Xpost Fm GD: Nuclear industry producing propaganda for children

[kristopher]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1013627

This isn't something new, it is just their latest. Note that the author has been doing it since 1982.

Nutcracker Publishing Company is unveiling the cover of its upcoming children's picture book about nuclear power plants.

Nuclear Power: How a Nuclear Power Plant Really Works! by Amelia Frahm, is the first children's picture book that offers a creative, yet realistic look at nuclear power, and is not anti-nuclear.

"What a joy, to realize that now kids can learn the basic facts about nuclear energy without first being scared witless"…a portion of the recommendation written by renown nuclear expert, Dr. Theodore Rockwell

Amongst her publishing colleagues, bored yawns and bewildered glances were the typical responses author Amelia Frahm encountered when she announced her next children's book was about nuclear power plants. The Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan changed that perception, and now Nutcracker Publishing is rushing to have advance copies of the book available by June 2011....

http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/Nuclear_Power_Unveiling_the_Cover_and_Enlightening_Children,201136176.aspx

[phantom power]

1. I think I first read about nukes in a Ranger Rick magazine article about energy, c. 1975

As I recall, it featured a little guy in a white spandex suit with an atom on his chest who said something like "I produce emissions-free energy, but my spent fuel has to be stored for a long time until it decays"

I forget what the mascots for coal, hydro, NG and solar looked like. No white spandex, though.

[kristopher]

2. Nuclear is a quasi-governmental enterprise...

And its existence and use as a power source is extremely controversial, to put it mildly. The fact that they are "rushing" to print because of Fukushima is a window into what I''ll call the "war mentality" of this quasi-governmental profit-seeking industry.

[FBaggins]

3. Large-scale power generation is necessarily a quasi-governmental enterprise.

As are most utilities...

Which is how it should be... just like any other community planning function.

[kristopher]

4. No it isn't.

I can guarantee that you will be unable to support those statements, but please try, since there is a serious lack of anything except assertions in your post.

Explain how "lLarge-scale power generation is necessarily a quasi-governmental enterprise"

AND

how "most utilities" are "necessarily a quasi-governmental enterprise".

Then explain how that is just like "any other community planning function".

[FBaggins]

5. Of course it is.

You can't just decide:

"I think I'll start a power company. I think they'll need more power around Gotham in three years so there will be demand for my product if I set up shop there. I want to make a big profit and don't care about the environment, so I'll build a coal plant. The ROI seems to be greatest at around 750 MW so that's what I'll build. There's some cheap land right downtown where that old tobacco plant was shut down 20 years ago. I can get that land for a song and it's right along the river. Great for cooling and dumping ash and easy access for my coal barges!"

Of course you can't. It starts at the opposite end entirely. Local government decides where they're going to allow expansion and where the supporting infrastructure will be placed. Part of that planning includes the generation of electricity and they decide what forms will be acceptable (>20% renewables etc). They zone what land can have a power plant, what types can be built, and how it will connect to the grid. If they want a hydro plant they'll ask for bids on that alone. Bring in your bid for a coal plant and they'll laugh you out the door.

Even after you build just what they tell you to build and just where they tell you to build it... they also set the rates you can charge and when you can increase (or even decrease) them.

Doesn't matter whether it's natural gas to your home... or phone lines... or cable tv... or electricity... or plumbing/sewer. Whether the company is for-profit or outright government-owned... they are at least "quasi" governmental because the government controls how they operate their business.

Ever been part of an annexation? try telling the private water company that you won't allow an easement for the new pipes they're putting in and there's nothing they can do about it.

Call it quasi-governmental or call it a "public-private partnership" if you prefer. It's the same thing. Government is (and should be) a key player in all of these industries.

And once again... let's not pretend that wind/solar are any different.

[kristopher]

6. Actually you can make just such a decision in most of the country.

Judging by that answer you know nothing of how the regulatory system functions. But that is beside the point since you also clearly have no idea of what regulation in general is and how it is designed to function. That is too big a knowledge gap to try and fill, so I'm just going to refer you to a previous discussion on the topic that I had with GG where he argued from a similar (if more informed) perspective as you.

