Chu Appoints Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Advisory Committee

[kristopher]

DOE Launches New Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Advisory Committee

November 12, 2010

Committee to provide advice and expertise on clean energy issues under the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Washington, D.C. - The U.S. Department of Energy today announced the establishment of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Advisory Committee (ERAC). ERAC is a federal advisory committee whose members will report directly to the Secretary of Energy with advice on the portfolio of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The 19 members selected have experience in a variety of sectors and will bring a range of technical expertise and perspectives to the committee.

"We are fortunate to have such knowledgeable people volunteering their time and efforts to the Department's clean energy endeavors," said Secretary Chu. "They will be contributing their expertise and experience to help address the energy challenges faced by our Nation."

ERAC will periodically review EERE's portfolio and provide advice to the Secretary of Energy on a variety of areas including: completion of long-range plans, priorities and strategies; program funding; and any issues of specific concern expressed by the Secretary of Energy or the Assistant Secretary for EERE. ERAC is expected to meet twice a year; the meetings will be open to the public. The Committee is being established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). DOE also expects to organize various subcommittees under ERAC. Learn more about the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Advisory Committee.

Below are the selected members of the ERAC:

Yet-Ming Chiang Kyocera Professor of Ceramics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Lonnie Edelheit Senior Vice President, Research & Development, General Electric Company (Retired)

Ira Ehrenpreis General Partner, Technology Partners

Philip Giudice Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources

Hal Harvey CEO, ClimateWorks Foundation

Mark Jacobson Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Director, Atmosphere/Energy Program, Stanford University

Jay Keasling CEO, Joint BioEnergy Institute and Professor, University of California, Berkeley

Neal Lane The Malcolm Gillis University Professor, Rice University

Ed Lazowska Bill & Melinda Gates Chair in Computer Science & Engineering, University of Washington

Richard Lester Japan Steel Industry Professor, Head of the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering, and faculty co-chair and founding Director of the Industrial Performance Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Kathleen McGinty Operating Partner, Element LLC

Arati Prabhakar Partner, U.S. Venture Partners

Stanley Pruss Partner, 5 Lakes Energy LLC

Burton Richter Paul Pigott Professor in the Physical Sciences Emeritus, Senior Fellow Freeman Spogli Institute of International Studies, Stanford University; and Director Emeritus, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Arthur Rosenfeld Distinguished Scientist Emeritus, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Janette Sadik-Khan Commissioner, New York City Department of Transportation

Subir Sanyal President and Manager of Reservoir Engineering Services, GeothermEx, Inc.

Maxine Savitz General Manager, Honeywell/AlliedSignal (Retired)

Mark Stoering Vice President, Portfolio Strategy & Business Development, Xcel Energy

http://www.energy.gov/news/9792.htm

[jwirr]

1. I am not informed enough to know if this is a good panel or not.

[kristopher]

2. What would equal "good" to you?

I posted the list because it creates a bit of an issue for those nuclear supporters who have spent more than a year baselessly maligning Jacobson (name on list in bold) while simultaneously extolling the fact that Nobel Prize recipient Chu, in his role as DOE Sec, has supported the program to provide the nuclear industry all they claimed they needed to get their industry off the government teat.

Apparently Chu thinks Jacobson's work is of high caliber.

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

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


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

Abstract
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.

[txlibdem]

3. I'm just glad it took them 2 years to get started

Maybe the administration will soon start thinking about ways to get jobs for Americans, too? Or is that to wait till after the 2012 elections...

[GliderGuider]

5. The issue here isn't so much with Jacobson himself

It's with your spamming of his single paper as though it's the last word on all matters energetic, and using it as a club to try and shut down those who disagree with you.

It'as not Jacobson we have a problem with.

[kristopher]

7. Of course it isn't "with Jacobson himself"; it is with the VALID conclusion of his paper.

It is an undeniable rejection of the assertion of nuclear supporters that we MUST have nuclear power to respond to AGW. There are no criticisms of the content of the paper that "debunk" or "destroy" it as several nuclear supporters here falsely claim has been done.

And I will give you the standard response to your assertion that it has been used a "club to try and shut down" discussion. No, it hasn't. It has been used to provide an authoritative, well documented, and accessible response to those who make FALSE CLAIMS about the relative merits of the various technological options for moving away from carbon.

[GliderGuider]

8. Who appointed you Truth Keeper?

I see very few "false claims" arrayed against renewables. Instead, I mostly see valid claims that you disagree with and characterize as false in an apparent attempt to besmirch and silence those with the temerity to disagree. When used as the sole weapon in that endeavour, Jacobson's paper becomes a club monotonously thudding on straw men.

