape.world.2026.qualitative",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "landscape",
      "value": "Extensive but low: ground-mounted PV covers 7-9 acres per MWac (Ong 2013; ~3 ha/MW) across the whole site, changing land use from farmland/desert to fenced arrays 2-4 m high; rooftop PV has near-zero additional landscape impact.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "Ong et al. (2013), NREL/TP-6A20-56290; Lovering et al. (2022)",
      "source_url": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc841450/m2/1/high_res_d/1086349.pdf",
      "source_name": "Ong, S., Campbell, C., Denholm, P., Margolis, R., Heath, G. (June 2013), 'Land-Use Requirements for Solar Power Plants in the United States', NREL/TP-6A20-56290",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Qualitative synthesis of the cited quantitative sources; no landscape-perception survey data were sourced in this task.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.landscape.world.2026.qualitative",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "landscape",
      "value": "Dispersed and tall: turbines installed in the US in 2023 average 3.4 MW with 103 m hub height and 134 m rotor diameter (DOE), visible for tens of kilometres; the project area is 34.5 ha/MW but only ~1 ha/MW is physically occupied (Denholm 2009), so farming continues between turbines.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "US DOE 'Wind Turbines: the Bigger, the Better' (2024); Denholm et al. (2009), NREL/TP-6A2-45834",
      "source_url": "https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/wind-turbines-bigger-better",
      "source_name": "US DOE EERE, 'Wind Turbines: the Bigger, the Better' (updated Aug 2024), citing the Land-Based Wind Market Report: 2024 Edition (LBNL)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Qualitative synthesis of the cited quantitative sources; no landscape-perception survey data were sourced in this task.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_offshore.landscape.world.2026.qualitative",
      "source_type": "wind_offshore",
      "metric": "landscape",
      "value": "Marine rather than land area: turbines (often larger than onshore) stand in the sea; visual impact from shore depends on distance (OWID treats offshore area as marine, not land), plus onshore substations and cable landfalls.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "Ritchie (2022), OWID land-use article (offshore treated as marine area); IRENA (2025) offshore installed cost 2,852 USD/kW",
      "source_url": "https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source",
      "source_name": "Ritchie, H. (2022-06-16), 'How does the land use of different electricity sources compare?', Our World in Data",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Qualitative synthesis of the cited quantitative sources; no landscape-perception survey data were sourced in this task.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydro.landscape.world.2026.qualitative",
      "source_type": "hydro",
      "metric": "landscape",
      "value": "Largest direct footprint of all sources: reservoirs flood valleys (UNECE land use 33.4 m2/MWh - the highest in the UNECE dataset; Lovering median 650 ha/TWh/y, mean 15,000), permanently transforming landscapes and displacing settlements; run-of-river plants are far smaller.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "UNECE (2021) via OWID dataset; Lovering et al. (2022)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Life-cycle%20impacts%20of%20energy%20sources%20(UNECE)",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022), based on UNECE (2021) Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Qualitative synthesis of the cited quantitative sources; no landscape-perception survey data were sourced in this task.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.landscape.world.2026.qualitative",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "landscape",
      "value": "Mining landscapes dominate: open-cast and mountaintop-removal mines plus ash ponds give coal a land-use intensity of 1,000 ha/TWh/y (Lovering 2022) and 14.9 m2/MWh (UNECE), far above the power station itself; plants have tall stacks and cooling towers.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "Lovering et al. (2022); UNECE (2021) via OWID dataset",
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270155",
      "source_name": "Lovering, J., Swain, M., Blomqvist, L., Hernandez, R.R. (2022), 'Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow's energy landscape', PLOS ONE 17(7): e0270155",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Qualitative synthesis of the cited quantitative sources; no landscape-perception survey data were sourced in this task.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.landscape.world.2026.qualitative",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "landscape",
      "value": "Small plant footprint (UNECE 1.0 m2/MWh) but a dispersed upstream landscape of well pads, pipelines and gas fields (Lovering 2022: footprint 410, spacing 1,900 ha/TWh/y).",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "Lovering et al. (2022); UNECE (2021) via OWID dataset",
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270155",
      "source_name": "Lovering, J., Swain, M., Blomqvist, L., Hernandez, R.R. (2022), 'Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow's energy landscape', PLOS ONE 17(7): e0270155",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Qualitative synthesis of the cited quantitative sources; no landscape-perception survey data were sourced in this task.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_peaker.landscape.world.2026.qualitative",
      "source_type": "gas_peaker",
      "metric": "landscape",
      "value": "As for gas CCGT: compact plant, often sited at substations or industrial sites; run only a few hundred hours a year (EIA 2024 CF 13.9%), so visual/noise impact is intermittent.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "US EIA Electric Power Annual 2024, Table 4.08.A; Lovering et al. (2022) natural gas rows",
      "source_url": "https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_a.html",
      "source_name": "US EIA, Electric Power Annual, Table 4.08.A Capacity factors for utility scale generators primarily using fossil fuels",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Qualitative synthesis of the cited quantitative sources; no landscape-perception survey data were sourced in this task.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "battery_storage.landscape.world.2026.qualitative",
