Obama Said to Seek $54 Billion in Nuclear-Power Loan Guarantees

[bananas]

Source: Bloomberg

President Barack Obama, acting on a pledge to support nuclear power, will propose tripling loan guarantees for new reactors to more than $54 billion, two people familiar with the plan said.

The additional loan guarantees in Obama’s budget, which will be released on Feb. 1, are part of an effort to bolster nuclear-power production after Obama called for doing so in his State of the Union address Jan. 27. Today, the Energy Department plans to announce creation of a panel to find a solution to storing the waste generated by nuclear plants.
...
For the 2011 budget, the department will add $36 billion to the $18.5 billion already approved for nuclear-power plant loan guarantees, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the budget hasn’t been released. The program was started in 2005 by Congress to encourage new plant construction, but the department has yet to issue a loan guarantee.
...
Industry groups such as the Washington-based Nuclear Energy Institute have said the loan guarantees are critical to reviving the industry because most companies can’t afford the capital investment in a facility that can take a decade to complete. The institute in a December report put the cost of a reactor at as much as $9 billion.
...

Read more: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-29/obama-said-to-seek-54-billion-in-nuclear-power-loan-guarantees.html

---

I hope there's enough opposition to stop this boondoggle.
Think Progress: "Demoralizing His Supporters, Obama Calls Nukes, Coal, And Oil Drilling ‘Clean Energy Jobs’"

Demoralizing His Supporters, Obama Calls Nukes, Coal, And Oil Drilling ‘Clean Energy Jobs’

President Barack Obama’s discussion of energy policy in his first State of the Union address pandered to corporate interests while demoralizing his progressive supporters. Though Obama made a strong case that real investments in clean energy such as solar technology, advanced batteries, high-speed rail and efficiency are critical to job creation and international competitiveness, he also offered sops to established corporate polluters. Republicans, who spent much of the address refusing to applaud Obama’s call for economic reforms, ecstatically applauded his praise of polluting industry. Embracing the language of the John McCain campaign, Obama described nuclear power, offshore oil and gas drilling, and coal as “clean energy jobs”:

<snip>

Although Republicans lauded Obama’s praise of heavily subsidized, polluting industries, they scoffed at energy legislation that would address climate change. Unlike Rudy Giuliani, Rep. David Dreier (R-CA), Mitt Romney, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Obama’s actual supporters were dismayed.

About 12,000 MoveOn members participated in a “live online dial-test of President Obama’s State of the Union speech.” While Obama’s mentions of clean energy innovation were some of his most popular moments, his paean to polluters was by far his worst moment with progressive activists:



Nukes, oil, and coal just aren’t clean. If Obama really is committed to “tough decisions,” he’ll take on the coal companies who are tearing up the Appalachian mountains, the nuclear companies who want taxpayers to take all the risk for accidents and waste, and the oil companies who are burning up the planet for their own profit. And that’s something the people who put him into office could support.

[salguine]

1. So he decides to honor one of his "pledges", and it's this. Why am I not surprised. Nukes and coal.

[avaistheone1]

25. So many of Obama's pledges suck bad.

:thumbsdown:

[wordpix]

146. this is a very disturbing turn of events---i'm contacting the WH about this one

Why not sink the $54 billion into solar, wind and algae fuel?

[newspeak]

150. I remember in environment science

we studied alternative energy--Israel has solar ponds. A solar pond can provide energy for a town. My partner and I had to report on hydroelectric energy and the negative side of having huge dams. Our conclusion was to have smaller dams, wind energy, solar and make it more local. Actually, today, even for security, it is better to localize energy, instead of having massive structures--when the grid goes down whole states are affected.

Because I have lived near two nuclear plants--both have been shut down, I am no great fan of nuclear power. The one plant near Eureka CA is on a fault -now who's bright idea was it to build it and how much money did they get? Those who would swim near the plant would wind up with weird rashes.

[Bennyboy]

2. More huge subsides to huge corporations...for more expensive power....

all it is. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/01/nuclear_power.html
((((((SNIPPAGE)))))

Part Two: Warning to Taxpayers, Investors: Nukes May Become Troubled Assets

A new study puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour—triple current U.S. electricity rates!

This staggering price is far higher than the cost of a variety of carbon-free renewable power sources available today—and 10 times the cost of energy efficiency (see “Is 450 ppm possible? Part 5: Old coal’s out, can’t wait for new nukes, so what do we do NOW?”

The new study, “Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power,” is one of the most detailed cost analyses publically available on the current generation of nuclear power plants being considered in this country. It is by a leading expert in power plant costs, Craig A. Severance. A practicing CPA, Severance is co-author of The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power (Praeger 1976), and former assistant to the chairman and to commerce counsel, Iowa State Commerce Commission.

[kristopher]

37. It is a very smart move. This isn't going to help them any more than the current level does...

The same type of subsidies haven't helped them to date and there is little reason to think that increasing the total amount of subsidies will make a difference. Such a policy is predicated on the ability of nuclear power to attract private capital. Current subsidies provide individual project guarantees of nearly 100% of construction costs but no one is interested in the extremely high probability of having to use those guarantees. Investors want a profit with low risk. To evaluate that risk they look not only at the area of direct cash laid out, but also at the earnings that the cash may have garnered if it had been placed in another investment.

They therefore have little interest in waiting 10 years to just get back the depreciated money they put originally into the project.

For this policy to make a difference, the nuclear industry is going to have to show the investment world something new on their side. I don't see that on the horizon.

Now, if you see a policy that mandates direct use of government funds to build reactors, then you should definitely raise a stink.

[Bennyboy]

76. Thanks a little more undertanding on the issue...

So no way due to the cost....and the lack of private investors dooms them....

[WriteDown]

3. Nuclear is really the best of the big power options right now...

supplemented with wind and solar.

[Robb]

4. Sadly correct.

However "right now" means mortgaging our future, in terms of the costs of dealing with the waste product in 50 years.

Of course, as a nation we're pretty good at mortgaging our future. :D

[WriteDown]

5. You need a rimshot for that one. :). nt

[Pavulon]

54. We nuked nevada with real nuclear weapons

they can handle a hole in the ground with waste.

