With Fossil Fuels lobbyists, bloggers, & those fooled by all the BS from Big Oil, Coal, etc.

[txlibdem]

How can we possibly get off of our fossil fuels addiction when the number of astro turf websites and bloggers outnumber the "true" fossil fuels opponents.

Let me say it clearly: Energy sources that emit NO carbon dioxide are GOOD. Energy sources that emit CO2 are BAD.

Let's end the BAD energy sources before ending any of the GOOD energy sources.

Some of the GOOD energy plants are getting old and we need to close them down and replace them with the latest technology. Even GOOD technology gets old and out of date and needs to be replaced by newer equipment. After all, you don't drive the same car your grandfather did, do you? Nor does your TV very much resemble the one your grandfather used, right?

[kristopher]

1. So you are advocating coal with carbon capture and storage?

Mods, this is a single paragraph abstract (see original form below) that I’ve broken apart for ease of reading:

You can download the full article at his webpage here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

Or use this direct download link: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf

There is a slide presentation here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/0902UIllinois.pdf

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.

As originally published:

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 73 000–144 000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300 000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15 000/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]

2. Coal with Carbon Capture is not something I'd call good. Fantasy. Failure. Frightening, but not good

Perhaps there are some other posters with an opinion about which energy sources are good versus which are bad.

[Nihil]

3. What else to expect from a fossil fuel supporter?

Coal with "carbon capture" is the goal as the "carbon capture"
merely allows Business As Usual. His main thrust (natural gas)
is winning more market share and destroying more environments
but he is a self-proclaimed "environmentalist" as he is anti-nuke.

:shrug:

As stated elsewhere, my support for nuclear power has waned for the
simple reason that the amount of money involved seems to lure the
worst of the capitalist attitudes to the top (greed, exploitation,
corner-cutting, propaganda) and that makes the whole argument for
nuclear power weaker. I understand what you are saying but (to me)
the problem with nuclear power isn't with the technology, it is
with the people - and people cannot be trusted.

Wind, solar, hydro, tidal are all good. Conservation is even better.

Coal & natural gas have the money behind them (not to mention the
extremely aggressive & smothering posters) and the stakes are very
high indeed.

[kristopher]

4. But that is what happens when you try to tailor the criteria to fit nuclear power...

You end up justifying coal w/ccs.

As you can see by the Jacobson study neither coal with ccs nor nuclear are recommended solutions to the climate change problem because of the associated negative externalities they are saddled with. If you try to ignore the negative externalities for one, you have no basis for ignoring the externalities of the other.

The proper way to decide the issue is largely to do exactly what Jacobson has done - perform a comprehensive evaluation that looks at the full range of costs and benefits that each technology affords us. To his paper you'd need to add a financial analysis; which turns out to also not favor either nuclear or coal/ccs.

The safest, cleanest, quickest, most sustainable, least cost, most dependable solution to our energy related problems is a rapid build out of wind and solar with that focus on a build out of those resources pulling along the peripheral non-carbon technologies as they are needed to complete the non-carbon system.

[txlibdem]

5. One study from one scientist does not a scientific concensus make, more studies are needed

And these studies should take relatively little time as there are mountains of data already collected. I disagree with Jacobson because of the bias he brought to the study before it was even conducted (if indeed there was that much "studying" at all).

One truth is that the cost per kWh for Coal with Carbon Capture would make it one of the most expensive energy option.

PS, I agree with your final sentence: The safest, cleanest, quickest, most sustainable, least cost, most dependable solution to our energy related problems is a rapid build out of wind and solar with that focus on a build out of those resources pulling along the peripheral non-carbon technologies as they are needed to complete the non-carbon system.

I would add that only true zero carbon energy sources should be approved for construction and / or continued use.

[kristopher]

6. Hudreds of studies like this are routinely done by college students - with the same results

Jacobson just decided to publish it so those outside the field could benefit. His study is essentially a partial outline of a standard course of study.

So we don't "need more studies", we need to have the greedy idiots of the world with ulterior motives drop their selfish agendas and focus on the problem of moving away from carbon.

[txlibdem]

7. If we have all these studies done by "students" -- why are they so damn wrong???

These things I know:

1. Solar PV and Solar Thermal can provide 100% of our energy needs (actually it's over 400% of our current energy needs) -- IF energy storage is of adequate size (4% to 5% aint that number), as well as "over-capacity" such that storage facilities can supply energy when storms, etc., take too much sun production offline. I guesstimate this number to be 300% of the actual designed energy demand.