      "source_type": "battery_storage",
      "metric": "landscape",
      "value": "Industrial-scale containers on a few hectares next to substations or solar/wind plants; landscape impact comparable to a small industrial site. No published land-use intensity captured in this task.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "Lazard LCOE+ v19 (2026), LCOS case definitions (100 MW / 400 MWh system)",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Lazard, Levelized Cost of Energy+ (LCOE v19.0, LCOS v11.0), July 2026",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "low",
      "notes": "Qualitative synthesis of the cited quantitative sources; no landscape-perception survey data were sourced in this task.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydrogen.landscape.world.2026.qualitative",
      "source_type": "hydrogen",
      "metric": "landscape",
      "value": "Industrial: electrolyser halls, compressors and either salt-cavern storage (underground, little surface change) or above-ground tanks; PNNL costs cavern storage at 2-10 USD/kWh. No published land-use intensity captured in this task.",
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "text",
      "year": 2026,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "qualitative",
      "citation": "PNNL (2020), Hydrogen chapter (cavern storage costs)",
      "source_url": "https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/Hydrogen_Methodology.pdf",
      "source_name": "PNNL, Energy Storage Grand Challenge Cost and Performance Assessment 2020, Hydrogen chapter",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "low",
      "notes": "Qualitative synthesis of the cited quantitative sources; no landscape-perception survey data were sourced in this task.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.construction_time.world.2024.observed-median-reactors-grid-connected-in-2024-not-captured",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "construction_time",
      "value": null,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "months",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "observed median, reactors grid-connected in 2024 (not captured)",
      "citation": "WNA World Nuclear Performance Report 2025 (PDF not retrievable); WNA press statement 1 Sep 2025",
      "source_url": "https://world-nuclear.org/news-and-media/press-statements/world-nuclear-performance-report-2025-nuclear-delivers-record-breaking-year-in-electricity-generation",
      "source_name": "World Nuclear Association, press statement on World Nuclear Performance Report 2025 (1 Sep 2025)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "low",
      "notes": "null: the WNPR 2025 PDF (which tabulates median construction time of reactors connected each year) could not be fetched; the press statement gives only 7 grid connections and 9 construction starts in 2024 and 70 reactors under construction. The atlas's own reactors.json (construction start / grid connection dates from PRIS) can supply observed durations, but deriving them here would breach the no-derivation rule. Lazard's 84-month assumption is a US new-build input, not an observed value.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.lifecycle_co2.world.2021.unece-hard-coal-pulverised-combustion-no-ccs",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "lifecycle_co2",
      "value": 970.0,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "g CO2-eq/kWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "UNECE: hard coal, pulverised combustion (no CCS)",
      "citation": "UNECE (2021/2022), Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options, as published in the OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Life-cycle%20impacts%20of%20energy%20sources%20(UNECE)",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022), based on UNECE (2021) Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Coal', column ghg_emissions (OWID unit kgCO2e per MWh = g CO2-eq per kWh). Full life cycle incl. fuel chain and construction. Same OWID row also carries copper_use 23.61598205 (unit not given in the OWID datapackage, not emitted as a row); UNECE 2021 report https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/10/reports/life-cycle-assessment-electricity-generation-options . Note: UNECE's 2021 report gives nuclear 5.1-6.4 g/kWh across regions; OWID carries the single value 970.0.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.land_use.world.2021.unece-hard-coal-pulverised-combustion-no-ccs",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": 14.87955245,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "m2 per MWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "UNECE: hard coal, pulverised combustion (no CCS)",
      "citation": "UNECE (2021/2022), Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options, as published in the OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Life-cycle%20impacts%20of%20energy%20sources%20(UNECE)",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022), based on UNECE (2021) Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Coal', column land_use_energy, 'total amount of land needed per unit of electricity production' incl. direct plant land and indirect land from mining of fuels and materials (OWID description); values reflect the UNECE corrigendum of 8 Jul 2022 ( https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/Corrigendum%20to%20UNECE%20LCA%20report%20-%20land%20use.pdf ).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.lifecycle_co2.world.2021.unece-natural-gas-combined-cycle-no-ccs",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "lifecycle_co2",
      "value": 439.0,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "g CO2-eq/kWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "UNECE: natural gas combined cycle (no CCS)",
      "citation": "UNECE (2021/2022), Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options, as published in the OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Life-cycle%20impacts%20of%20energy%20sources%20(UNECE)",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022), based on UNECE (2021) Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Gas', column ghg_emissions (OWID unit kgCO2e per MWh = g CO2-eq per kWh). Full life cycle incl. fuel chain and construction. Same OWID row also carries copper_use 11.06214674 (unit not given in the OWID datapackage, not emitted as a row); UNECE 2021 report https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/10/reports/life-cycle-assessment-electricity-generation-options . Note: UNECE's 2021 report gives nuclear 5.1-6.4 g/kWh across regions; OWID carries the single value 439.0.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.land_use.world.2021.unece-natural-gas-combined-cycle-no-ccs",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": 1.03878475,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "m2 per MWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "UNECE: natural gas combined cycle (no CCS)",