[wordpix]

149. yeah and how did that turn out? Cancer is prevalent among those living there

:crazy: geesh

[newspeak]

151. no, we don't want anymore waste!!!!

Yucca mountain is near a fault and Nevada also has underground water. And, my aunt and her father worked at the nuclear facility when they were performing above ground testing--most of those she worked with died of cancer. We don't want the shite, maybe you can store it where you live.;)

[jpak]

158. Can I interest you in a house lot on Hanford Reservation of Savannah River Site?

lots of holes full of migrating high level radioactive wastes there!

:rofl:

[bananas]

6. No, it's one of the worst

These plants won't come online "right now" - they won't come online for 10-20 years, if at all.
The CBO says the risk of default on the loans is "very high - well above 50 percent"
Wind, solar, and efficiency are the best power options right now.

[WriteDown]

8. Wind, solar and "efficiency"

won't do it. You need something that can supply tons of power quickly. 3 options for that. Coal, oil, or nuclear. Which is your choice?

[bananas]

34. If you want "tons of power quickly", nuclear is the worst choice.

First, your list is wrong. Nuclear only provides electricity, you listed oil as an option and left out natural gas, but the US doesn't use oil for electricity, although it does use natural gas. Nuclear doesn't come online "quickly", so it shouldn't be listed in your options at all. Oil is used for transportation and heating.

Some reading for you:

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security
Click on "(pdf)" for free pdf at http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

How the world can (and will) stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm: The full global warming solution
http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/

[Pavulon]

42. It's quick in china using westinghouse reactors

the problem in the us is the process, not the technology. You are aware we have many nuclear reactors in service right now generating power in naval vessels? They dont have the overhead that a plant does.

[bananas]

71. You want melamine in your baby food?

After countless pets died from melamine in pet food, the US tightened up "the process" for importing food. So China started dumping melamine into baby food. So please don't tell us "the process" is the problem. Also, "the process" was fixed with EPACT 2005, where the nuclear industry got everything it wanted from a Republican Congress and a Republican President - "the process" was streamlined, regulations changed to reduce oversight and make it easier and faster to get new nukes rubber-stamped and built, 100% guaranteed loans for building six new nukes, etc. Oops, the nuclear industry is full of people who can't do math, they totally underestimated the costs and now want $50B for six new nukes. They've had massive cost over-runs and they haven't even started construction! It's just going to get worse. Even with the new streamlined regulations, the NRC hasn't approved the "Westinghouse" design in the US because of serious safety flaws - the "passive safety" design introduced new safety problems.

The "Westinghouse" reactors are now the "Toshiba" reactors, and they will soon be the "Chinese" reactors, China licensed the technology and will be building their own versions of them.

Since China hasn't actually built any yet, we don't know how long they will take to build, and the costs are secret and mingled in with whatever licensing agreements they made, so we may never know how much they cost - and only naive people are going to believe the costs given out publicly by the industry or by the Chinese government. Labor is so much cheaper in China, which is why all our manufacturing has been shipped overseas, that throws another wrench into trying to estimate how much those Chinese reactors would cost if we built them here. As their standard of living increases, their labor costs and safety standards will increase, and their reactors will become prohibitively expensive. They will probably build quite a few in countries where labor is cheap. Another "accident" like TMI or Chernobyl is inevitable, hopefully more like TMI but even the new "Westinghouse" design can fail in ways that will result in large-scale release of radiation as happened with Chernobyl.

Areva is realizing it's EPR is too expensive, and is considering trying to sell its old Generation 2 reactors instead. The technology really isn't moving forward. South Africa gave up on the Pebble Bed after they realized it could melt down, the containment structure made it too expensive for electricity.

Naval reactors are completely different than commercial reactors, they use highly enriched uranium to keep the weight and size down, they have a virtually unlimited budget for construction and operation and maintenance because they were designed to fight a nuclear war with the USSR, they have no problem with access to cooling water because they are in the ocean, and they have military discipline over the workers and operators.

[wordpix]

148. yeah, "quick" is great, just look at Chernobyl. And what will we do with the nuke waste?

There's a reason there's been a moratorium on building new nuke power plants for nearly 30 years. There are huge problems with this industry: safety, protecting against terrorist strikes, protecting against stealing nuke fuel for weapons, nuke waste storage that even Nevada doesn't want, waste heat that changes the riverine or coastal environment. Plus these plants are extremely expensive to site and build---and we the people have to subsidize these. No, thanks. :puke:

[jpak]

159. ummm- those are Toshiba reactors and they are not being built "quick"

sorry

[Abq_Sarah]

168. Nor do they have to deal with lawsuits

Preventing them from breaking ground. You can get permission for a plant and then spend 20 years in court fighting back lawsuits.

[WriteDown]

50. Differently definition of quickly...

I'm talking about being able to power a factory with 1000 machine presses at a moments notice. Not how fast the factory can be built.

[kristopher]

67. What percentage of the total US energy demand is represented by your "factory"

You have no idea, do you?

Yet you feel it is logical to argue that we should predicate our entire energy system on a single (false) argument?

There it is, folks - your typical fan of nuclear power.

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[WriteDown]

80. Why does it matter?

The factory needs to run. Explain to me how that is done. How big a grid and the storage devices used.

[kristopher]

89. I did. If you don't understand it is on you to do some studying.

[WriteDown]

93. More evasion. Thanks for proving my point. nt

[kristopher]

99. Here you go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4248625&mesg_id=4249294

[WriteDown]

104. I googled it and it didn't tell me what will store the power.....

Will in be billions of lead acid batteries? Li-On batteries?

[kristopher]

109. You are not telling the truth.

[WriteDown]

110. Prove me wrong. nt

[kristopher]

112. Your obvious ignorance and willingness to use falsehoods does that.

[WriteDown]

118. More evasion and still illustrating my point. nt

[kristopher]

124. .

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[WriteDown]

127. See post 126. nt

[bananas]

74. That requires "spinning reserve" or "peaking power" - which nuclear sucks at.

Nuclear is optimal as "base-load" - because they are so expensive to build, the cost estimates are based on them running at full power 24/7. The requirement you're making for instant-on requires reserve power, which is met by hydro, natural gas, storage, or demand-load management.