No, coal isn't a quasi-governmental enterprise; it has a lot of power, but it isn't blended with the government.

Hydro is to the extent that we developed much of our hydro capacity during the Depression, a condition that established a government led economic model for development. But,if a project were to be done today it would not be a case where it was bid in any way different than a highway.

What makes nuclear unique is the danger associated with the spread of the technologies. WASTE, SAFETY & PROLIFERATION concerns dictate that a rigid state-run apparatus work hand in hand for development and deployment to a degree that no other industry requires. That the cost is showing itself to be so high that only state actors are able to execute the financing is troubling, but not as troubling as the fact that this approach, when pursued in combination with a market approach for renewable competition, is going to either crowd out renewables or result in very high numbers of bankruptcies. Also troubling would be the concentration of power that would accrue to an even tighter elite should the world orient itslef around powering civilization with nuclear fission.

Given that the civil nuclear fission programs are largely an outgrowth of military fission programs trying to find a way to capitalize on the huge investment of the people's money into these programs; and given that the security, safety and scale issues make total privatization unworkable, it is the government itself that has taken an active role in marketing fission technology in all the exporting nations.

Beyond that border the coal and nuclear industries are interchangeable lynch-pins in a system composed of a wide variety of industrial and economic interests. Let's call that the "Entrenched Energy Industries". Everything from raw resources for manufacturing and fuels to labor groups to project planning & development to closely-tied government regulators to shipping to mining to financial holdings to distribution to transmission & grid operations to utilities to vested state, local, county & municipal governments; all of these and their associated interdependent businesses have a direct economic interest in preserving the current method of producing and delivering power to the end user.

While it is true that many of these at the organizational level will also have a role in a renewable distributed grid, it is evident from the nature of the structural shift that their role will be diminished greatly even if they are survivors of the change-over. For example, transmission and distribution will be important, but the smart grid is going to create an entirely new management paradigm that will have to be adapted to and their function will shift more and more from one where they "keep the lights on" to one where they "top off your tank" when your more local neighborhood and home systems need supplementing. As for those "local systems", they will be dominated by a range of companies with new names but all having the characteristics of any other mass production good such as consumer electronics, cars, appliances, etc.

Change is an instinctually unsafe condition when you are in a secure immediate position. When the system that keeps you "safe" is preserved it is good and when it is threatened you tend to want to protect it. Renewables threaten that entire system, nuclear only a small slice of it.
Coal and nuclear are two sides of the same coin.

Full discussion at this thread posts 19, 23-27.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x285888

[FBaggins]

7. Can you give an example?

Since that's how it works in "most of the country"?

[kristopher]

8. As I said, you need too much education.

The description in the linked post is the topic at hand, and it clearly explains how off target your remarks were.

If you want to learn about how electricity is marketed you could start with the words "unbundle, electric, sector".

[FBaggins]

10. A simple "no" would have sufficed.

Not that I'm surprised.

[Nederland]

14. The linked post was written by YOU

Do you think that is supposed to count as a source?

[kristopher]

15. Who said it was anything else?

As I wrote, it is a discussion on the same subject with GG where we cover the same subject - except GG understands the power market a bit more than FB.

You are getting more clever by the day, you are...

[Nederland]

17. As usual, you miss the point

In post #4 you criticize FBaggins with this:

I can guarantee that you will be unable to support those statements, but please try, since there is a serious lack of anything except assertions in your post.

Then in post #6 you do exactly the same thing, make assertions without any links that support those assertions.

Here is the fundamental problem with you Kristopher. You seem to exist in this fantasy world where the rules don't apply to you, even the rules that you yourself make up. Here's a clue: if you are going to criticize someone for making statements without providing supporting evidence, don't turn around and do exactly the same thing in your very next post. You should at least wait a day or two so it's not so glaringly apparent.