      "citation": "UNECE (2021/2022), Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options, as published in the OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Life-cycle%20impacts%20of%20energy%20sources%20(UNECE)",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022), based on UNECE (2021) Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Gas', column land_use_energy, 'total amount of land needed per unit of electricity production' incl. direct plant land and indirect land from mining of fuels and materials (OWID description); values reflect the UNECE corrigendum of 8 Jul 2022 ( https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/Corrigendum%20to%20UNECE%20LCA%20report%20-%20land%20use.pdf ).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydro.lifecycle_co2.world.2021.unece-hydropower-reservoir-660-mw",
      "source_type": "hydro",
      "metric": "lifecycle_co2",
      "value": 117.0,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "g CO2-eq/kWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "UNECE: hydropower (reservoir, 660 MW)",
      "citation": "UNECE (2021/2022), Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options, as published in the OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Life-cycle%20impacts%20of%20energy%20sources%20(UNECE)",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022), based on UNECE (2021) Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Hydropower', column ghg_emissions (OWID unit kgCO2e per MWh = g CO2-eq per kWh). Full life cycle incl. fuel chain and construction. Same OWID row also carries copper_use 2.31314122 (unit not given in the OWID datapackage, not emitted as a row); UNECE 2021 report https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/10/reports/life-cycle-assessment-electricity-generation-options . Note: UNECE's 2021 report gives nuclear 5.1-6.4 g/kWh across regions; OWID carries the single value 117.0.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydro.land_use.world.2021.unece-hydropower-reservoir-660-mw",
      "source_type": "hydro",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": 33.38814344,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "m2 per MWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "UNECE: hydropower (reservoir, 660 MW)",
      "citation": "UNECE (2021/2022), Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options, as published in the OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Life-cycle%20impacts%20of%20energy%20sources%20(UNECE)",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022), based on UNECE (2021) Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Hydropower', column land_use_energy, 'total amount of land needed per unit of electricity production' incl. direct plant land and indirect land from mining of fuels and materials (OWID description); values reflect the UNECE corrigendum of 8 Jul 2022 ( https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/Corrigendum%20to%20UNECE%20LCA%20report%20-%20land%20use.pdf ).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.lifecycle_co2.world.2021.unece-nuclear-average-of-lwr-cases",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "lifecycle_co2",
      "value": 5.6,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "g CO2-eq/kWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "UNECE: nuclear (average of LWR cases)",
      "citation": "UNECE (2021/2022), Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options, as published in the OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Life-cycle%20impacts%20of%20energy%20sources%20(UNECE)",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022), based on UNECE (2021) Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Nuclear', column ghg_emissions (OWID unit kgCO2e per MWh = g CO2-eq per kWh). Full life cycle incl. fuel chain and construction. Same OWID row also carries copper_use 20.87381416 (unit not given in the OWID datapackage, not emitted as a row); UNECE 2021 report https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/10/reports/life-cycle-assessment-electricity-generation-options . Note: UNECE's 2021 report gives nuclear 5.1-6.4 g/kWh across regions; OWID carries the single value 5.6.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.land_use.world.2021.unece-nuclear-average-of-lwr-cases",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": 0.329269362,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "m2 per MWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "UNECE: nuclear (average of LWR cases)",
      "citation": "UNECE (2021/2022), Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options, as published in the OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Life-cycle%20impacts%20of%20energy%20sources%20(UNECE)",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022), based on UNECE (2021) Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Nuclear', column land_use_energy, 'total amount of land needed per unit of electricity production' incl. direct plant land and indirect land from mining of fuels and materials (OWID description); values reflect the UNECE corrigendum of 8 Jul 2022 ( https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/Corrigendum%20to%20UNECE%20LCA%20report%20-%20land%20use.pdf ).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_offshore.lifecycle_co2.world.2021.unece-offshore-wind",
      "source_type": "wind_offshore",
      "metric": "lifecycle_co2",
      "value": 17.0,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "g CO2-eq/kWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "UNECE: offshore wind",
      "citation": "UNECE (2021/2022), Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options, as published in the OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Life-cycle%20impacts%20of%20energy%20sources%20(UNECE)",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022), based on UNECE (2021) Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Offshore wind', column ghg_emissions (OWID unit kgCO2e per MWh = g CO2-eq per kWh). Full life cycle incl. fuel chain and construction. Same OWID row also carries copper_use 42.78459439 (unit not given in the OWID datapackage, not emitted as a row); UNECE 2021 report https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/10/reports/life-cycle-assessment-electricity-generation-options . Note: UNECE's 2021 report gives nuclear 5.1-6.4 g/kWh across regions; OWID carries the single value 17.0.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_offshore.land_use.world.2021.unece-offshore-wind",