[WriteDown]

81. Exactly...

There needs to be a combination of technologies and at this point its hard to get away from coal, oil, nuke, etc.

[Bennyboy]

88. ROOFTOP SOLAR....

60% of all homes get enough sun to operate, at fixed costs, right now.

[WriteDown]

91. Operate what?

I am currently remodeling my house bit by bit and running the table saw quite a bit along with the circular saw and air compressor. I also generally have my 1000W stereo playing while I'm working. Would they still work.

[Bennyboy]

95. Of course. Call you local solar guy and he will...

tell you how you can start saving money right now. Fixed costs too. Many rebates, loans, even some leases that really reduce your rate....Of course if you live in the North that might makes thing different...

[WriteDown]

96. I pay about 100-150$$ on average a month on average in my house...

and I'll only be here 2 or 3 more years. The yard is well shaded with tall trees. Just doesn't make any sense for me to do that.

[Bennyboy]

97. Well houses with solar are selling, ones without are not here in CA....

So it might be good investment. At least let you solar guy show you how...

[Liberation Angel]

12. If you mean the best at causing cancer then you are correct

nt

see: Radiation and Public Health Project website : www.radiation.org

[WriteDown]

17. You're choice...

Coal, Oil, or Nuclear. Those are your options.

[Liberation Angel]

20. My choices are renewables, natural gas, hydrogen, retrofitting, My options are WAY

beyond coal oil or nuclear.

[WriteDown]

26. Nothing but the big 3 can produce the massive amounts of power needed...

especially when its needed delivered quickly. You can supplement with the others, but they cannot serve your peak power needs like a factory running 1000 metal presses.

[Liberation Angel]

30. Not true: But ity depends on the grid and storage

If we waste money on nuclear and new coal technologies then we waste the opportunity to phase them out and get new grids and storage for wind, hydro, tidal, hydrogen and many other energies.

We simply do NOT need to rely on an outdated, dangerous and insanely expensive group of technologies.

We need to phase them out completely. Nukes should be shut down and mothballed immediately. They simply produce too many radioactive byproducts which are emitted into our air and water on a daily basis.

[WriteDown]

32. Please feel free to post links supporting your claims.

And coal produces PLENTY of radiation.

Also please post some of your ideas for storage of massive amounts of electricity.

[kristopher]

39. There are plenty of links showing you wrong upthread.

Please provide some peer reviewed studies supporting your statements.

Since you are making false claims, that is going to be hard for you to do.

[WriteDown]

52. No there aren't.

Please feel free to post the links or as a substitute, explain what types of power plants are able to power a factory with 1000 machine presses.

[kristopher]

64. OIC. You don't have the slightest uderstanding of power and energy systems.

It doesn't matter whether any individual generating source can power such a plant or not, what matters is the aggregate power that is supplied. It can be done with AAA batteries if you have enough of them. Your "proof" is proof of nothing more than your lack of fundamental understanding of the issue.

The links to *begin* your education were provided by bananas upthread.

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[kristopher]

101. Still waiting for your documentation that renewables will not work.

Come on, anything of substance. Surely you know how to use Google?

[WriteDown]

102. Here it is....

I'm running a factory that is powered by windmills and I manufacture hotwheels. Suddenly, a big order comes in and we have to ramp up all the metal presses at the same time. Our power usage for the next 8 hours is going to be 10 times what it is normally. How do I get the windmills to spin faster to supply the extra load that I am going to need?

[kristopher]

108. Why is your factory powered exclusively by windmills?

A renewable system is just that - a renewable system.

As such it is a variety of sources linked together. Take your question and substitute a coal plant.

They operate about 80% of the time, and when they go offline it is usually less expected than when the wind dies down, so what would you do if you were powered exclusively by a coal plant?

It is by linking a large number of sources together that a "GRID" comes into being and functions. The demand from your factory is a small fraction of what is actually going through the system at any given time.

BTW, under the current system if you were to ramp up your plant as you describe you'd be subject to extremely high costs penalties. Large industries have special contracts that require prior notification for when they dramatically increase (and in some cases decrease) demand.

[WriteDown]

120. As I've said...

You'll need coal, nuke, etc. supplemented by wind, solar, etc. But you can't get away from the coal, nuke, etc. part.

[kristopher]

122. You've been asked several times to document that assertion.

You can't because it isn't true.

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[WriteDown]

125. Why do you keep posting that opinion piece?

I am talking about simple physics and you keep challenging it with that. Current, amperage, voltage requirements do not change even after reading that article. :rofl:

[kristopher]

137. .

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[joshcryer]

157. When he is failing at discussion he resorts to copy-pasting.

Sometimes whenever he does it I just copy-paste back, it's gone on for several hundred posts before. Quite amusing. Boosts his post-count though. (Beginning of last year it was under 2000, iirc.)

Note that failing at discussion doesn't mean I think he's wrong here, he's right, renewables can technically work. The question is about whether or not they will.

Physically, they cannot stop us from hitting 2-3C. That's just basic economics.

[Pavulon]

47. unless jesus miracles a fatty battery

there is currently no technology that can store megawatts and release it on demand onto the grid. Not even close.

[WriteDown]

53. I'm really starting to wonder if people understand that power

is not stored at in massive batteries at their "local" power plants

[Pavulon]

56. Nope, they just think what they are told to think.

nuclear power is bad. My college campus has an operating reactor. My power comes from cheap nuke power. Before they switched cooling types you could fish year around in the war water outlet in the lake.

[WriteDown]

57. Lake Norman in Charlotte is like that.

I have yet to develop any super powers from swimming in it though.

[Pavulon]

59. Me either. Lived in Davidson

swam and fished there all the time. Went to NC state, where there is an operating reactor, handled DU in the army, and live near sharron harris now. I should be glowing in the dark and have a 3 eyed fish by now.

[WriteDown]

60. Even though you are a lowly wolfpack fan....

At least you are knowledgeable.

Go Heels.

[Pavulon]

61. Now live in carboro

and will admit to going to CH on Halloween or after games to have a drink or two and watch people burn furniture.

[WriteDown]

62. I used to live right across from Harris Teeter in Carboro.

Great spot, but bad roommates.

[newspeak]

152. bull!!!