You're not the Pope of Renewables, kristopher. Others have the right to their own opinions, and the right to bring forth facts you find uncomfortable.

[kristopher]

11. Your own opinion, yes; but not your own facts.

Which, again, is the value of peer reviewed work by highly qualified researchers like Jacobson.

I suppose that is why you prefer/endorse charlatans as authoritative sources.

[GliderGuider]

12. Well, Heinberg just had an article published in "Nature"...

Peer reviewed and everything...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7322/full/468367a.html

[kristopher]

14. Congratulations to him...

And David Fridley of LBNL.

It sounds like they have confirmed a fact I've been saying here for years - cheap coal is a myth because of the way the reserves are deposited and the lack of mining techniques for recovering thin veins.

[joshcryer]

21. Nice. Maybe deserves its own thread.

[txlibdem]

10. There is no "must have" energy source. None.

Quite the opposite. There should be no DOMINANT energy source as there are today with fossil fuels.

It took America 100 years to get this dependent on fossil fuels, to allow all other technologies to be forgotten or to atrophy away to uselessness. It would be nice if we had another 100 years to get off of fossil sources but WE DO NOT HAVE IT. We will all be dead if, in 100 years, we are still using fossil fuels in any significant way.

We need nuclear power, but not as THE answer. THERE IS NO SINGLE ANSWER... there cannot be, and there should not be. We need all the solar power we can get, both Solar PV and Concentrating Thermal Solar Power Plants. We need all the wind energy we can get, both on the land and the sea. We need all the tidal energy generation we can get, every place that it is feasible in the world. We need as much Geothermal energy as we can get, both by tapping into the heat of the Earth's core and by using the heat difference between air and ground to heat or cool our homes, buildings and factories. We need all the efficiency improvements we can get -- improve everything we use in every way possible to be as energy efficient as possible. That includes getting rid of incandescent lights, insulating as much as possible, replacing inefficient appliances when they die with ones that use a fraction of the energy of the old ones, better windows, electronic gadgets that use far less energy, etc. We need it all. All of these and more will be needed to keep our society going while we transition away from the dirty, destructive fossil fuels we have allowed ourselves to become addicted to.

We also need to put herculean efforts into energy storage technology so we can store the solar power for use at night and when it is cloudy outside, etc. We need better batteries. We need electric cars and electric trucks and ultra-fast bullet trains that run on clean electricity so we can cut down on domestic flights that use some of the dirtiest fossil fuels there are. We need to shop for locally produced goods and make sure that container ships are not allowed to dock at American ports if they use bunker fuel (which they ALL do right now).

Basically each and every thing that we do today needs to be changed entirely or at least greatly improved for efficiency and reduced energy and raw materials use. There must be no stone unturned in our quest to free ourselves from these dirty fuels.

Your fanatical opposition to nuclear power, however, tells the rest of us that you are an "activist" and don't care about getting off of fossil fuels at all. Your one-topic point of view has rendered all of your arguments entirely suspect. So I ask you for the millionth time, please join the rest of us Americans in working hard to HELP US END THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS -- please!

[kristopher]

13. Your premise is DEMONSTRABLY false.

Have you ever had to make a choice to buy one thing instead of another because you can't afford both? Of course you have. When you made that choice you did not choose the least bang for your buck, did you? No, you didn't. You chose to purchase the item that most satisfied the goal that motivated you to make the purchase.

This is no different. There are strong and significant reasons that nuclear power, coal CCS and corn/cellulosic ethanol are a POOR VALUE for our noncarbon energy dollars.

That is a fact that cannot be truthfully denied - funds and time are limited therefore choices are required for achieving the most effective solution.

You wrote, "Your fanatical opposition to nuclear power, however, tells the rest of us that you are an "activist" and don't care about getting off of fossil fuels at all."

What I am is an energy policy analyst specializing in noncarbon energy sources and the planning involved in moving away from a fossil fuel economy. I have no inherent bias against nuclear power except for the associated costs/benefits that are involved in using it.

I DO have a strong bias against is the spread of false information and misleading arguments like the one you presented above stating that pursuing all noncarbon energy sources is the most effective way to move away from fossil fuels.

It isn't. The most effective way is to focus on a system design and then promote the technologies that enable the most rapid transition to that system.

Contrary to your assertions, putting public funds into supporting the deployment of nuclear power actually SLOWS the move away from fossil fuels because it is both more expensive than the renewable alternative and because it is far slower to bring online.

I'll pose the same challenge to you that I have given to many other nuclear proponents here: Explain why no environmental organizations support nuclear as a solution to climate change.