      "source_type": "wind_offshore",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": null,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "m2 per MWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "UNECE: offshore wind",
      "citation": "UNECE (2021/2022), Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options, as published in the OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Life-cycle%20impacts%20of%20energy%20sources%20(UNECE)",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022), based on UNECE (2021) Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "null: OWID entity 'Offshore wind' has no land_use_energy value after the UNECE July 2022 corrigendum (wind land occupation was withdrawn/corrected: the corrigendum states wind figures were not comparable because spacing land is not occupied). Use the Lovering et al. 2022 / NREL rows for wind land use.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.lifecycle_co2.world.2021.unece-onshore-wind",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "lifecycle_co2",
      "value": 11.0,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "g CO2-eq/kWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "UNECE: onshore wind",
      "citation": "UNECE (2021/2022), Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options, as published in the OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Life-cycle%20impacts%20of%20energy%20sources%20(UNECE)",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022), based on UNECE (2021) Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Onshore wind', column ghg_emissions (OWID unit kgCO2e per MWh = g CO2-eq per kWh). Full life cycle incl. fuel chain and construction. Same OWID row also carries copper_use 31.66020034 (unit not given in the OWID datapackage, not emitted as a row); UNECE 2021 report https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/10/reports/life-cycle-assessment-electricity-generation-options . Note: UNECE's 2021 report gives nuclear 5.1-6.4 g/kWh across regions; OWID carries the single value 11.0.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.land_use.world.2021.unece-onshore-wind",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": null,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "m2 per MWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "UNECE: onshore wind",
      "citation": "UNECE (2021/2022), Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options, as published in the OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Life-cycle%20impacts%20of%20energy%20sources%20(UNECE)",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022), based on UNECE (2021) Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "null: OWID entity 'Onshore wind' has no land_use_energy value after the UNECE July 2022 corrigendum (wind land occupation was withdrawn/corrected: the corrigendum states wind figures were not comparable because spacing land is not occupied). Use the Lovering et al. 2022 / NREL rows for wind land use.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.lifecycle_co2.world.2021.unece-solar-pv-cdte-ground-mounted",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "lifecycle_co2",
      "value": 16.0,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "g CO2-eq/kWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "UNECE: solar PV, CdTe, ground-mounted",
      "citation": "UNECE (2021/2022), Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options, as published in the OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Life-cycle%20impacts%20of%20energy%20sources%20(UNECE)",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022), based on UNECE (2021) Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Solar PV, cadmium (on-ground)', column ghg_emissions (OWID unit kgCO2e per MWh = g CO2-eq per kWh). Full life cycle incl. fuel chain and construction. Same OWID row also carries copper_use 85.12835161 (unit not given in the OWID datapackage, not emitted as a row); UNECE 2021 report https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/10/reports/life-cycle-assessment-electricity-generation-options . Note: UNECE's 2021 report gives nuclear 5.1-6.4 g/kWh across regions; OWID carries the single value 16.0.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.land_use.world.2021.unece-solar-pv-cdte-ground-mounted",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": 12.64669492,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "m2 per MWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "UNECE: solar PV, CdTe, ground-mounted",
      "citation": "UNECE (2021/2022), Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options, as published in the OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Life-cycle%20impacts%20of%20energy%20sources%20(UNECE)",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022), based on UNECE (2021) Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Solar PV, cadmium (on-ground)', column land_use_energy, 'total amount of land needed per unit of electricity production' incl. direct plant land and indirect land from mining of fuels and materials (OWID description); values reflect the UNECE corrigendum of 8 Jul 2022 ( https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/Corrigendum%20to%20UNECE%20LCA%20report%20-%20land%20use.pdf ).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.lifecycle_co2.world.2021.unece-solar-pv-poly-silicon-ground-mounted",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "lifecycle_co2",
      "value": 52.0,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "g CO2-eq/kWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "UNECE: solar PV, poly-silicon, ground-mounted",