Like I said, I lived near the Eureka nuke plant and people swimming near it had rashes. Also, the Ute reservation in Utah was convinced to have a dumping ground on the res.--they were told it was going to provide jobs for them, they were going to recycle. It's been nothing but a dumping ground for all kinds of shite, even heavy metals. And the recycling---what a joke. They had been sold a "bill of goods", and I don't want Nevada to go the same way.

[Pavulon]

166. I am not aware "rash" is a symptom of exposure to radiation.

I used to get a rash when handling depleted uranium. It happened when it was hot outside.. Seems I get that same rash from running or riding a bicycle.

We are talking about civilian nuclear power plants here, not rashes or heavy metals dumped by whomever.

[kristopher]

65. That is stupid.

There are many megawatt level storage technologies out there, they just haven't been used because we have relied on the energy stored in fossil fuels.

Stop acting like a conservative and educate yourself.

[WriteDown]

72. Feel free to post these storage technologies that can store...

1000's of megawatts of electricity.

[kristopher]

78. Just to be snarky - AAA batteries.

Your question is full of ignorance. Phrase it better and I'll give you a more comprehensive answer.

[WriteDown]

82. Its a pretty simple question...

but diversion always works well. I'll take that as an "I have no idea."

[kristopher]

84. Yes it is a simple question and I gave a simple correct answer.

Since you can't restructure the question so that it more appropriately reflects the issue of energy storage in a grid, I'll take it you lack even basic understanding of the issue.

[kristopher]

87. Here is another example of your ignorance -

AAA batteries can and do store "1000s of megawatts" of electricity.

Doesn't that give you some idea why your question fundamentally flawed?

Hint: You are asking a 2 dimensional question about a 3 dimensional problem. Since you don't understand why that is. talking real technologies with you is like talking real science with a climate denier.

Since you don't understand the technologies and have shown you have no interest in actually learning, you've proven you are engaged in a political discussion, not one about technological potential.

[WriteDown]

90. Sure, if you had enough of them....

I am asking how big your envisioned grid would have to be and what storage medium you would use. If its millions of lead acid batteries then that sounds like a great idea. :rofl:

[kristopher]

98. Exactly - if you have enough of them.

So the question that needs to be asked is much more specific than the inappropriate one you've been trying to use to defend nuclear power.

Have you bothered to google this?

Try three words "energy storage grid".

I'm very well informed on energy storage technologies and I'll be happy to have a real discussion on the issue and help you understand the way it works, BUT I'm not going to waste my efforts when you have nothing valid to contribute either in the way of knowledge or sincere desire to understand.

[joshcryer]

107. Many thousand miles of transmission lines, a million wind turbines, millions of V2G EVs.

Yeah, very long term stuff that without major interaction from the government won't be realized until the above poster is dead or sea level is well on its way to 1-2m.

[kristopher]

111. Apparently you think falsely that nuclear would be faster...

It isn't and won't be.

[Pavulon]

129. Yep the navy has not spun up a reactor in 30 years...

paperwork, the problem.

[joshcryer]

155. No, nuclear is even more costly than the Jacobson 'solution.' Nothing works without government...

...interaction on a major scale. I think your bias forced you to focus on only one aspect of what I was saying.

I'm not hating on wind. I'm discussing the problems with business as usual behavior.

[kristopher]

100. Yes there are; a number of current technologies that can do that.

[DLnyc]

135. Except for ones that can

Concentrated solar plants already store energy as heat in melted salts. Also very practical is pumping water up to a high reservoir. The storage 'problem' is really a canard.

Specifically,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage
========
Molten salt can be employed as a heat store to retain heat collected by a solar tower or solar trough so that it can be used to generate electricity in bad weather or at night. It was demonstrated in the Solar Two project from 1995-1999. The system is predicted to have an annual efficiency of 99%, although it is not clear if this is the second law efficiency.<2><3> The molten salt is a mixture of 60 percent sodium nitrate and 40 percent potassium nitrate, commonly called saltpetre. It is non-flammable and nontoxic, and has already been used in the chemical and metals industries as a heat-transport fluid, so experience with such systems exists in non-solar applications.

The salt melts at 221 °C (430 °F). It is kept liquid at 288 °C (550 °F) in an insulated "cold" storage tank. The liquid salt is pumped through panels in a solar collector where the focused sun heats it to 566 °C (1,051 °F). It is then sent to a hot storage tank. This is so well insulated that the thermal energy can be usefully stored for up to a week.

When electricity is needed, the hot salt is pumped to a conventional steam-generator to produce superheated steam for a turbine/generator as used in any conventional coal, oil or nuclear power plant. A 100-megawatt turbine would need tanks of about 30 feet (9.1 m) tall and 80 feet (24 m) in diameter to drive it for four hours by this design.

Several parabolic trough power plants under development in Spain<4> and solar power tower developer SolarReserve plan to use this thermal energy storage concept.
=========

So, specifically, a tank 9.1 m high and 24m diam would store enough heat to deliver 100 megawatt-hours.

(on edit: Incidentally, I don't think it really makes sense to "store megawatts". You would store the equivalent of megawatt-hours, not megawatts.)

[WriteDown]

161. Pie in the sky stuff at this time....

Here's a more realistic look.

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2170

[DLnyc]

35. I think not

As expensive or more per watt capacity as wind and solar. More expensive when management of fuel and waste included. And much longer lead time to actual production of power.

http://timeforchange.org/advantages-cost-electricity-new-nuclear-power-stations

Will make huge piles of money for a select group of people, though.

[WriteDown]

55. Once again...

Wind and solar cannot power a car plant or a machine stamping plant. Can't produce enough power at once. So they can only supplement, but you need a main source of power of which you have 3 or 4. Coal, Oil, Nuke, or NG.

[kristopher]

69. Sure they can. You just don't know what you are talking about.

I challenge you to show one legitimate source that supports your statement. If you don't have access to peer reviewed literature, then try to find it at a place like the Dept. of Energy or the National Renewable Energy Lab.

You won't find support because your belief is FALSE.

[WriteDown]

70. Don't need that....

All you have to do is explain to me one thing. How can you get a windmill to spin faster, and how can you get the sun to shine on a cloudy day or shine brighter. Barring that, explain how you store 1000's of Megawatts of electricity. You don't have to supply any links, just explain it .