Is it reasonable to suppose that they *all* secretly support continued use of fossil fuels or is it more reasonable to suppose that you have internalized the meme that the nuclear industry is trying to push where they see "packaging nuclear power with renewables" as one key element for gaining access to the public treasury?

Here is a previous post I made documenting that strategy:

Messaging strategy for nuclear power (in their own words)

From presentation:
"Understanding Public Opinion: A Key to the Nuclear Renaissance"
Dr. Raul A. Deju Sept. 2009
Chief Operating Officer, EnergySolutions, Inc.

I'm sure this "message" is a familiar one to DU/EE readers. This comes on the tail end of a rather dismal assessment of public support for nuclear power. It is a given that by "sensible energy policy" the author is referring to one that includes the nuclear power that will produce the waste his company can profit from.

...how do we use the results of public opinion to develop a sensible energy policy

• Leadership and unity of message need to be the top priority.

• Acceptable messages need to cover the diversity of group thinking.

• Developing confidence on having a solution to nuclear waste issues and non-proliferation requires leadership messages and social support more than scientific support.

And what are those "acceptable messages"?

Energy Messages
• Nuclear and renewable energy need to be tied into a combined offering.
• Concerns regarding energy security and energy independence can only
be solved through the combination of energy efficiency, renewable
standards, and nuclear energy.

"Understanding Public Opinion: A Key to the Nuclear Renaissance"
Dr. Raul A. Deju Sept. 2009
Chief Operating Officer
EnergySolutions, Inc.

EnergySolutions is one of the world’s largest processors of low level waste (LLW), and is the largest nuclear waste company in the United States...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnergySolutions

In fact, if we build nuclear power it *actively* discourages BOTH renewable energy policies and development AND energy efficiency policies and efforts because they undermine of the economics of nuclear power.

It is a real clear economic choice folks - if you advocate for nuclear power you are undercutting the efforts to build our renewables, if you support renewable energy and energy efficiency, you are denying nuclear power the market share they MUST have to be viable.

[NNadir]

15. I respectfully disagree with you.

Nuclear energy is the single best form of energy there is.

If nuclear energy is not acceptable, than nothing is acceptable.

I note that nuclear energy has stupid people irrationally railing against it for almost its entire 50 year history of commercial development, and it still remains the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy.

Why is this?

Because it works.

The inventors of nuclear energy were men like Fermi, Bethe, Wigner and Seaborg. They remain among the greatest scientific minds the world has ever produced.

Conversely, the failed so called "renewables" industry has uncritical and unreflective cheering world wide and still has no hope whatsoever of phasing out dangerous fossil fuels, even as the oceans acidify, the land is parched (or flooded) and the atmosphere begins to collapse.

So called "renewable energy," - which is not, in fact, renewable - is a waste of resources in a time of unrelenting growth of poverty.

[jpak]

16. Maine Yankee failed because it "didn't work" and wind/solar power is being deployed in Maine

because it "works".

yup

Moreover - the *failed* NJ molten salt breeder doesn't work either.

:rofl:

[NNadir]

17. Bull. Maine, like Germany is a dangerous fossil fuel waste dumping hellhole.

The world doesn't give a fuck about the rank stupidity that lead to the demise of Maine Yankee and the accession of dangerous fossil fuel companies to control of Maine's energy profile.

We've been over this stupid ground before, and I've produced the numbers repeatedly, but predictably anything involving numbers is beyond the comprehension of anti-nukes.

Just because Maine can't run a plant wisely because of a weak technical infrastructure, a poor scientific community and public stupidity has no effect on China, France, Japan or India, where such infrastructure does exist and thrive.

[jpak]

26. False - and we have been over this before and laid to rest the made-up stuff about ME from NJ

It is New Jersey that is the fossil fuel hellhole.

and the NJ motlen salt breeder reactor is still a laughable fraud

yup

:rofl:

[kristopher]

18. Please support your assertion with evidence.

If we look only at the benefits of nuclear, sure, it sounds great. But benefits are ALWAYS weighed against costs; and when the financial, opportunity and external costs of nuclear are factored in it becomes a far less attractive proposition; in fact, it is revealed to be a diversion of resources from more effective technologies.

Why is nuclear energy not accepted by the environmental community?

Why do ALL plans to solve the carbon and energy security problems rely on nuclear for only a small slice of the move away from carbon if they call for its use at all?

[NNadir]

19. For you? I don't think so. I'm a busy man with a lot on my mind.

I have no room for discussing these issues with you, any more than I am interested in discussing evolution with Pat Robertson.

