Except claiming it and numbers that accurately reflect it, are not aligned. There are shenanigans involved.
Even on your picture, see note 1: "Power plant construction emissions are also included; they are the only emissions associated with solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro sources.". B]. There's mining, refining, manufacturing, shipping, installation, maintenance, and too many other ancillary contributors to list, that they did not include. They can state they did all day long, yet they didn't.
Whether it is their inability to calculate it, or selectively choosing to omit it, either way it is a show stopper in their producing this faux-data, faux arguments and conclusions, until wind, geothermal, hyrdro and solar, magically grow on trees transported by seed to all needed areas through bird feces, can grow everywhere, tap themselves into a grid they built to the tree, maintain themeselves and it, and stay hidden so humans don't get involved in their oversight.
It's a propaganda attempt at best.
This is why it is beneficial to read the entire report rather than just the graphic I included in the OP.
They use the EPA figures for lifecycle emissions in the paper, which as I noted in the OP, differ a bit from the IPCC figures, but the results are still the same. They also factor in transmission loss and upstream emissions.
This is the methodology employed for calculating the Mpg equivalent figure:
Conversion of g/kWh to MPGghg
To translate electricity-related emissions intensity into driving-related emissions intensity (measured as gasoline miles-per-gallon equivalent, or MPGghg), we multiplied the EPA emissions intensity values (gCO2e/kWh) from Table A-2 and the EV average efficiency values (kWh/mile) from Table 2, resulting in a gCO2e/mile estimate. Then we used the GREET carbon intensity of gasoline (ANL 2014a) and divided by the gCO2e/mile estimate to get the estimated MPGghg for each region. This figure is an electric vehicle equivalent to the MPG of a gasoline-powered vehicle: vehicles with the same MPGghg will produce the same amount of global warming pollution for each mile traveled, regardless of fuel type.
This is the table:
Note that like the IPCC, the EPA uses gCO2/kWh.
Our formula is X/(Y*Z)*1000=MPHghg
X = 9
Y = gCO2/kWh
Z = kWh/mile
Using the IPCC figures:
If we use coal at 820gCO2/kWh:
9/(820*0.33)*1000=33MPGghg
If we use nuclear at 12gCO2/kWh:
9/(12*0.33)*1000=2,272MPGghg
If we use wind at 11gCO2/kWh:
9/(11*0.33)*1000=2,479MPGghg
If we use solar at 45gCO2/kWh:
9/(45*0.33)*1000=606MPGghg
If we use hydro at 24gCO2/kWh:
9/(24*0.33)*100=1,136MPGghg
You can see where the figures used by the EPA differ from the figures provided by the IPCC for coal, hydro and solar.
I've attached the IPCC report where their figures come from. Per page 538 through 540 we see the following emphasis stated:
When assessing the potential of different mitigation opportunities, it is important to evaluate the options from a lifecycle perspective to take into account the emissions in the fuel chain and the manufacturing of the energy conversion technology (Annex II.6.3). This section contains a review of life-cycle GHG emissions associated with different energy supply technologies per unit of final energy delivered, with a focus on electricity generation (Figure 7.6).
*snip*
Renewable heat and power generation and nuclear energy can bring more significant reductions in GHG emissions. The information provided here has been updated from the data provided in SRREN, taking into account new findings and reviews, where available. The ranges of harmonized lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions reported in the literature are 18 – 180 gCO2eq / kWh for PV (Kim et al., 2012; Hsu et al., 2012), 9 – 63 gCO2eq / kWh for CSP (Burkhardt et al., 2012), and 4 – 110 gCO2eq / kWh for nuclear power (Warner and Heath, 2012). The harmonization has narrowed the ranges down from 5 – 217 gCO2eq / kWh for PV, 7 – 89 gCO2eq / kWh for CSP, and 1 – 220 gCO2eq / kWh for nuclear energy. A new literature review for wind power published since 2002 reports 7 – 56 gCO2eq / kWh, where the upper part of the range is associated with smaller turbines (< 100kW) (Arvesen and Hertwich, 2012), compared to 2 – 81 gCO2eq / kWh reported in SRREN. For all of these technologies, at least five studies are reviewed.