      "citation": "UNECE (2021/2022), Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options, as published in the OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Life-cycle%20impacts%20of%20energy%20sources%20(UNECE)",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022), based on UNECE (2021) Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Solar PV, silicon (on-ground)', column ghg_emissions (OWID unit kgCO2e per MWh = g CO2-eq per kWh). Full life cycle incl. fuel chain and construction. Same OWID row also carries copper_use 101.8131346 (unit not given in the OWID datapackage, not emitted as a row); UNECE 2021 report https://unece.org/sed/documents/2021/10/reports/life-cycle-assessment-electricity-generation-options . Note: UNECE's 2021 report gives nuclear 5.1-6.4 g/kWh across regions; OWID carries the single value 52.0.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.land_use.world.2021.unece-solar-pv-poly-silicon-ground-mounted",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": 19.22501836,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "m2 per MWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "UNECE: solar PV, poly-silicon, ground-mounted",
      "citation": "UNECE (2021/2022), Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options, as published in the OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Life-cycle%20impacts%20of%20energy%20sources%20(UNECE)",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Life-cycle impacts of energy sources (UNECE)' (updated 8 Jul 2022), based on UNECE (2021) Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Solar PV, silicon (on-ground)', column land_use_energy, 'total amount of land needed per unit of electricity production' incl. direct plant land and indirect land from mining of fuels and materials (OWID description); values reflect the UNECE corrigendum of 8 Jul 2022 ( https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/Corrigendum%20to%20UNECE%20LCA%20report%20-%20land%20use.pdf ).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "coal.deaths_per_twh.world.2021.markandya-wilkinson-2007-air-pollution-accidents",
      "source_type": "coal",
      "metric": "deaths_per_twh",
      "value": 24.62,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "deaths per TWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "Markandya & Wilkinson 2007 (air pollution + accidents)",
      "citation": "Ritchie (2020, updated Jul 2022), 'What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?', Our World in Data; data: Markandya & Wilkinson (2007) Lancet 370:979-990; Sovacool et al. (2016)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Deaths%20per%20TWh%20energy%20production",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Deaths per TWh energy production' (Markandya & Wilkinson 2007; Sovacool et al. 2016; OWID estimates for nuclear and hydro), used in 'What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Coal' in the archived owid-datasets CSV (Year 2021). Deaths from air pollution and accidents per TWh of electricity. Article (read 2026-10-09; safety figures last updated July 2022): https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy . OWID stresses the fossil figures are conservative European estimates; global averages could be 4-9x higher. Other entities in the file: Brown coal 32.72, Oil 18.43, Biomass 4.63.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "gas_ccgt.deaths_per_twh.world.2021.markandya-wilkinson-2007-air-pollution-accidents",
      "source_type": "gas_ccgt",
      "metric": "deaths_per_twh",
      "value": 2.821,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "deaths per TWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "Markandya & Wilkinson 2007 (air pollution + accidents)",
      "citation": "Ritchie (2020, updated Jul 2022), 'What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?', Our World in Data; data: Markandya & Wilkinson (2007) Lancet 370:979-990; Sovacool et al. (2016)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Deaths%20per%20TWh%20energy%20production",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Deaths per TWh energy production' (Markandya & Wilkinson 2007; Sovacool et al. 2016; OWID estimates for nuclear and hydro), used in 'What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Gas' in the archived owid-datasets CSV (Year 2021). Deaths from air pollution and accidents per TWh of electricity. Applies to gas-fired generation generally (not CCGT-specific). Article (read 2026-10-09; safety figures last updated July 2022): https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy . OWID stresses the fossil figures are conservative European estimates; global averages could be 4-9x higher. Other entities in the file: Brown coal 32.72, Oil 18.43, Biomass 4.63.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydro.deaths_per_twh.world.2021.owid-estimate-from-sovacool-et-al-2016-accident-database-inc",
      "source_type": "hydro",
      "metric": "deaths_per_twh",
      "value": 1.3,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "deaths per TWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "OWID estimate from Sovacool et al. 2016 accident database incl. Banqiao 1975",
      "citation": "Ritchie (2020, updated Jul 2022), 'What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?', Our World in Data; data: Markandya & Wilkinson (2007) Lancet 370:979-990; Sovacool et al. (2016)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Deaths%20per%20TWh%20energy%20production",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Deaths per TWh energy production' (Markandya & Wilkinson 2007; Sovacool et al. 2016; OWID estimates for nuclear and hydro), used in 'What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Hydropower' in the archived owid-datasets CSV (Year 2021). Deaths from air pollution and accidents per TWh of electricity. Dominated by the 1975 Banqiao dam failure (China, ~171,000 deaths). Article (read 2026-10-09; safety figures last updated July 2022): https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy . OWID stresses the fossil figures are conservative European estimates; global averages could be 4-9x higher. Other entities in the file: Brown coal 32.72, Oil 18.43, Biomass 4.63.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydro.deaths_per_twh.world.2021.owid-estimate-excluding-the-1975-banqiao-dam-failure",
      "source_type": "hydro",
      "metric": "deaths_per_twh",
      "value": 0.04,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "deaths per TWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "OWID estimate excluding the 1975 Banqiao dam failure",
      "citation": "Ritchie (2020, updated Jul 2022), 'What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?', Our World in Data",
      "source_url": "https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy",
