Mandatory xkcd.

Well, you can start with an illustrated book of things to avoid.

Might be worth pointing out that not only is the nuclear number the highest, it is such even considering the very conservative assumption of counting the entire safety area (which might as well be covered with solar by the way).
Without counting the safety area, the 6.7TWh/km2 of the graph is tripled to 20.3TWh/km2.

Also, the UNECE LCA [10] is a gold mine.

Wish you were there.

Thx,
You're the extreme datum of the comments :)

No because a trend line would suggest that the points always "move" into the same direction, which isn't always the case.

> This is suggesting I have multiple values of Electronic Carbon Intensity (Y) at a single value of Share of renewables in Electricity (X).

Which is exactly what is observed: Belgium did with less than 5%, or France did with 4-5% what Finland did with 30% or Austria and Denmark took 60% to reach.

France had its last couple of NPP in the 90s, which "diluted" the renewable into a larger production.

Every time a non renewable plant is added, even if the renewable quantity remains the same, its share decreases.

If you add an extra non-renewable plant, all other thing being equal, the share of renewable decreases.

And some do even better without so much effort ...

I should have marked each "start" differently". although (low renewable; high CO2) is a fair guess for a starting point.

> The strong negative correlation is expected.

As can be seen, some countries managed the same gCO2/kWh with much lower % renewable than others.

The "common wisdom" of "let's add more renewable and gCO2/kWh will lower" is worth checking up.
What good did it do Belgium to go from 2 to 25%?
France did without moving from 4-5% what Finland did from 22 to 50%.
Denmark and Austria are nearing 75% and still can't touch what France already had with less than 20%.
Would Argentina (less than 10%) will have a better gCO2/kWh if it had as much renewable as Turkey (45%)? Maybe not

For the latest 2021 gCO2/kWh data see: https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/greenhouse-gas-emission-intensity-of-1

Sources:
gCO2/kWh: https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/greenhouse-gas-emission-intensity-of-1
Share of renewables: https://www.iea.org/regions/europe

Tool: MS Excel

impacts: "In summary, whereas heavy goods vehicles speed limits in motorways are in line with the optimum speed in terms of energy and CO2 reductions per vehicle-km (80–90 km/h), decreasing car passenger speed limits in motorways could lead to substantial benefits." "On the other hand, energy and emissions benefits from more stringent speed limits on local roads (e.g. from 50 to 30 km/h) are less clear. The key argument for lower speeds on local roads is therefore the desirability of a safer and more tranquil local environment, rather than environmental considerations."

What a silly idea!
Everybody knows that's ridiculous, just ask:
USA, 88 out of 96 plants are already ready for 60 years, Turkey Point, (from 1972 and 73!), are good for 80 years, Peach Bottom, 1974, 80 years, Surry 1972-73, 80 years, about twenty others are lining up.
or Finland, Hungary, Slovenia/Croatia, Japan, Canada, South Africa, Mexico (65 years), Argentina (34 years? Power upgrage and get 30 more!).

Also, Germany used to think they could do it too.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

cross sections at high energy are much lower than at low ones (neutrons lose their energy as they interact with matter, until eventually getting captures, ie activating the material ie "become radioactive").
Front facing material will have "less probability", but much higher fluxes (low chance of winning, but more lottery tickets), the deeper you go, the less flux you get, but the "probability of turning radioactive" increase as the neutron energy decreases.

As you can guess, the vessel wall of a regular nuclear reactor is fairly radioactive, so a ballpark mark is everything "blue" and higher will be pretty radioactive come decommissioning. Plus from a pure mass point of view, ITER is much much bigger than an NPP reactor vessel. The cryostat might end up only slightly activated, but the vacuum vessel and all will end up at comparative radioactivity level as NPP reactor vessels (and a dozen time the volume/mass).

ping u/beerorist to correct me.

For comparison, the average flux at the vessel wall of a common nuclear reactor is of the order of 10^9 n s^-1 cm^2

Climate change is just the get away crisis.
Sand, and other raw material bottle necks are "only" jeopardizing modern economical/technical development (on which our entire world economies are based).
Meanwhile, the year isn't over yet and we've already crossed 2 more planetary boundaries. Each one having the potential to render human life on earth fairly unpleasant.

Sand? We've reached the grotesque when Saudi Arabia has to import its sand from the other side of the planet.
And yet, this pale in consequences compared to, say, the Nitrogen and phosphorus cycles which threaten nothing less than our ability to feed ourselves.

melt rock, pour into cast, voilà.

You'd be surprised at the number of people still expecting that iron is found in ingot form in mines.

In pictures, the literal specks of metal have to be mechanically grinned down and then undertake several chemical processes (each metal having its own specific processes and industries), all of this very energy intensive and with considerable waste and environmental impacts.

The bottle necks we're facing go far beyond metals.

This is a picture of the volume of copper recovered from a copper mine; and what it took to extract it on site.
Keeping in mind that copper mine have rather high content compared to other metals, for all the others (except iron), the "ball" would be even smaller.