[kristopher]

20. Thank you for a wonderful contribution to the discussion.

[jpak]

27. LOL!!!!1111 Now back to making things up about that molten salt breeder reactor

:rofl:

[txlibdem]

25. Why is nuclear energy not accepted by the environmental community?

Two answers come to mind.

1. How did CARB cave to the auto companies and remove the electric vehicle mandate, despite clear evidence that their original ruling was the correct course for the nation and the environment.

2. Perhaps they are staffed with people who are much like yourself: against nuclear power effectively because of a religious zeal or fanaticism and not based on facts.

[kristopher]

28. Both answers are incorrect. Try again.

If the technology were as green as its supporters claim, surely at least half of the environmental organizations would be promoting it, no?

Even 25% of them?

The reason they do not is because it is not a green technology; just because it doesn't produce CO2 doesn't mean it isn't a real danger to humankind. Its external costs are as high, if hot higher, than coal.

[joshcryer]

29. NGO's don't support nuclear.

Color me surprised. Their bottom line would be hurt if they supported nuclear.

[Confusious]

30. Either that, or they are so invested, they can't say they were wrong.

Sometimes things just based on good old human stubbornness. Or the need to have a cause.

Or the best reason, if they did come out for nuclear power, they would look like fools for opposing it for so long.

[txlibdem]

31. All sentences wrong. Including punctuation. Try again.

Your information is incorrect. You are stating YOUR opinion. Try to locate a source for why they are not endorsing nuclear power.

[kristopher]

32. So the only thing you can say is they are hysterical and/or they secretly support coal?

Riiiiight, everybody is picking on the poor little ol' bitty nuclear power industry...

[txlibdem]

33. When did I say that?

Nothing I read.

[kristopher]

35. I don't know how else you'd characterize your statements.

Even though I support my statements with high quality research and sound logic, and even though none of those who support nuclear power are able to do the same, you accuse *me* of a religious irrationality etc.

I'd suggest you look in a mirror and check your own inability to clearly articulate precisely WHY the FUCK we SHOULD build more nuclear when renewable energy sources are superior in every way at sustainably meeting our climate change, energy security and environmental goals.

Stop accusing and start supporting. You are already overdue:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=265849&mesg_id=265919

[txlibdem]

37. I understand.

You're using junior high debate tactics (is that when you first closed off your mind to new ideas?). Unfortunately for you, I don't fall for the ad hominem, the false dilemma or the appeal to authority tactics you're attempting.

If you actually had the ability to read, you would know that my posts are more often than not an appeal to you and people like you to support ALL of the alternative energy solutions with the ultimate goal of ending the use of all fossil fuels. You spend most of your time attacking alternative energy supporters and only a tiny portion of your time offering real, reasoned solutions or attacking the true enemy of Mankind, the use of fossil fuels.

[kristopher]

39. Still running from an actual discussion eh?

It is pretty apparent that you can't support your claim that we need nuclear in the mix. If you could defend that claim you would be doing that; not engaging in serial attacks against me personally and then turning around and accusing *me* of using ad hominem.

That's OK, though; I KNOW that your position regarding nuclear is indefensible and it's pretty obvious you do too.

[txlibdem]

40. Once again you've failed to validate the false dilemma you've worked for so long to fabricate

Please try once again.

[kristopher]

41. Keep running...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=265849&mesg_id=265919

[txlibdem]

42. Aha, the light goes on?

You've finally realized that your false dilemma is a failed strategy. Hooray for you.

Be careful. This intellectual journey you've just begun may cause you to realize that coal power plants are bad and we need nuclear power to provide a large percentage of our electricity and solar/wind/geothermal/tide power will provide the rest.

[kristopher]

43. That is an indefensible position - still.

You can repeat it but you clearly can't defend it.

[txlibdem]

44. Kristopher says "coal power plants are bad" is an indefensible position

Am I reading you right? You've finally come out of the "coal closet" and are now openly admitting your ties to and quite evident support of the coal power industry?!? Praise be...

Kristopher, this is a positive step forward for you and I am very proud of you for being brave enough to admit you've been secretly supporting the coal industry all this time. Good for you!

[joshcryer]

34. Several reasons.

1) If they supported nuclear, they'd immediately lose a contingent of supporters who are anti-nuclear for any reason whatsoever. Strike one.
2) If they supported nuclear, they'd immediately lose a contingent of supporters from the renewable side, since they mistakingly consider nuclear in opposition to environmental goals. Strike two.
3) If they supported nuclear, they'd immediately lose a contingent of supporters who simply don't want to be associated with anything that right wingers support, regardless of the reasons for said support.

Basically, these NGOs would lose a lot of support if they came out in support of nuclear, which is why they continue to bash one legitimate method to reduce CO2 around the world. It plays right into self-perpetuating the status quo, and keeps things relatively the same. The last thing an NGO really wants is actual change.