[kristopher]

77. It's a grid.

No generating source operates 100% of the time. Renewables present a different profile, but the entire portfolio of distributed technologies (only those now available and ready to go) can function the same way as todays centralized system does only with greater reliability and a much higher level of overall efficiency.

Your logic goes awry when you attribute the character of the entire grid (providing energy on demand) to a single power generating source like a single coal or nuclear plant. Even though central thermal generation provides energy more of the time, it is still an intermittent source of energy. The same strategies for addressing that intermittency apply to renewables.

Renewables are also a much more economically attractive proposition for the nation as a whole (versus special interest) in the long run.

[WriteDown]

79. So what components of the grid store 1000's of megawatts of power...

and how big a grid would you need to power a car manufacturing plant? And how many windmills or solar panels do you need going full tilt to replenish a days worth of operating electricity?

[kristopher]

85. Repeating your ignorance doesn't make you smarter...

That is the teabagger strategy.

[WriteDown]

92. More evasion. Thanks for proving my point. nt

[DLnyc]

133. 64 MW not enough to power a plant?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Solar_One

[Pavulon]

139. singing in the rain, im singing..oh you mean no sun no power?(nt)

[DLnyc]

140. Again, the 'no storage' meme is a big canard

See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4248625&mesg_id=4249465

Storage of excess solar capacity as heat is efficient and routine.

And switching the question from capacity to storage is not really an effective way to further intelligent debate.

[Pavulon]

141. In the 1000 megawatt range? nope.

again this is not church. I am pretty comfortable with physics.

[DLnyc]

142. Okay, if you're comfortable with physics:

1) A megawatt is a RATE of energy production, not an AMOUNT, and is thus not an appropriate unit for storage of energy. Let's assume you mean megawatt-hours (which IS an amount), not megawatts.

2) 1000 megawatt-hours is a large amount to be storing . . . equivalent to an hour's output from a typical large nuclear power plant, but so be it, let's assume you want to store enough energy to deliver 1000 megawatt-hours of electricity. As I carefully documented above, and will do again here, the Wikipedia article gives a calculation that a tank "about 30 feet (9.1 m) tall and 80 feet (24 m) in diameter" would store enough heat to drive a 100 megawatt turbine for four hours. Thus, three such tanks would be enough to provide a backup of about 1200 megawatt-hours of electricity, well over your 1000 megawatt-hours request. If you want to deliver that electricity at a RATE of 1000 MEGAWATTS (rather than the AMOUNT of 1000 MEGAWATT-HOURS) you would need about ten such tanks to sustain that rate for four hours; this has some cost, but certainly less than the typical $10 billion price tag of a nuclear power plant.

In case you didn't catch it in my other post, here is the link and the excerpt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage
============
Molten salt can be employed as a heat store to retain heat collected by a solar tower or solar trough so that it can be used to generate electricity in bad weather or at night. It was demonstrated in the Solar Two project from 1995-1999. The system is predicted to have an annual efficiency of 99%, although it is not clear if this is the second law efficiency.<2><3> The molten salt is a mixture of 60 percent sodium nitrate and 40 percent potassium nitrate, commonly called saltpetre. It is non-flammable and nontoxic, and has already been used in the chemical and metals industries as a heat-transport fluid, so experience with such systems exists in non-solar applications.

The salt melts at 221 °C (430 °F). It is kept liquid at 288 °C (550 °F) in an insulated "cold" storage tank. The liquid salt is pumped through panels in a solar collector where the focused sun heats it to 566 °C (1,051 °F). It is then sent to a hot storage tank. This is so well insulated that the thermal energy can be usefully stored for up to a week.

When electricity is needed, the hot salt is pumped to a conventional steam-generator to produce superheated steam for a turbine/generator as used in any conventional coal, oil or nuclear power plant. A 100-megawatt turbine would need tanks of about 30 feet (9.1 m) tall and 80 feet (24 m) in diameter to drive it for four hours by this design.

Several parabolic trough power plants under development in Spain<4> and solar power tower developer SolarReserve plan to use this thermal energy storage concept.
==========

Assuming you are comfortable with physics, and assuming you have some intellectual honesty, perhaps you would be willing to admit that, in fact, the problem of storing enough energy to deliver 1000 megawatt-hours of electricity (or even the harder problem of delivering stored energy at the rate of 1000 megawatts)is not an obstacle at all; rather, it has a practical, tested and relatively cheap solution.

[Pavulon]

145. I am aware. I generally dont post tech babble so here is the napkin version

a westinghouse AP1000 reactor can generate 1gigawatt (1000MW/Hr) all day long. To convert store that energy chemically or as heat is not possible with any level of efficiency. You are paying a premium on each change in state, like an atm transaction. You pay a percent to deposit, then a percent to withdraw.

The navy runs the most sophisticated reactor systems in production. (non lab reactors) I have done work in Idaho and understand the process. I an not a Nuclear engineer but am a materials engineer. Their standards based reactor is smaller and highly efficient. They do not cost 10 billion. There are lots deployed. The trick is to pick a standard reactor like the ap1000 or a similar pwr reactor.

Right now there is no way to light up the tri-state without coal or nukes. Coal sucks.

Rather than fucking off with derivative technology the attention needs to be paid to the generation process. Nuclear fission is a pretty advanced technology. Once that is running we just take the energy and use it to boil a tea kettle and spin generators. Same as we did with the first steam engine.

The real goal is direct generation (non mechanical) where the energy freed in a reaction is not used to spin generators.

[DLnyc]

154. So "again this is not church. I am pretty comfortable with physics." but at the

same time you call an actual fact-based post "tech babble"?

Storage able to deliver 24 hours at a 1000 MW rate is not trivial, but your statement that "To convert store that energy chemically or as heat is not possible with any level of efficiency" is, to my ears, imprecise, misleading and essentially inaccurate, as I have carefully documented.

I would be willing to listen to your point of view if there was some sense of interaction, but you seem to just repeat charged buzzwords without really addressing issues.

Any heat storage system is not "converting" heat energy, since the energy is already in the form of heat. The efficiency of storage, as documented, is around 99%, provided the tank is well-insulated and has low surface to volume ratio. The "percent to withdraw" is the same percent cost on direct usage, so not really relevant.