[kristopher]

22. Your call for a "link" is typical lamebrained internet BS.

I supported what I said. It is entirely possible to actually have a discussion where the content of the discussion not only makes assertions but supports those assertions with explanations and valid reasoning; which is what I pointed to rather than wade through the same discussion again:

No, coal isn't a quasi-governmental enterprise; it has a lot of power, but it isn't blended with the government.

Hydro is to the extent that we developed much of our hydro capacity during the Depression, a condition that established a government led economic model for development. But,if a project were to be done today it would not be a case where it was bid in any way different than a highway.

What makes nuclear unique is the danger associated with the spread of the technologies. WASTE, SAFETY & PROLIFERATION concerns dictate that a rigid state-run apparatus work hand in hand for development and deployment to a degree that no other industry requires. That the cost is showing itself to be so high that only state actors are able to execute the financing is troubling, but not as troubling as the fact that this approach, when pursued in combination with a market approach for renewable competition, is going to either crowd out renewables or result in very high numbers of bankruptcies. Also troubling would be the concentration of power that would accrue to an even tighter elite should the world orient itslef around powering civilization with nuclear fission.

Given that the civil nuclear fission programs are largely an outgrowth of military fission programs trying to find a way to capitalize on the huge investment of the people's money into these programs; and given that the security, safety and scale issues make total privatization unworkable, it is the government itself that has taken an active role in marketing fission technology in all the exporting nations.

Beyond that border the coal and nuclear industries are interchangeable lynch-pins in a system composed of a wide variety of industrial and economic interests. Let's call that the "Entrenched Energy Industries". Everything from raw resources for manufacturing and fuels to labor groups to project planning & development to closely-tied government regulators to shipping to mining to financial holdings to distribution to transmission & grid operations to utilities to vested state, local, county & municipal governments; all of these and their associated interdependent businesses have a direct economic interest in preserving the current method of producing and delivering power to the end user.

While it is true that many of these at the organizational level will also have a role in a renewable distributed grid, it is evident from the nature of the structural shift that their role will be diminished greatly even if they are survivors of the change-over. For example, transmission and distribution will be important, but the smart grid is going to create an entirely new management paradigm that will have to be adapted to and their function will shift more and more from one where they "keep the lights on" to one where they "top off your tank" when your more local neighborhood and home systems need supplementing. As for those "local systems", they will be dominated by a range of companies with new names but all having the characteristics of any other mass production good such as consumer electronics, cars, appliances, etc.

Change is an instinctually unsafe condition when you are in a secure immediate position. When the system that keeps you "safe" is preserved it is good and when it is threatened you tend to want to protect it. Renewables threaten that entire system, nuclear only a small slice of it.
Coal and nuclear are two sides of the same coin.

Full discussion at this thread posts 19, 23-27.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x285888

[Nederland]

26. You supported what you said? Where?

Take this part:

While it is true that many of these at the organizational level will also have a role in a renewable distributed grid, it is evident from the nature of the structural shift that their role will be diminished greatly even if they are survivors of the change-over. For example, transmission and distribution will be important, but the smart grid is going to create an entirely new management paradigm that will have to be adapted to and their function will shift more and more from one where they "keep the lights on" to one where they "top off your tank" when your more local neighborhood and home systems need supplementing. As for those "local systems", they will be dominated by a range of companies with new names but all having the characteristics of any other mass production good such as consumer electronics, cars, appliances, etc.

This paragraph is full of sweeping assertions that reflect your own beliefs about what a smart grid will look like and what its impacts will be on the existing paradigm, and yet you do not back it up with anything. No links to articles, primary source data, or peer reviewed studies. Nothing. Are we suppose to just take it as gospel because it came from you?

[kristopher]

27. Kick

[SpoonFed]

9. Another failure to cite sources by the </fnBS>

"I think I'll start a power company. I think they'll need
...
dumping ash and easy access for my coal barges!"

Who is the author of this unattributed quotation? I'm inclined to believe that it is kristopher or that you're putting words in his mouth as you're apt to do, but since there is no statement of attribution or link in space or time, it leaves one wondering.