      "source_name": "Ritchie, H. (2020, updated 2022/2024), 'What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?', Our World in Data",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID: hydropower's 1.3 deaths/TWh since 1965 is 'dominated by one event', the Banqiao Dam failure; 'excluding it, the rate is just 0.04 deaths per TWh'. Endnote: about 176,000 hydropower deaths in total over 1965-2021.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.deaths_per_twh.world.2021.owid-estimate-incl-chernobyl-and-fukushima-death-tolls",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "deaths_per_twh",
      "value": 0.03,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "deaths per TWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "OWID estimate incl. Chernobyl and Fukushima death tolls",
      "citation": "Ritchie (2020, updated Jul 2022), 'What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?', Our World in Data; data: Markandya & Wilkinson (2007) Lancet 370:979-990; Sovacool et al. (2016)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Deaths%20per%20TWh%20energy%20production",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Deaths per TWh energy production' (Markandya & Wilkinson 2007; Sovacool et al. 2016; OWID estimates for nuclear and hydro), used in 'What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Nuclear' in the archived owid-datasets CSV (Year 2021). Deaths from air pollution and accidents per TWh of electricity. OWID: deaths from Chernobyl (incl. projected long-term cancer deaths) and Fukushima (incl. evacuation deaths) divided by cumulative nuclear generation; see https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima . Article (read 2026-10-09; safety figures last updated July 2022): https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy . OWID stresses the fossil figures are conservative European estimates; global averages could be 4-9x higher. Other entities in the file: Brown coal 32.72, Oil 18.43, Biomass 4.63.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.deaths_per_twh.world.2021.owid-method-note-433-chernobyl-2-314-fukushima-deaths-96-876",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "deaths_per_twh",
      "value": null,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "deaths per TWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "OWID method note: (433 Chernobyl + 2,314 Fukushima deaths) / 96,876 TWh (1965-2021)",
      "citation": "Ritchie (2020, updated Jul 2022), 'What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?', Our World in Data, endnote 3",
      "source_url": "https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy",
      "source_name": "Ritchie, H. (2020, updated 2022/2024), 'What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?', Our World in Data",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "Method row (value null to avoid re-deriving OWID's 0.03): OWID divides 433 deaths attributed to Chernobyl (incl. projected long-term cancer deaths per WHO/UNSCEAR-based estimate used by OWID) plus 2,314 Fukushima deaths (almost all evacuation-related; 1 radiation death) by 96,876 TWh of cumulative nuclear generation 1965-2021. OWID relative statement: nuclear has 99.8% fewer deaths than coal, 99.7% fewer than oil, 97.6% fewer than gas.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.deaths_per_twh.world.2021.sovacool-et-al-2016-accident-database",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "deaths_per_twh",
      "value": 0.019,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "deaths per TWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "Sovacool et al. 2016 accident database",
      "citation": "Ritchie (2020, updated Jul 2022), 'What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?', Our World in Data; data: Markandya & Wilkinson (2007) Lancet 370:979-990; Sovacool et al. (2016)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Deaths%20per%20TWh%20energy%20production",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Deaths per TWh energy production' (Markandya & Wilkinson 2007; Sovacool et al. 2016; OWID estimates for nuclear and hydro), used in 'What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Solar' in the archived owid-datasets CSV (Year 2021). Deaths from air pollution and accidents per TWh of electricity. Article (read 2026-10-09; safety figures last updated July 2022): https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy . OWID stresses the fossil figures are conservative European estimates; global averages could be 4-9x higher. Other entities in the file: Brown coal 32.72, Oil 18.43, Biomass 4.63.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.deaths_per_twh.world.2021.sovacool-et-al-2016-accident-database",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "deaths_per_twh",
      "value": 0.035,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "deaths per TWh",
      "year": 2021,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "Sovacool et al. 2016 accident database",
      "citation": "Ritchie (2020, updated Jul 2022), 'What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?', Our World in Data; data: Markandya & Wilkinson (2007) Lancet 370:979-990; Sovacool et al. (2016)",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Deaths%20per%20TWh%20energy%20production",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Deaths per TWh energy production' (Markandya & Wilkinson 2007; Sovacool et al. 2016; OWID estimates for nuclear and hydro), used in 'What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?'",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Wind' in the archived owid-datasets CSV (Year 2021). Deaths from air pollution and accidents per TWh of electricity. Applies to wind generally (Sovacool database, 1990-2013). Article (read 2026-10-09; safety figures last updated July 2022): https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy . OWID stresses the fossil figures are conservative European estimates; global averages could be 4-9x higher. Other entities in the file: Brown coal 32.72, Oil 18.43, Biomass 4.63.",
      "headline": true
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "hydro.deaths_per_twh.world.2014.sovacool-et-al-2016-accidents-only-1990-2013",
      "source_type": "hydro",
      "metric": "deaths_per_twh",
      "value": 0.0235,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "deaths per TWh",
      "year": 2014,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "Sovacool et al. 2016, accidents only, 1990-2013",