*snip*
For RE, emissions are mainly associated with the manufacturing and installation of the power plants, but for nuclear power, uranium enrichment can be significant (Warner and Heath, 2012). Generally, the ranges are quite wide reflecting differences in local resource conditions, technology, and methodological choices of the assessment. The lower end of estimates often reflects incomplete systems while the higher end reflects poor local conditions or outdated technology.
Specifically on hydro:
The climate effect of hydropower is very project-specific. Lifecycle emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production related to the construction and operation of hydropower stations reported in the literature fall in the range of up to 40 gCO2eq / kWh for the studies reviewed in the SRREN (Kumar et al, 2011) and 3 – 7 gCO2eq / kWh for studies reviewed in (Dones et al., 2007). Emissions of biogenic CH4 result from the degradation of organic carbon primarily in hydropower reservoirs (Tremblay et al., 2005; Barros et al., 2011; Demarty and Bastien, 2011), although some reservoirs act as sinks (Chanudet et. al 2011). Few studies appraise net emissions from freshwater reservoirs, i. e., adjusting for pre-existing natural sources and sinks and unrelated anthropogenic sources (Kumar et al, 2011, Section 5.6.3.2). A recent meta-analysis of 80 reservoirs indicates that CH4 emission factors are log-normally distributed, with the majority of measurements being below 20 gCO2eq / kWh (Hertwich, 2013), but emissions of approximately 2 kgCO2eq / kWh coming from a few reservoirs with a large area in relation to electricity production and thus low power intensity (W / m2) (Abril et al., 2005; Kemenes et al., 2007, 2011). The global average emission rate was estimated to be 70 gCO2eq / kWh (Maeck et al., 2013; Hertwich, 2013). Due to the high variability among power stations, the average emissions rate is not suitable for the estimation of emissions of individual countries or projects. Ideas for mitigating existing methane emissions have been presented (Ramos et al., 2009; Stolaroff et al., 2012).
And finally:
The literature reviewed in this section shows that a range of technologies can provide electricity with less than 5 % of the lifecycle GHG emissions of coal power: wind, solar, nuclear, and hydropower in suitable locations. In the future, further reductions of lifecycle emissions on these technologies could be attained through performance improvements (Caduff et al., 2012; Dale and Benson, 2013) and as a result of a cleaner energy supply in the manufacturing of the technologies (Arvesen and Hertwich, 2011).
Use of critical metals is also covered in the table on page 545:
Followed by this statement:
7.9.2 Environmental and health effects
Energy supply options differ with regard to their overall environmental and health impacts, not only their GHG emissions (Table 7.3). Renewable energies are often seen as environmentally benign by nature; however, no technology — particularly in large scale application— comes without environmental impacts. To evaluate the relative burden of energy systems within the environment, full energy supply chains need to be considered on a lifecycle basis, including all system components, and across all impact categories.
And finally:
Wind, ocean, and CSP need more iron and cement than fossil fuel fired power plants, while photovoltaic power relies on a range of scarce materials (Burkhardt et al., 2011; Graedel, 2011; Kleijn et al., 2011; Arvesen and Hertwich, 2011). Furthermore, mining and material processing is associated with environmental impacts (Norgate et al., 2007), which make a substantial contribution to the total life-cycle impacts of renewable power systems. There has been a significant concern about the availability of critical metals and the environmental impacts associated with their production. Silver, tellurium, indium, and gallium have been identified as metals potentially constraining the choice of PV technology, but not presenting a fundamental obstacle to PV deployment (Graedel, 2011; Zuser and Rechberger, 2011; Fthenakis and Anctil, 2013; Ravikumar and Malghan, 2013). Silver is also a concern for CSP (Pihl et al., 2012). The limited availability of rare earth elements used to construct powerful permanent magnets, especially dysprosium and neodymium, may limit the application of efficient direct-drive wind turbines (Hoenderdaal et al., 2013). Recycling is necessary to ensure the long-term supply of critical metals and may also reduce environmental impacts compared to virgin materials (Anctil and Fthenakis, 2013; Binnemans et al., 2013). With improvements in the performance of renewable energy systems in recent years, their specific material demand and environmental impacts have also declined (Arvesen and Hertwich, 2011; Caduff et al., 2012).
Clearly, ALL of the lifecycle footprint is included in the IPCC figures and I expect is included in those provided by the EPA, which were used in the report I provided here, even if the author didn't go to sufficient lengths to spell it out to your satisfaction.