By "did some work in Idaho" I am guessing you worked on naval nuclear power plants, which sounds pretty cool. Rather than wild general statements (and, IMHO, not precisely accurate), I would be interested to hear what (documentable) information you could provide on these types of power plants. e.g.: My understanding is that these power plants are more in the 50 to 150 MW range (not 1000) and also that they run on highly enriched fuel (in order to fit in a small volume). (from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_reactor ) Wouldn't that mean a fairly high security cost if applied on a large scale to civilian applications? (I am assuming such highly enriched fuel would be potential bomb material, if it fell into the wrong hands.) I have seen the price of new nuclear power plants quoted at anywhere from 10 to 30 billion dollars (for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_a_nuclear_power_plant ). What sort of price do you think these (smaller) plants would come in at? If way lower than a billion, I would ask your opinion as to why they aren't applied to civilian use (other that the security questions).

[WriteDown]

160. Although molten salt technology still has many problems, I'll ask one question....

How many tanks and what size to power a single metal stamping plant?

[Pavulon]

167. Navy runs a standardized model.

The reactor in a specific class of submarines are very similar. If all new plants were standardized cost goes down. The point was cost, not output.

I did work with exotic steel designed to withstand the chemicals present and heat generated in a reactor. The reactors used by the navy are an example of a standards based program where the design, documentation, and operation is shared across many platforms.

Using one of the standardized designs from Westinghouse or a french company for that matter is a cost and safety factor.

The size of the reactor was not the point. The cost of development is applied to a fleet of reactors, not one off designs like the current civilian reactors in the US.

I am not aware of any "battery" operated by any civilian power company in the US. you have already linked to the basics of naval reactor design.

The big picture is simple. Right now there is no smart grid, no ability to run the tri-state with solar or wind in any thing that could be considered near term.

The solution to mitigating carbon output from coal is to replace the capacity with a nuclear reactors in the 1200MW range. Some plants could run 4, others may only need one. Use of NG and renewables for peak would give the technology time and money to progress.

[brentspeak]

7. Uh, what happened to his pledge to make the U.S. a green-energy powerhouse?

Obama wasted so much time on the corporate health insurance for all that he didn't notice the Chinese have already overtaken the U.S. in the field of green energy.

[Ferret Annica]

9. Strip mining is an abomination, and nuclear is dangerous and dirty

This sort of nonsense from Obama is frustrating.

[benh57]

10. nope

Current nuclear tech is neither dangerous nor dirty. This is common sense. Do some research on current designs.

Old 70's tech reactors are dangerous and dirty, but we've come a long way since those designs.

[fascisthunter]

16. really... what happens to the waste then?

and it will ALWAYS be dangerous.

[defendandprotect]

19. Unfortunately 106 of those "dangerous and dirty" reactors are still with us!!!

Poorly maintained, constantly changing hands and dangerous!!

[Pavulon]

58. I have lived next to reactors for 40 years

and neither plant had ever had a nuclear event. In fact you cant find one name in the US on a death certificate citing radiation exposure in the civilian reactor system. Please dont post shit from los alamos or the manhattan project as a counter claim.

No deaths at TMI not one, no health effects from 20 year university of pitt study.

Nuclear positions are generally group think.

[defendandprotect]

18. Didn't we elect Democrats to go GREEN . . .??? Global Warming . .???

Bush could have done this for us --

Why did we bother electing Democrats? Someone remind me, please???!!!

What's going on is insane!!

And we have absolutely no leverage over this administration to pull it away

from wars, from insurance companies, from banks, from Wall Street!!

"Disgusting" is correct -- !!!

[kristopher]

41. Please see post #37. nt

[Liberation Angel]

11. Selling out to the nuke industry

is a huge blunder

this makes me so sad

my family are downwinders who have been diagnosed with illnesses determined by our MD to have most probably been caused by exposure to radiation from nuclear power plants.

My children have suffered some severe conditions.

I have lost two cousins and a close friend (also downwinders) to brain/bone cancer in their early forties. They lived/worked/played too near the effluent/emission sources from the plants. Another couple, friends of mine who resided within a mile of the plant where they live, had two babies with severe birth defects (they were clean living people too - didn't smoke and hardly drank and never did drugs).

So this news that Obama is sleeping with the nuke industry is devastating to me.

I had hoped he was smarter than that.

Apparently he is not.

He is either deluded by them or willfully in denial of the stupidity/recklessness of this position. Or it is just the politics of convenience for him: nuke corporations have lots of dough to butter his political bread with.

He is sleeping with the enemy.

Maybe he always has been.

Sad. Too too sad.

[defendandprotect]

21. "FOR SALE" sign on White House went up during Nixon administration . . .

never came down --

eh . . . did we think we were electing Democrats to STOP this insanity?

40 years doesn't seem to have taught us much???

[kristopher]

40. Please see post #37 nt

[Red1]

13. Have Things Straightened Out?

Are we a more responsible people? Do we indulge in drugs while on the job? The decisions we make....are they correct? Do airline pilots forget where they are and never miss their destination? Will the railroads guarantee no more train wrecks from the guys driving the thing, not full of pot or speed? Are we as focused on our tasks are we should be? Can we trust such an industry to be honest and not become infused with managers of little or no powerhouse experience...but hired by the big guys for being a 'team player'?

Do you really want to take a chance with nuclear power?

[4dsc]

14. And you wonder why Obama is losing support.. nt

[glitch]

23. All the cheering in the world won't save a team running hell bent in the wrong direction. nt

[boppers]

15. $54 billion in guarantees, $9 billion per reactor costs...

6 reactors? er... that seems like a drop in the bucket.

[4dsc]

24. Wait for cost overruns too.

If you look at the cost overruns that are occurring around the world with nuclear power I don't see them holding the cost to $9B.

[boppers]

27. So what's the point, then?

4-5 reactors isn't going to make much of a dent... is this more about appearing to keep the options open and viable, without actually significantly expanding into nuclear energy?

[kristopher]

43. Please see post #37 nt

[defendandprotect]

22. But "America" can't afford less than one billion for health care reform -- !!!

How nuts are we?