      "citation": "Sovacool, B.K. et al. (2016), 'Balancing safety with sustainability: assessing the risk of accidents for modern low-carbon energy systems', Journal of Cleaner Production 112:3952-3965",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Deaths%20per%20TWh%20from%20low-carbon%20energy%20(Sovacool%20et%20al.%2C%202016)",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Deaths per TWh from low-carbon energy (Sovacool et al., 2016)'; Sovacool et al. (2016) J. Cleaner Production 112:3952-3965",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Hydropower'. Accident fatalities only (no air pollution, no long-term radiation deaths), normalised over 1990-2013 production; accident = 'an unintentional incident or event at an energy facility that led to either one death (or more) or at least $50,000 in property damage'. Article https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652615009877 .",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.deaths_per_twh.world.2014.sovacool-et-al-2016-accidents-only-1990-2013",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "deaths_per_twh",
      "value": 0.0097,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "deaths per TWh",
      "year": 2014,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "Sovacool et al. 2016, accidents only, 1990-2013",
      "citation": "Sovacool, B.K. et al. (2016), 'Balancing safety with sustainability: assessing the risk of accidents for modern low-carbon energy systems', Journal of Cleaner Production 112:3952-3965",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Deaths%20per%20TWh%20from%20low-carbon%20energy%20(Sovacool%20et%20al.%2C%202016)",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Deaths per TWh from low-carbon energy (Sovacool et al., 2016)'; Sovacool et al. (2016) J. Cleaner Production 112:3952-3965",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Nuclear'. Accident fatalities only (no air pollution, no long-term radiation deaths), normalised over 1990-2013 production; accident = 'an unintentional incident or event at an energy facility that led to either one death (or more) or at least $50,000 in property damage'. Article https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652615009877 .",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.deaths_per_twh.world.2014.sovacool-et-al-2016-accidents-only-1990-2013",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "deaths_per_twh",
      "value": 0.019,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "deaths per TWh",
      "year": 2014,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "Sovacool et al. 2016, accidents only, 1990-2013",
      "citation": "Sovacool, B.K. et al. (2016), 'Balancing safety with sustainability: assessing the risk of accidents for modern low-carbon energy systems', Journal of Cleaner Production 112:3952-3965",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Deaths%20per%20TWh%20from%20low-carbon%20energy%20(Sovacool%20et%20al.%2C%202016)",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Deaths per TWh from low-carbon energy (Sovacool et al., 2016)'; Sovacool et al. (2016) J. Cleaner Production 112:3952-3965",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Solar'. Accident fatalities only (no air pollution, no long-term radiation deaths), normalised over 1990-2013 production; accident = 'an unintentional incident or event at an energy facility that led to either one death (or more) or at least $50,000 in property damage'. Article https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652615009877 .",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.deaths_per_twh.world.2014.sovacool-et-al-2016-accidents-only-1990-2013",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "deaths_per_twh",
      "value": 0.035,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "deaths per TWh",
      "year": 2014,
      "region": "world",
      "variant": "Sovacool et al. 2016, accidents only, 1990-2013",
      "citation": "Sovacool, B.K. et al. (2016), 'Balancing safety with sustainability: assessing the risk of accidents for modern low-carbon energy systems', Journal of Cleaner Production 112:3952-3965",
      "source_url": "https://github.com/owid/owid-datasets/tree/master/datasets/Deaths%20per%20TWh%20from%20low-carbon%20energy%20(Sovacool%20et%20al.%2C%202016)",
      "source_name": "OWID dataset 'Deaths per TWh from low-carbon energy (Sovacool et al., 2016)'; Sovacool et al. (2016) J. Cleaner Production 112:3952-3965",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "OWID entity 'Wind'. Accident fatalities only (no air pollution, no long-term radiation deaths), normalised over 1990-2013 production; accident = 'an unintentional incident or event at an energy facility that led to either one death (or more) or at least $50,000 in property damage'. Article https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652615009877 .",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.capacity_factor.usa.2024.derived",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": 7954.1,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "GWh per year from 1 GW",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "derived",
      "citation": "Derived in scripts/build_comparison_metrics.py from: EIA Electric Power Annual 2024 Table 4.08.B (capacity factors); DOE 'Wind Turbines: the Bigger, the Better' / Land-Based Wind Market Report 2024 (3.4 MW); Denholm et al. 2009 (wind land); Ong et al. 2013 (PV land); NEI 2015 (nuclear site)",
      "source_url": "https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_b.html",
      "source_name": "Nuclear Atlas worked example 'replace one 1 GW reactor' (see docs/data/comparison_metrics.md)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Annual output of a 1 GW reactor at the 2024 US fleet capacity factor: 1,000 MW x 8,760 h x 90.8% = 7,954,080 MWh = 7,954 GWh/yr. Energy equivalence only; the replacement fleets below deliver the same annual energy but not the same firm capacity (no storage/firming included).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.capacity_factor.usa.2024.derived",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": 2647.2,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "MW of onshore wind nameplate for the same annual energy",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "derived",
      "citation": "Derived in scripts/build_comparison_metrics.py from: EIA Electric Power Annual 2024 Table 4.08.B (capacity factors); DOE 'Wind Turbines: the Bigger, the Better' / Land-Based Wind Market Report 2024 (3.4 MW); Denholm et al. 2009 (wind land); Ong et al. 2013 (PV land); NEI 2015 (nuclear site)",
      "source_url": "https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_b.html",
