A Comprehensive Comparative Analysis of Wind, Solar Photovoltaic, Fossil Fuel, and Nuclear Power Generation: Techno-Economic Metrics, Environmental Footprints, and Biodiversity Impacts

  • Safwat N. Mahdi College of Pharmacy, University of Mosul, Mosul, Nineveh, Iraq
  • Omar A. Huseen College of Pharmacy, University of Mosul, Mosul, Nineveh, Iraq
  • Hasan Mubshar Ibrahim College of Pharmacy, University of Mosul, Mosul, Nineveh, Iraq ORCID
DOI https://doi.org/10.64943/esjti2026.020105
Published: 2026-05-15
DOWNLOAD PDF
69
16

Abstract

This paper presents a comparative analysis of four major electrical power generation technologies; wind energy, solar photovoltaics (PV), fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) and nuclear power through an integrative comparative analysis. This paper examines energy densities, Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE), capacity factor, carbon intensity, as well as direct effects on ecosystems and living organisms using a systematic life-cycle assessment (LCA) and techno-economic review framework. Although fossil fuels still have high capacity factors, their externalities on the environment namely the issue of greenhouse gases and ambient air pollution are existential threats. On the other hand, wind and solar PV provide clean operation, but have a spatial footprint requirement and intermittency. Nuclear energy provides high-density, low-carbon baseload electricity but has very stringent economic, regulatory and waste management conditions. It is in these dimensions that this paper will synthesize to provide probable energy transition pathways

Keywords: Blended Learning\ Hybrid Education, Secondary Schools Digital Divide Educational Technology AI-Assisted Research

How to Cite

N. Mahdi, S., A. Huseen, O., & Mubshar Ibrahim, H. (2026). A Comprehensive Comparative Analysis of Wind, Solar Photovoltaic, Fossil Fuel, and Nuclear Power Generation: Techno-Economic Metrics, Environmental Footprints, and Biodiversity Impacts. EuroScience Journal of Technological Innovation (ESJTI) , 2(1), 28-33. https://doi.org/10.64943/esjti2026.020105

Issue

Volume 2, No 1, 2026

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Safwat N. Mahdi, Omar A. Huseen, Hasan Mubshar Ibrahim (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