Good work.

[FBaggins]

11. Sources? You're aware that "Gotham" is fictional, right? n/t

[Nederland]

12. Good work?

Neither one of them cited sources or provided a link or attribution of any sort. That block in Kristopher's post? Follow the link--it's nothing more than a cut and paste from another post of his in another thread. I'm sorry, but Kristopher quoting Kristopher doesn't count as "attribution".

[SpoonFed]

35. Good work == sarcasm, did you miss that?

In this case, I was pointing out I for one, had no effing clue what the quotation he posted was in reference to, do you?

If you want an outright comparision, kristopher's posts generally have citations, reasoned arguments and credibility, especially when they are not simply opinions or pointers to things that have been discussed recently. Baggins on the other hand almost never posts a citation and just relies on his own magnificence. He's been challenged by me and others numerous times with "citation required" and does no such thing. It's a coin toss if he just abandons the thread, or replies with an off-topic rant or ad hominem attack. That's the very reason I don't mind bashing his credibility with the truth about it.

[Nederland]

37. You must read a different Kristopher than I do

Sure he usually provides supporting citations, to the same four discredited papers he always uses. 90% of his posts contain recycled material.

[SpoonFed]

39. I guess some,

are better than none, eh? Lemme go scan your contributions to this thread. :eyes:

[Nederland]

13. Depends on how you define "quasi-governmental enterprise"

Historically generation capability and transmission capability were done by the same entity, and as a result the majority of electrical power generation in the US is still done by what I would call "governmental" or "public" enterprises. The shift toward investor owned power generation is a relatively new development. It has only been in last 30 years or so that those types of entities produced a sizable (though still minority) share of the nation's power, and many are not thrilled with the results of that development. Like I said however, the majority of power is still produced by public entities. However, even if power generation is more and more being done by investor owned entities, transmission is still and will likely always remain in public hands due to its monopolistic nature (there are almost always only one set of wires running into a building). Even if you are a private producer of power therefore, your only customers are going to be some sort of public entity, and your business heavily regulated.

Does that make them a quasi-governmental enterprise? I don't know--it depends on how much government regulation and oversight is necessary before one starts sticking the word "quasi" (meaning "having some, but not all of the features of,”) in front of the word enterprise.

[kristopher]

16. The term is defined in the posts you didn't bother to read...

Also, you've mixed-up transmission and distribution, they are not the same thing. And transmission quite often is equity financed based on profit potential. The largest problem in that structure (which is causing a shortfall of needed transmission) is that the lack of centralized control makes the long-term planning of a transmission project too risky since the same market the transmission project is intended to serve might be snatched away by generation moving into the niche and stealing the market that had justified the transmission project.

The bottom line is the term was defined clearly and just as clearly supported as applying to nuclear only in the discussion I had with GG that I reposted.

[Nederland]

18. Doesn't change a thing

The fact that you defined the term in some post after a post in a thread that you linked to in another thread somewhere (as if we are supposed to hunt down that rabbit hole...) doesn't change a thing. What I said is true: whether or not the term applies depends on the definition of the term. And please don't insist that your definition of the term is the one that we are all suppose to accept. That would fall into the same category of behavior I outlined here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x292183#292402

[kristopher]

23. You mean your post doesn't change anything

I used the term and it has a specific meaning that was made clear. It is entirely possible to actually have a discussion where the content of the discussion not only makes assertions but supports those assertions with explanations and valid reasoning; which is what I pointed to rather than wade through the same discussion again:

No, coal isn't a quasi-governmental enterprise; it has a lot of power, but it isn't blended with the government.

Hydro is to the extent that we developed much of our hydro capacity during the Depression, a condition that established a government led economic model for development. But,if a project were to be done today it would not be a case where it was bid in any way different than a highway.