      "source_name": "Nuclear Atlas worked example 'replace one 1 GW reactor' (see docs/data/comparison_metrics.md)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Nameplate needed = 7,954,080 MWh / (8,760 h x 34.3%) = 2,647 MW, i.e. 2.65 GW of wind per GW of nuclear (ratio = 90.8/34.3 = 2.65). Turbines at 3.4 MW each (average new US turbine 2023, DOE): 2,647 / 3.4 = 779 turbines.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "wind_onshore.land_use.usa.2024.derived",
      "source_type": "wind_onshore",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": 913.3,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "km2 total project area (Denholm 2009, 34.5 ha/MW)",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "derived",
      "citation": "Derived in scripts/build_comparison_metrics.py from: EIA Electric Power Annual 2024 Table 4.08.B (capacity factors); DOE 'Wind Turbines: the Bigger, the Better' / Land-Based Wind Market Report 2024 (3.4 MW); Denholm et al. 2009 (wind land); Ong et al. 2013 (PV land); NEI 2015 (nuclear site)",
      "source_url": "https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_b.html",
      "source_name": "Nuclear Atlas worked example 'replace one 1 GW reactor' (see docs/data/comparison_metrics.md)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "2,647 MW x 34.5 ha/MW = 91,329 ha = 913 km2 of project area (std dev +/-22.4 ha/MW gives roughly 320-1,506 km2); direct physical footprint 1.0 ha/MW = 26 km2. Cross-check: NEI 2015 gives 260-360 sq mi = 673-932 km2 for 1,900-2,800 MW of wind.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.capacity_factor.usa.2024.derived",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "capacity_factor",
      "value": 3913.8,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "MW(ac) of utility PV nameplate for the same annual energy",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "derived",
      "citation": "Derived in scripts/build_comparison_metrics.py from: EIA Electric Power Annual 2024 Table 4.08.B (capacity factors); DOE 'Wind Turbines: the Bigger, the Better' / Land-Based Wind Market Report 2024 (3.4 MW); Denholm et al. 2009 (wind land); Ong et al. 2013 (PV land); NEI 2015 (nuclear site)",
      "source_url": "https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_b.html",
      "source_name": "Nuclear Atlas worked example 'replace one 1 GW reactor' (see docs/data/comparison_metrics.md)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Nameplate needed = 7,954,080 MWh / (8,760 h x 23.2%) = 3,914 MWac, i.e. 3.91 GW of PV per GW of nuclear (ratio = 90.8/23.2 = 3.91).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "solar_pv.land_use.usa.2024.derived",
      "source_type": "solar_pv",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": 109.4,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "km2 total site area (Ong 2013, 3.4 acres/GWh/yr)",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "derived",
      "citation": "Derived in scripts/build_comparison_metrics.py from: EIA Electric Power Annual 2024 Table 4.08.B (capacity factors); DOE 'Wind Turbines: the Bigger, the Better' / Land-Based Wind Market Report 2024 (3.4 MW); Denholm et al. 2009 (wind land); Ong et al. 2013 (PV land); NEI 2015 (nuclear site)",
      "source_url": "https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_b.html",
      "source_name": "Nuclear Atlas worked example 'replace one 1 GW reactor' (see docs/data/comparison_metrics.md)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "Generation basis: 7,954 GWh/yr x 3.4 acres/GWh/yr = 27,044 acres = 109 km2. Capacity basis: 3,914 MWac x 7.9 acres/MWac = 30,919 acres = 125 km2 (the Ong generation-weighted figure embeds a 2012 sunbelt capacity factor, hence the gap). 2019-built plants are 25-50% denser (Bolinger & Bolinger 2022), so ~82-88 km2 is a fairer modern estimate. Cross-check: NEI 2015 45-75 sq mi = 117-194 km2.",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "nuclear.land_use.usa.2024.derived",
      "source_type": "nuclear",
      "metric": "land_use",
      "value": 3.4,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "km2 plant site (NEI 2015, 1.3 sq mi per 1,000 MW)",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "derived",
      "citation": "Derived in scripts/build_comparison_metrics.py from: EIA Electric Power Annual 2024 Table 4.08.B (capacity factors); DOE 'Wind Turbines: the Bigger, the Better' / Land-Based Wind Market Report 2024 (3.4 MW); Denholm et al. 2009 (wind land); Ong et al. 2013 (PV land); NEI 2015 (nuclear site)",
      "source_url": "https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_b.html",
      "source_name": "Nuclear Atlas worked example 'replace one 1 GW reactor' (see docs/data/comparison_metrics.md)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "1.3 sq mi x 2.59 km2/sq mi = 3.4 km2 for the plant site (median of 59 US sites). Ratios in this example: wind project area / nuclear site = 271x (direct footprint 8x); PV site / nuclear site = 33x. Upstream uranium mining land is excluded here (Lovering 2022 total LUIE incl. mining: nuclear 7.1 vs wind footprint 130 / spacing 12,000 vs ground PV 2,000 ha/TWh/y).",
      "headline": false
    },
    {
      "metric_id": "battery_storage.lcoe.usa.2024.derived",
      "source_type": "battery_storage",
      "metric": "lcoe",
      "value": null,
      "low": null,
      "high": null,
      "unit": "MWh",
      "year": 2024,
      "region": "usa",
      "variant": "derived",
      "citation": "Energy-equivalence note only; firming method from Lazard LCOE+ v19 (2026), 'Cost of Firming Intermittency' pp.16-18, 34",
      "source_url": "https://lazard.com/media/sdvdrvc5/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf",
      "source_name": "Nuclear Atlas worked example 'replace one 1 GW reactor' (see docs/data/comparison_metrics.md)",
      "as_of_date": "2026-10-09",
      "confidence": "low",
      "notes": "null by design: the worked example does not size storage. One day of the reactor's output is 21,792 MWh, i.e. 54 Lazard reference batteries (100 MW / 400 MWh) just to hold one day - and hours-scale lithium-ion does not cover multi-day wind lulls. Published firming method (Lazard): Levelized Firming Cost = Nameplate x (1 - ELCC) x Net CONE x 12 / (Nameplate x regional CF x 8,760); inputs p.34: ELCC solar/wind/storage MISO 39/26/95%, CAISO 14/27/96%, SPP 51/20/56%, PJM 12/38/55%, ERCOT 17/24/93%, NYISO 12/17/81%; Net CONE USD/kW-month MISO 6.49, CAISO 7.34, SPP 7.13, PJM 5.50, ERCOT 11.67, NYISO 5.80 (ELCC data as of May 2026). Lazard's resulting USD/MWh firming adders could not be read reliably from the PDF text, so they are not stored.",
      "headline": false
    }
  ]
}