1.
1. World Energy Council. (2022). World Energy Resources Report: Global Energy Trends. London: WEC Publishing.
2.
2. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2023). Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2022. Paris: OECD/IEA.
3.
3. IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
4. Davis, S. J., et al. (2018). Net-zero emissions energy systems. Science, 360(6396), eaas9793.
5.
5. Smil, V. (2017). Energy and Civilization: A History. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
6. Jacob, D. Z., & Miller, R. L. (2020). Thermal power plants and global grid reliance. Journal of Energy Engineering, 146(4), 04020021.
7.
7. Epstein, P. R., et al. (2011). Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1219(1), 73-98.
8.
8. Lelieveld, J., et al. (2019). Effects of fossil fuel and total anthropogenic emission removal on public health and climate. PNAS, 116(15), 7192-7197.
9.
9. Doney, S. C., et al. (2009). Ocean acidification: The other CO2 problem. Annual Review of Marine Science, 1, 169-192.
10.
10. IRENA. (2023). Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2022. Abu Dhabi: International Renewable Energy Agency.
11.
11. Creutzig, F., et al. (2017). The underestimated potential of solar energy to mitigate climate change. Nature Energy, 2(8), 17140.
12.
12. Victoria, M., et al. (2021). Speed of technological transformations required in Europe to achieve the Paris Agreement. Nature Communications, 12(1), 3566.
13.
13. Green, M. A. (2019). Photovoltaic technology and manufacturing performance. Nature Energy, 4(11), 918-924.
14.
14. van Zalk, J., & Behrens, P. (2018). The spatial extent of renewable and non-renewable energy generation: A review. Energy Policy, 123, 83-91.
15.
15. Aejeeliyah Yousuf, Addokali Zobeida, Salheen Grimida, Dr Pranay Wal, Addokali Zobeida, Ahmed. A. Ageel, & Abduladim Alfadel sakeb. (2023). Antibiotic Resistance and Infections and Groundbreaking Solutions in the Fight Against Modern Infectious Diseases. Libyan Journal of Medical and Applied Sciences, 1(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.64943/ljmas.v1i1.1
16.
16. Denholm, P., et al. (2021). The role of energy storage in deep decarbonization of the electric grid. Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports, 8(2), 85-93.
17.
17. Buongiorno, J., et al. (2018). The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World. MIT Energy Initiative Report. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
18.
18. Brook, B. W., et al. (2014). Why nuclear energy is sustainable and necessary for nature conservation. Conservation Biology, 28(6), 1451-1463.
19.
19. Najla Habeeb Elhadi Elazoomi. (2025). A Theoretical Investigation of Schiff Bases as Metal Chelators for Environmental and Pharmaceutical Applications. Libyan Journal of Medical and Applied Sciences, 3(2), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.64943/ljmas.v3i2.66
20.
20. Sovacool, B. K., et al. (2020). Differences in carbon emissions reduction between countries inviting nuclear versus renewable energy. Nature Energy, 5(11), 928-935.
21.
21. Moher, D., et al. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
22.
22. ISO. (2006). Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework (ISO Standard No. 14040:2006). Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
23.
23. Osamah A Alloush, Salem H Almadhun, & Aimen M Rmis. (2025). Artificial Intelligence in Education and Scientific Research: "Present Challenges and Future Opportunities". Libyan Journal of Medical and Applied Sciences, 3(3), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.64943/ljmas.v3i3.108
24.
24. Hertwich, E. G., et al. (2015). Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefits of low-carbon technologies. PNAS, 112(20), 6277-6282.
25.
25. Loss, S. R., et al. (2013). Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind energy facilities in the contiguous United States. Biological Conservation, 168, 201-209.
26.
26. MacKay, D. J. C. (2009). Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air. Cambridge: UIT Cambridge.
27.
27. Emad M. Mohammed Khalefa, Salsabil A. Altumi, & Najwa S. Eldawi. (2024). Targeting Alzheimer’s Disease: Current Pharmacological Strategies and Emerging Therapies. Libyan Journal of Medical and Applied Sciences, 2(1), 45–50. https://doi.org/10.64943/ljmas.v2i1.25
28.
28. Arnett, E. B., et al. (2016). Impacts of wind energy development on bats: A global perspective. BioScience, 66(3), 209-222.
29.
29. Polman, A., et al. (2016). Photovoltaic materials: Present efficiencies and future challenges. Science, 352(6283), aad4424.
30.
30. Salih Alsakloul Ibraheem Badri. (2025). Correlation and Regression Analysis Between HbA1c, Fasting Blood Sugar (FBS), and Random Blood Sugar (RBS) levels in Diabetic and Non-Diabetic patients in ElMarj, Libya. Libyan Journal of Medical and Applied Sciences, 3(3), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.64943/ljmas.v3i3.116
31.
31. Mittal, M. L., et al. (2012). Emissions from coal-fired power plants in India. Atmospheric Environment, 62, 289-296.
32.
32. Howarth, R. W. (2014). A bridge to nowhere: Methane emissions and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas. Energy Science & Engineering, 2(2), 47-60.
33.
33. Rhodes, R. (2018). Energy: A Human History. New York: Simon & Schuster.
34.
34. Lawson, L. (2021). Decommissioning and waste management economics of nuclear facilities. Energy Economics, 98, 105230.
35.
35. Asdrubali, F., et al. (2015). Life cycle assessment in the renewable energy sector: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, 329-338.
36.
36. NREL. (2022). Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Generation Results. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
37.
37. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Quadrennial Technology Review: Energy Generation Options. Washington, DC: US DOE.
38.
38. Lazard. (2023). Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis—Version 16.0. New York: Lazard Ltd.
39.
39. Burning, H., et al. (2017). Air quality impacts of global power sector dynamics. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(18), 10230-10238.
40.
40. WHO. (2021). WHO Global Air Quality Guidelines: Particulate Matter, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide. Geneva: World Health Organization.
41.
41. Kharecha, P. A., & Hansen, J. E. (2013). Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(9), 4889-4895.
42.
42. Gibson, L., et al. (2017). How green is 'green' energy? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 32(12), 922-935.
43.
43. Smallwood, K. S. (2013). Comparing bird and bat fatality rate estimates among North American wind-energy facilities. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 77(7), 1396-1405.
44.
44. Walston, L. J., et al. (2016). A preliminary assessment of avian mortality at utility-scale solar energy facilities in the United States. Renewable Energy, 92, 405-414.
45.
45. Madden, N., et al. (2013). Thermal generation water use: Metrics and metrics limits. Environmental Research Letters, 8(3), 035006.
46.
46. Barnthouse, L. W. (2013). Impacts of power plant cooling systems on aquatic populations. Environmental Science & Policy, 28, 98-107.
47.
47. Langford, T. E. (2012). Electricity Generation and the Ecology of Natural Waters. London: Routledge.
48.
48. Palmer, M. A., et al. (2010). Mountaintop mining consequences. Science, 327(5962), 148-149.
49.
49. Hossen Mohammed Al-Mahdi Al-Sharif. (2025). Analysis and Evaluation of ARIMA and SARIMA Models Performance in Time Series Forecasting: An Applied Study. Libyan Journal of Medical and Applied Sciences, 3(2), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.64943/ljmas.v3i2.89
50.
50. Kroposki, B., et al. (2017). Making the grid white-hot with renewables. IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, 15(2), 61-73.
51.
51. Bird, L., et al. (2016). Wind and solar energy curtailment: Experience and practices in the United States. IET Renewable Power Generation, 10(1), 9-15.
52.
52. IEA. (2021). The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions. Paris: International Energy Agency.
53.
53. Intisar A. F. El Sharaa, Salwa Younis Salem Rahil, & Khadija S. El-Turki. (2025). Determination of Some Heavy Metals in Some Cosmetic Products (Foundation, Blusher, and Face Powder) By Atomic Absorption Spectrometer. Libyan Journal of Medical and Applied Sciences, 3(3), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.64943/ljmas.v3i3.155
54.
54. Miller, S. E., & Sagan, S. D. (2009). Nuclear power without nuclear proliferation? Daedalus, 138(4), 7-18.
55.
55. Ewing, R. C. (2015). Long-term storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Nature Materials, 14(3), 252-257.
56.
56. Shirvan, M. (2022). Simplified nuclear reactor designs for small modular applications. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 390, 111710.
57.
57. Zhao, D., et al. (2018). Efficient perovskite-silicon tandem solar cells. Nature Energy, 3(12), 1093-1100.
58.
58. Cooperman, A., et al. (2021). Wind turbine blade material circularity and recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 168, 105437.
59.
59. Albertus, P., et al. (2020). Long-duration daily and seasonal energy storage for power grids. Joule, 4(11), 2259-2280.
60.
60. Intisar A. F. El Sharaa, Salwa Younis Salem Rahil, & Khadija S. El-Turki. (2025). Determination of Some Heavy Metals in Some Cosmetic Products (Foundation, Blusher, and Face Powder) By Atomic Absorption Spectrometer. Libyan Journal of Medical and Applied Sciences, 3(3), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.64943/ljmas.v3i3.155