2. Wind Power (both onshore and offshore) can provide 100% of America's energy needs -- with energy storage equal to 100% of so-called "nameplate" output.

3. Geothermal Thermal Power Plants provide 24/7 energy. It may one day supply 100% of our energy needs but consensus today is that 10% is closer to reality for now.

4. The currently operating nuclear power plants are a danger to us and our children and they need to be replaced ASAP with mass produced passively safe Generation 4 nuclear power plants until solar and the other renewable energy sources can replace the stable power that they create.

5. We need to end the use of coal ASAP, by 2030 at the latest.

[kristopher]

8. They aren't wrong, you are.

You continue to press your false logic that is designed to promote acceptance of nuclear power by 1) falsely portraying the ability of renewable sources to perform without nuclear as part of the mix; and 2) promoting the false idea that there exists any sort of alternative to existing nuclear power plants when such an alternative is decades away at best.

By the time your mythical alternative nuclear technology is market ready we will already have a world running on renewables. Your idea simply has no credibility for the perspective of seeking a sustainable, effective solution to climate change.

WE DO NOT NEED IT.

700 Climate oriented NGOs criticize Japan for promoting nuclear power
Japan criticized for pushing nuke plant exports despite accident

TOKYO (Kyodo) -- Japan has been given the Fossil of the Day "award" at a U.N. climate change conference in Panama for pushing a scheme to promote its exports of nuclear power generation technologies to developing countries as a way of curbing global warming, an international environmental group said Monday.

The Climate Action Network, which groups some 700 nongovernmental organizations in 90 countries, said in a press release it had given Japan "first place" in the award for pushing for a mechanism for exporting nuclear technology despite the ongoing crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi plant triggered by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.

The network said the Fukushima calamity "certainly destroyed the myth that nuclear power is safe and clean" and rapped Japan for its failure "to learn an important lesson from the accident."

In a working group meeting on climate change in the Central American country, Japan refused to drop the option of including a scheme under which exporters of nuclear plants to developing countries can earn emissions credits in the so-called "clean development mechanism," the network said....

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111004p2g00m0dm048000c.html

[txlibdem]

9. Failures of 50-year-old technology have NO bearing in today's world - and YOU KNOW IT

The nuclear reactors in the news were designed in the 1960s!!!

Do you drive a Chevrolet Pickup truck designed between 1960 and 1979? No you don't because they EXPLODE in a rear end collision.

Do you drive a 1970s Ford Pinto? NO!!! Because they also explode in a rear end collision.

Cars designed today are a million times safer than those old designs of vehicles.

Your false argument that Japan is trying to spread the nuclear equivalent of exploding Pinto's (aka nuclear plants designed 50 years ago) is ludicrous from the start. You have NO credibility.

[kristopher]

10. The nuclear industry always has an excuse...

They had one for TMI, but that didn't stop Chernobyl did it?

They had another for Chernobyl, but that didn't stop 3 meltdowns at Fukushima did it?

You can't "design out" human fallibility.

François Diaz Maurin (Francois.Diaz@uab. cat) is a former engineer of the French and US nuclear industries who has worked on the development of new nuclear power plant designs. He is now doing a doctorate on energy and society at ICTA, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain.

The paper is "Fukushima: Consequences of Systemic Problems in Nuclear Plant Design"

Maurin identifies the two primary claims made by nuclear proponents who are attempting to persuade the public that nuclear power is safe.
Argument #1: “The accidents at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant are due to a unique occurrence of two natural disasters – an earthquake and a tsunami”.
Argument #2: “New reactor designs would stand such natural events”.

The rebuttals take a few pages so I'll just post the conclusion:
...the argument of better safety with new design seems to reflect complacency more than objectivity.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x316970


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x317805
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x317843
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x315706
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=313097&mesg_id=313097

[txlibdem]

11. Designed in the 1960s: TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima -- 50 year old designs aren't perfect??? Wow...

Metropolitan Edison, a subsidiary of General Public Utilities, began construction of TMI-1 at the north end of the island in 1968, and of TMI-2 in 1969, just south of TMI-1. TMI-1 was completed and began generating electricity in 1974,
...http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/tmi02.htm


Construction of the plant and the nearby city of Pripyat to house workers and their families began in 1970, with reactor No. 1 commissioned in 1977.
...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Construction

There you have it. All 3 of those terrible power plants (TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima) -- WERE DESIGNED IN THE 1960s!!!

Therefore, they have NOT A SINGLE THING to do with anything proposed to be built TODAY.