[kristopher]

36. So environmental organizations are greedy, stupid, irrational panderers?

It could just be that nuclear is a poor choice for sustainably meeting our climate change, energy security and pollution abatement needs.

Jacobson's research explains it much, much better than your paranoia.

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

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


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

Abstract
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]

38. All NGOs are.

[txlibdem]

45. Excellent analysis

The culture of America has a strong contingent of anti-nuke religious fanatics who are anti-nuke for no particular reason, they are just rabid, fanatic, dogmatic anti-nuke. Period.

[bananas]

9. Congratulations to Mark Jacobson and Art Rosenfeld

:applause:

[joshcryer]

4. Looks like Chu picked everyone from every spectrum.

[GliderGuider]

6. Chu is my kind of guy.

From Chu's Wikipedia entry:

Chu has been a vocal advocate for more research into alternative energy and nuclear power, arguing that a shift away from fossil fuels is essential to combat global warming. He also spoke at the 2009 National Science Bowl about the importance of America's science students, emphasizing their future role in environmental planning and global initiative. Chu said that a typical coal power plant emits 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant

Steven Chu: ‘Coal is My Worst Nightmare’

Dr. Chu’s marquee work at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is the Helios Project. That’s an effort to tackle what Dr. Chu sees as the biggest energy challenge facing the U.S.: transportation. That’s because it’s a huge drain on U.S. coffers and an environmental albatross, Dr. Chu says.

Helios has focused largely on biofuels—but not the bog-standard kind made from corn and sugar. The Energy Biosciences Institute, a joint effort funded by BP, is looking to make second-generation biofuels more viable. Among the approaches? Researching new ways to break down stubborn cellulosic feedstocks to improve the economics of next-generation biofuels, and finding new kinds of yeast to boost fermentation and make biofuels more plentiful while reducing their environmental impact.

What about other energy sources? Big Coal won’t be very happy if Dr. Chu gets confirmed as head of the DOE—he’s really, really not a big fan. “Coal is my worst nightmare,” he said repeatedly in a speech earlier this year outlining his lab’s alternative-energy approaches.

If coal is to stay part of the world’s energy mix, he says, clean-coal technologies must be developed. But he’s not very optimistic: “It’s not guaranteed we have a solution for coal,” he concluded, given the sheer scope of the challenge of economically storing billions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions underground.

Worried about radioactivity? Coal’s still your bogeyman. Dr. Chu says a typical coal plant emits 100 times more radiation than a nuclear plant, given the flyash emissions of radioactive particles.

I think he's got his priorities right: Coal is Public enemy #1, and w need to use every tool at our disposal to combat it. Chu hasn't taken nuclear power out of his toolkit. Why have you?

[joshcryer]

22. Chu knows what it's going to take, energy from all sources, I just hope he can do something with it.

I have my doubts.

[GliderGuider]

23. Oh, I have my doubts too.

He's a politician after all.

I'm conflicted enough just being an anarchist on a board tied to a political party. There is no way I can defend the idea that a politician might actually accomplish something for the public good. Chu has a sharp mind, but he is as completely a product of the larger system, just as beholden to it and constrained by it, as any of them.

On this front I gave up hope for Lent - 5 years ago.

[kristopher]

24. Politics are keeping nuclear in Chu's toolkit, not reality.

The nuclear industry has pressed for and received yet one more "one last chance" and it is failing. They got all they asked for in the 2005 energy bill and when the false price predictions they used to obtain that support were revealed to be more than 400% too low, they got MORE support from Obama to deal with even that.

However the writing is on the wall for the economics of the plants and even if they manage to get 4-5 built their is little expectation they will be able to provide energy at a price that is competitive with the noncarbon alternatives. There is just no scenario where the industry EVER gains the ability to stand alone without state support; and without that capability there is no US or global industry expansion. In fact, given the trend of aging plant closings and the price trends of the alternatives (especially solar) it is far more likely that the industry will shrink rather than experience a revival.

In the meantime, true to Obama's nature, he is giving the nuclear industry every chance and then some. What is interesting is how the administration is trying to draw a line with the fee for the loan guarantees. It was too high for Constellation even though it almost certainly underestimates the economic risks. It is clear that private investors from outside the vendor circle are very very reluctant to have anything to do with these behemoths.

So yes, nuclear is "in the toolkit" but don't confuse a political fig leaf with actual viability.

Nuclear must meet the concerns of cost, safety, wastes and proliferation to be able to go forward at scale. That is unlikely to happen anytime in the next 30 years.