[Overseas]

29. +1

[avaistheone1]

28. If nuclear power plants are so safe why do us taxpayers have to make $54 billion dollars in loan

guarantees? Let the greedy profit-making nuclear power companies and their shareholders take care of it.

[Liberation Angel]

31. Its a payoff to Obama's nuclear wall street benefactors: corporate welfare

the real welfare queens and kings and tyrants and despots: nuclear corporations

[avaistheone1]

33. I agree.

I warned my fellow DU'ers about Obama's position on this during campaign session, and the issue was buried under the carpet and pooh poohed.

[kristopher]

44. Please see post #37. nt

[greenman3610]

36. there's a little bit of theater going on here

You notice that loan guarantees have been in place since 2005, they doubled down on them in 2007, and
nobody has yet taken them up on it.
That's because the cost of a single new reactor is so high, that even with the loan guarantees,
no one is willing to bite.
for a serious revival of the nuclear industry, for it to make an impact on the system, they would
need a trillion dollar subsidy, which they will not get.
meanwhile, the renewables keep gathering strength - 10,000 MW new wind this year, now
running neck and neck with gas turbines.
Coal is dead.
Nuclear is dead, barring some kind of new tech, like
workable Generation 4 technology - which won't arrive until
renewables have long since dominated the market.

[Liberation Angel]

38. Wow - that is really good news if true/not that i do not believe you, but...links?

If your analysis is borne out by sources from the environmental antinuke movement I would love to see them.

I would prefer to think of this as smart Obama political theater and not a sellout to the industry.

Do you honestly believe it is just Obama PR/theater?

[greenman3610]

144. try here for a start

http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/04/an-introduction-to-nuclear-power/
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/28/toshiba-san-antonio-nuclear-power-plant-expensive-cost/


wind power latest numbers
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10441326-54.html
http://wind.energy-business-review.com/news/us_wind_power_capacity_up_in_2009_but_turbine_manufacturing_down_awea_100127/

I say to anyone who wishes to build a nuclear plant -
fine. Cost it out. then come back and tell me you can sell this to
your state utility commission during a recession.
I say if you can get ratepayers and industrial users to
tax themselves to the degree needed to build one of these, then you
deserve the chance.
go for it.

I'll be starting a series of videos very soon which will be dealing with where we
are on renewables. The path is there, the logic is there, we are going there.
The only question is will we be first, and will we lead.

[kristopher]

45. +1

[Pavulon]

46. Unless you fill the ocean with vaporware

grid of bird choppers and solar you can not generate the same amount of energy produced by clusters of AP1000 reactors. 4000Mw in a very small space on existing grids. The navy has been spinning up reactors for the last 30 years with no drama. Stupidity is the hold up in the civilian market.

You need 130 gigawatts to run the tristate alone. You have coal or nuclear, pick one.

You choose, chinese turbines or chinese solar cells. See these are low tech, low bid shit with low dollar labor. Or the 80,000 bucks first day job you get at any Nuke plant in the US. A job that can be learned in the Navy or a technical school.

BTW china buys reactors made here. Funny, we buy their walmart lead toys and sell then ap1000 reactors they cant make themselves.

[kristopher]

73. More falsehoods and nuclear industry lies about renewables...

Radar tracked flight path of birds encountering offshore wind farm:


Land required to provide power for US auto fleet:

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[WriteDown]

75. This an industry lie too?

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=311094&ac=PHnws

[kristopher]

83. Yes.

Every single land use issue has at least 20-30% who oppose it. That has no relationship to the actual impact of the proposal as it can be something that, like renewable energy, has 90%+ public support. In the case of wind power these inevitable opponents are having their voices amplified by strong support from fossil fuel/nuclear industry funding for obstructionist public relations and legal campaigns.

Want a good example? Read Wendy Williams book on Cape Wind.

[WriteDown]

94. Ah, so they should just shut up about that documented low hum ...

Its amazing that we wonder why people are apprehenhensive about adopting green tech with that kind of condescension. :rofl:

[kristopher]

103. There are siting guidelines that deal with things like noise.

Exaggerating the negatives of renewables is a tactic of the established energy interests like Exxon Mobile and the Republican party.

Why are you attempting to help them by spreading disinformation?

[WriteDown]

105. These are nice people from Maine and their claims are similar to others...

that low frequency constant hum can be detrimental to a lot of people.

[kristopher]

114. Not according to science.

There is absolutely no valid scientific evidence that there are negative health effects from noise.

They are very likely nice people who are complaining, that doesn't mean their complaints are based on valid issues. Some percentage of people simply do not like a change in the area they are familiar with - no matter what the nature of the change is.

The real travesty is that paid operatives of the fossil fuel and nuclear industry are exploiting these "nice people" to further their lies to the public.

[Pavulon]

119. Nukes work. Not on paper, but right now.

How much money does a bird chopper fixer get paid? Less than the 80 grand you will make your first day working in a reactor control room.

[kristopher]

121. ROFLMAO

You cannot document your claims that nuclear is better going forward. All you can do is point to Ronald Reagan's energy policy and say "Please give me more".

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[WriteDown]

126. Still with that opinion piece? Did your dad write it or is that you? nt

[kristopher]

134. So you reject objective analysis in favor of your personal agenda.

A typical Republican often calls scientific analysis "opinion". Feel free to actually address the product of Prof. Mark Jacobson's work.

I was disappointed when I discovered that the list of experts at last week’s Clean Energy Summit would not include Stanford University’s Mark Jacobson. Of course, no individual is indispensable at such a summit. But as the day went by I felt his absence more and more keenly.

That’s because Jacobson is one of the few scientists looking at energy’s Big Picture. How big?

In an article published in the journal Energy & Environmental Science earlier this year, Jacobson reported the first quantitative, scientific study evaluating the top energy sources based on:

1. Potential for delivering adequate power for electricity and vehicles
2. Impacts on global warming
3. Air pollution mortality
4. Energy security
5. Water supply
6. Land use
7. Wildlife
8. Water chemical pollution
9. Thermal pollution
10. Nuclear proliferation
11. Undernutrition

By using each of these factors to assess ten major energy sources, Jacobson produced a list that should be the starting point in any discussion about our energy future. Here’s what he found:

The top electrical generating energy sources are (from best to worst):

1. Wind
2. Concentrated Solar Power (CSP)
3. Geothermal power
4. Tidal power
5. Solar photovoltaics (PV)
6. Wave power
7. Hydroelectric power
8. Nuclear power
9. Coal (even with Carbon Capture and Sequestration, CCS)

Nuclear and coal actually tied for last place.

