Utility Executives Like Nuclear Power. Climate Science, Not So Much.

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/utility-executives-like-nuclear-power-climate-science-not-so-much/

February 17, 2010, 3:11 pm

Utility Executives Like Nuclear Power. Climate Science, Not So Much.

By TODD WOODY

American utility industry executives see nuclear energy as the most promising carbon-free power source, are skeptical of climate change science, and are uncertain about the future, according to a report to be issued Thursday by http://www.bv.com/">Black & Veatch, the engineering and consulting giant.

...

The stalled emissions trading legislation in Congress has added to the confusion about the future shape of the electricity market, Black & Veatch found. Despite a prominent campaign by some utility executives to support an emissions trading market, more than 70 percent of the industry insiders surveyed oppose the current legislation and 52 percent said the United States cannot afford the proposal to cap greenhouse gas emissions.

More than 75 percent think there is a future for coal-fired power plants.

In fact, 44 percent of those surveyed don’t believe global warming is caused by human activity, according to the report, while 7 percent don’t believe the planet is warming.

...

[kristopher]

1. Wow, that's a surprise...

Ask ANY industry if they like 1) the technology that will keep them in business as a central necessity in people's lives or 2) the technologies that will relegate their business to being price takers operating on the margins, and let us know how many surprising answers you get.

(Not you specifically OK)

[Snow Bird]

2. Utility Executives have a responsibility to provide

Utilities, i.e POWER, to a large range of consumers, with the technologies available to them in a cost efficient method as possible. They don't, as of yet, have access to the magic fairy dust that some people think they do.

[wtmusic]

3. That's because the DOE hasn't subsidized fairy dust as much as nuclear.

In something less than 300 years fairy dust could supply all our energy needs.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. "Magic Fairy Dust" = "Reality" you mean

44% are clearly out of touch with reality.

[kristopher]

5. Utilities are MONOPOLISTC BUSINESSES and they are dedicated to PROFIT.

They are regulated (much less now than 10 years ago) to FORCE them to serve the public interest.

[Snow Bird]

6. I'm pretty sure that's what I said.

And right now they work with what they have, not what some people wish they had.

[kristopher]

7. And your comment on "magic fairy dust" ?

Renewables are oriented around a distributed grid. A distributed grid greatly reduces the importance of the largescale grid as now operated by utilities. The promotion of nuclear power preserves their profits and their central position of power within the system. The widescale adoption of renewables - especially rooftop solar - is a direct threat to that profit and position of power.

Glad we agree.

[Snow Bird]

8. Oh, I agree

And right after I get my personal flying car© that was predicted in the 50's by Popular Mechanics®, I'm going to get me some of that distributed power stuff.

[kristopher]

9. You mean the atomic car

that will take you to your home powered by "too cheap to meter" nuclear power?

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.