What makes nuclear unique is the danger associated with the spread of the technologies. WASTE, SAFETY & PROLIFERATION concerns dictate that a rigid state-run apparatus work hand in hand for development and deployment to a degree that no other industry requires. That the cost is showing itself to be so high that only state actors are able to execute the financing is troubling, but not as troubling as the fact that this approach, when pursued in combination with a market approach for renewable competition, is going to either crowd out renewables or result in very high numbers of bankruptcies. Also troubling would be the concentration of power that would accrue to an even tighter elite should the world orient itslef around powering civilization with nuclear fission.

Given that the civil nuclear fission programs are largely an outgrowth of military fission programs trying to find a way to capitalize on the huge investment of the people's money into these programs; and given that the security, safety and scale issues make total privatization unworkable, it is the government itself that has taken an active role in marketing fission technology in all the exporting nations.

Beyond that border the coal and nuclear industries are interchangeable lynch-pins in a system composed of a wide variety of industrial and economic interests. Let's call that the "Entrenched Energy Industries". Everything from raw resources for manufacturing and fuels to labor groups to project planning & development to closely-tied government regulators to shipping to mining to financial holdings to distribution to transmission & grid operations to utilities to vested state, local, county & municipal governments; all of these and their associated interdependent businesses have a direct economic interest in preserving the current method of producing and delivering power to the end user.

While it is true that many of these at the organizational level will also have a role in a renewable distributed grid, it is evident from the nature of the structural shift that their role will be diminished greatly even if they are survivors of the change-over. For example, transmission and distribution will be important, but the smart grid is going to create an entirely new management paradigm that will have to be adapted to and their function will shift more and more from one where they "keep the lights on" to one where they "top off your tank" when your more local neighborhood and home systems need supplementing. As for those "local systems", they will be dominated by a range of companies with new names but all having the characteristics of any other mass production good such as consumer electronics, cars, appliances, etc.

Change is an instinctually unsafe condition when you are in a secure immediate position. When the system that keeps you "safe" is preserved it is good and when it is threatened you tend to want to protect it. Renewables threaten that entire system, nuclear only a small slice of it.
Coal and nuclear are two sides of the same coin.

Full discussion at this thread posts 19, 23-27.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x285888

[Nederland]

25. Ctrl-V for Victory, eh? (nt)

[txlibdem]

29. The Fire Department is a quasi-governmental enterprise

The Police rely almost 100% on taxpayer money. Get rid of that, too.

Why, these public services like the water dept., the sewer dept., and electric utilities that we would all be pretty darn miserable without -- to heck with 'em all.

We don't want any government services! We'll deliver our own mail to Aunt Sue in Cleveland!!! By damn! It's only an 800 mile drive... To heck with services.

PS, this note is from Ron and Rand Paul. If you like these ideas then please respond favorably to Kristopher's posts!

[kristopher]

31. Replace your strawman with what I said: "quasi-governmental profit-seeking industry"

"quasi-governmental profit-seeking industry"

[txlibdem]

38. Oh. Like the coal and oil industries and the natural gas industry as well

Thanks for straightening out my error.

[Systematic Chaos]

19. zomg!

Won't somebody think of the children???

[LAGC]

20. Oh FFS.

Don't you ever get tired of constantly railing against nuclear power?

Why don't you ever criticize our excessive reliance on fossil fuels?

Instead its always "nuclear this" and "nuclear that."

Give it a rest. Nuclear power is here to stay, and Goddess willing it will only become more prevalent over the next 10 years to displace all the coal pollution we are throwing into the atmosphere.

Even your much beloved natural gas isn't all its cracked up to be.

[Systematic Chaos]

21. No, they don't get tired of it.

The whole bunch of them turn this board into a three-ring circus, while posts from superstars like hatrack and several others sink like stones.

And here I thought it was bad when two teaspoons of water with half a molecule of tritium leaked from a pipe somewhere.

:eyes:

[SpoonFed]

36. Thanks for weighing things down further with your cruft.

Isn't it so annoying that someone is allowed to have an opinion on something that isn't the same opinion you hold?
It's worse when they continually attempt to back up their arguments with discussion and facts instead of whining and pleas to go away, isn't it?