For powering vehicles, Jacobson produced a second list. Again going from best to worst:

1. Wind BEV (Battery Electric Vehicles)
2. Wind HFCV (Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles)
3. Solar CSP-BEV
4. Geothermal BEV
5. Tidal BEV
6. Solar PV-BEV
7. Wave BEV
8. Hydroelectric BEV
9. Nuclear BEV
10. Coal CCS-BEV (tied with #9)
11. Corn ethanol
12. Cellulosic ethanol

http://thephoenixsun.com/archives/4623

[WriteDown]

162. No, just cold hard facts and balanced looks....

Here's an interesting article with a myriad of possibilities.

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2170

[Pavulon]

128. coal, nuke, or prayers

those are your options. You can use corn too but that tends to starve the 3rd world. bad idea. Sun is a reactor, deal with it. Wave jesus has not saved us yet..

[Pavulon]

48. You know what the sun is? A big reactor

the thing that warms you and lights the planet. Yep an evil cancer causing, farah fawcett freaking out reactor ready to kill us all when it explodes, which it eventually will.

The nuclear energy field is a source of almost limitless energy. All others are derivatives.

[postulater]

49. At least that reactor is 93 million miles away.

[Pavulon]

51. When it goes, you are 8 minutes from fucked.

point being, nuclear power does not rely on cheap chinese made shit and pay a windmill guy fork truck driver wages. It is made here and pays very well.

[DLnyc]

143. Wow! That's a really, really, really GOOD POINT!!!

We have a working hydrogen fusion reactor based on gravitational containment placed conveniently about 90 million miles from the surface of the earth so that it delivers energy at a rate of about 220 BTU per square foot per hour, mostly in the visible spectrum with most of the damaging radiation filtered out by the atmosphere and the magnetosphere. Also convenient, our planet is turning on its axis to give a relatively even distribution of this energy. So alls we need to do now is figure out some way to convert this relatively diffuse visible wavelength energy either directly to electricity or to high grade heat. Hmmm, how could we do that? Oh yeah!!! Photovotaics and concentrated solar!!!

Congratulations, friend, your amazingly perceptive wit has solved the energy problem!!!!!

(Of course, to be fair, in about ten billion years we might need to figure out what to do with all the accumulated iron in the core of the damned thing.)

(edit to correct units from "BTU per square foot" to "BTU per square foot per hour") ;-)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

63. Reagan 2: Nuclear Boogaloo

[SlingBlade]

66. Re ,,,Re... Re...RePuke !

"Change You Can Believe In" :argh:

[Generator]

68. Worthless not worth the risk nightmare

From our experience in Oregon with Trojan. It was always leaking and eventually put off line in 1992 and finally destroyed in 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Nuclear_Power_Plant

(cool demolition at that link!)

No nukes! I thought we were moving into the future-this is going back wards.

Also read about Hanford in Washington. http://www.doh.wa.gov/hanford/publications/history/release.html

Read all about the radioactive fun.

Chernobyl anyone?

Good lord, we learn nothing from the past.

[bossy22]

86. chernobyl isnt a good example

it was a poorly built/designed reactor even by 1970's standard

[kristopher]

106. Why? Have we achieve perfection in our ability to design and operate such a system?

Also, why take the risk for something that is more expensive and slower to deploy than the renewable alternatives?

[Pavulon]

117. How many reactors does the navy run?

more than the entire output of renewables used worldwide, combined. Cheers. Reality vs pipe dream.

[kristopher]

123. Do you really think that answer addresses the issue of nuclear power or renewables?

It doesn't

But this does:

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[Pavulon]

130. NO that is a sermon, great if you like faith, but wave jesus has not saved us yet.

so the real world lets you choose nuke or coal.

[WriteDown]

131. Your dad's article doens't make any reference to peak power needs...

why is that? It also makes no mention of factories such as iron smelters which use TONS of electricity to operate at times.

[kristopher]

138. .

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

113. 3 Mile Island?

I live south of Harrisburg and well remember the panic caused by that incident.

[Pavulon]

116. NO death, just broken equipment. Per 20 year study

from university of pitt. china syndrome seems to have been a bit overblown.

[swilton]

115. Flawed logic - say it isn't so Mr. President

Will not come on line fast enough to solve immediate energy requirements

Are security risk vis a vis terrorism

Solid waste disposal problems have not been resolved and pose immediate and long term toxic waste and storage problems


A better move would have been to invest those resources in solar and wind power - renewable energy sources are the answer to the planet's energy challenges.

[Cetacea]

132. +10000

[ozone_man]

136. My first unrecommend.

I never had use of this feature before, but I think I used it appropriately.

Just when it seems that Obama can't do anything worse to lose my respect, he does this. Bail out Wall Street, select Geithner, Bernanke, and Summers, sink Single Payer, continue and ramp up war in Afghanistan, trillion dollar deficits, and now this. If I held out any audacious hope that he might be an actual Democrat or stand for something, anything, that is non-corporate, it is gone now.

[420inTN]

147. How about investing some of that money...

into Thorium-based nuclear reactors?

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

156. This appears as if it will go to expand nuclear plants that will be decommissioned in...

...a decade anyway. The most promising sites are the ones which have started construction on "replacement" nuclear reactors but which stalled or lacked funding.

It will not build the legendary AP1000 in the United States.

Too bad, it would've been cool to see if the costs could come down. We'll see how China does.

[snooper2]

163. I will never understand why liberals are against nuclear power..

It solves so many more problems than it creates...

[theophilus]

164. Would (could) this aid in developing FUSION power? n/t

[Cognitive_Resonance]

165. The choice is nuclear or coal

Windmills and solar panels have a roll, but will never do the heavy lifting. Derail nuclear, and we will be stuck with even more filthy coal plants. Waste issues are solvable provided there is the investment to develop those solutions.