[kristopher]

24. Right, that's why you need to brainwash children about how safe it is...

Just like a religion; you can't trust adults to make reasoned decisions so you have to try to plant beliefs in their minds before critical thinking skills have developed.

It is reprehensible behavior.

[LAGC]

28. Whose being more religious here though?

The "nuclear apologists" or the anti-nuclear crowd?

I swear its like a cult with some of you guys.

KILL THE DEMON! KILL NUCLEAR POWER!

[txlibdem]

30. +1, FTW (n/t)

[kristopher]

32. Do you know how I came to focus on nuclear fission?

I was an agnostic until I started seeing the misinformation about renewables that accompanied the claims supporting nuclear power. When I explored the motives and tactics of those spreading information I knew to be false about renewables, I discovered they were actually intent on promoting acceptance of fission power above all else, including little things like the truth. That caused me to dig deeper into the claims supporting nuclear that I had previously not questioned - such as the safety record and the costs.

Hyperbole such as you just engaged in might make you feel better, but take it from someone your words have touched - your tactics are counter-productive to your goals.

[Nihil]

33. Hallelujah Brother! Do I hear another "AMEN" from all you good people out there?

Our brother here has SEEN THE LIGHT!

> I was an agnostic until I started seeing the misinformation
> about renewables that accompanied the claims supporting
> nuclear power.

And that is a GOOD choice child so don't let any of those heathens out there
tell you otherwise! Those who are yet to make their choices for SALVATION
are waiting to learn from your WONDERFUL example!


> When I explored the motives and tactics of those spreading
> information I knew to be false about renewables, I discovered
> they were actually intent on promoting acceptance of fission
> power above all else, including little things like the truth.

YES TRULY HE HAS SEEN!
He has SEEN the glory! He has STEPPED INTO THE LIGHT!
He has SEEN the works of The Deceiver and he KNOWS them to be false!


> That caused me to dig deeper into the claims supporting nuclear
> that I had previously not questioned - such as the safety record
> and the costs.

Be reassured you saintly child: there are many, MANY, out there who have
also NOT QUESTIONED their misplaced faith before. You saw that you were
unworthy BUT you allowed the words of that Good Man into YOUR HEART and,
straight away, you were saved! I say again, YOU WERE SAVED!


> Hyperbole such as you just engaged in might make you feel better,
> but take it from someone your words have touched - your tactics are
> counter-productive to your goals.

And so say we all ...

Do I hear another HALLELUJAH for our new brother? He who sinned in his
agnosticism BUT WHO WAS SAVED!

[kristopher]

34. Two points of light...

Nuclear isn't cheap:

For this estimate, CBO assumes that the first nuclear plant built using a federal loan guarantee would have a capacity of 1,100 megawatts and have associated project costs of $2.5 billion. We expect that such a plant would be located at the site of an existing nuclear plant and would employ a reactor design certified by the NRC prior to construction. This plant would be the first to be licensed under the NRC’s new licensing procedures, which have been extensively revised over the past decade.

Based on current industry practices, CBO expects that any new nuclear construction project would be financed with 50 percent equity and 50 percent debt. The high equity participation reflects the current practice of purchasing energy assets using high equity stakes, 100 percent in some cases, used by companies likely to undertake a new nuclear construction project. Thus, we assume that the government loan guarantee would cover half the construction cost of a new plant, or $1.25 billion in 2011.

CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high—well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources. In addition, this project would have significant technical risk because it would be the first of a new generation of nuclear plants, as well as project delay and interruption risk due to licensing and regulatory proceedings.

Nuclear isn't clean:
As originally published:

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.

Above paragraph 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

You can view the html abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

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

Results graphed here: http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.Service.FreeContent.ImageService.svc/ImageService/image/GA?id=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

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]

40. Is this the part where Jake and Elwood Blues dance down the aisle toward the pulpit?

I love that movie (Blues Brothers).

Nihil, you get wise. You get yourself to church!

[kristopher]

41. Kick