RENEWABLE ENERGY WORKS NOW - We do not need to build any coal or nuclear power plants

[kristopher]

The nuclear industry would have you believe that we NEED nuclear power as a response to climate change. That is false. We have less expensive alternatives that can be built faster for FAR less money. This is a good overview of their claims:
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-01_NuclearIllusion

In a comparative analysis by another well respected researcher nuclear, coal with carbon capture and ethanol are not recommended as solutions to climate change. The researcher has looked at the qualities of the various options in great detail and the results disprove virtually all claims that the nuclear industry promote in order to gain public support for nuclear industry.

Nuclear supporters invariably claim that research like this is produced because the researchers are "biased against nuclear power". That is false. They have a preference,however that preference is not irrational; indeed it is a product of careful analysis of the needs of society and the costs of the various technologies for meeting those needs. In other words the researchers are "biased" against nuclear power because reality is biased against nuclear power. We hear this same kind of claim to being a victim of "liberal bias" from conservatives everyday and it is no different when the nuclear proponents employ it - it is designed to let them avoid cognitive dissonance associated with holding positions that are proven to be false.

The nuclear power supporters will tell you this study has been "debunked any number of times" but they will not be able to produce a detailed rebuttal that withstands even casual scrutiny for that claim too is false. The study is peer reviewed and well respected in the scientific community; it breaks no new ground and the references underpinning the work are not subject to any criticism that has material effect on the outcome of the comparison.

They will tell you that the sun doesn't always shine and that the wind doesn't always blow. Actually they do. The sun is always shining somewhere and the wind is always blowing somewhere. However researcher have shown that a complete grid based on renewable energy sources is UNQUESTIONABLY SOMETHING WE CAN DO. Here is what happens when you start linking various sites together:

Original paper here at National Academy of Sciences website: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/03/29/0909075107.abstract

When the local conditions warrant the other parts of a renewable grid kick in - geothermal power, biomass, biofuels, and wave/current/tidal sources are all resources that fill in the gaps - just like now when 5 large scale power plants go down unexpectedly. We do not need nuclear not least because spending money on nuclear is counterproductive to the goal of getting off of fossil fuels as we get less electricity for each dollar spend on infrastructure and it takes a lot longer to bring nuclear online.

In the study below Mark Jacobson of Stanford has used the quantity of energy that it would take to power an electric vehicle fleet as a benchmark by which to judge the technologies.

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.
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2009/EE/b809990c

Mods I don't know what the problem is here. The original one paragraph is posted above exactly as it appears at the link provided. In order to make it readable I've broken that ONE PARAGRAPH apart for ease of reading. This is well within the copyright limits as specified by Skinner:

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/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

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.

Then we have the economic analysis from Cooper: The Economics of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance or Relapse
This graph summarizes his findings where "Consumer" concerns direct financial costs and "Societal" refers to external costs not captured in financial analysis.
Cooper A Multi-dimensional View of Alternatives

Full report can be read here: http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse


Another independent econnomic analysis is the Severance study:
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf


The price of nuclear subsidies is also worth looking at. Nuclear proponents will tell you the subsidies per unit of electricity for nuclear are no worse than for renewables. That statement omits the fact than nuclear power has received the lions share of non fossil energy subsidies for more than 50 years with no apparent payoff; for all the money we've spent we see a steadily escalating cost curve for nuclear. When we compare that to renewables we find that a small fraction of the total amount spent on nuclear has resulted in rapidly declining costs that for wind are already competitive with coal and rapidly declining costs for solar that are competitive with natural gas and will soon be less expensive than coal.
http://www.1366tech.com/cost-curve/


In other words: subsidies work to help the renewable technologies stand on their own but with nuclear they do nothing but prop up an industry that cannot be economically viable.
Full report: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf



What plans are out there? Here is one where achieving 100% renewable energy is described:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030


Here is a PDF link for another such plan by:
The Civil Society "Beyond Business as Usual"
http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/pdfs/Beyond%20BAU%205-11-10.pdf

Their website has lots of information:
http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/


Also see these other papers by Amory Lovins
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly


http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E77-01_EnergyStrategyRoadNotTaken

[MadHound]

1. Here's another link backing you up

<http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf>

We don't need coal, we don't need oil, we don't need nukes. Just green renewables.

And the costs for them are dropping, solar and wind are now cheaper than nuclear power.

[kristopher]

6. Thank you.

Jacobson has done a great deal of very good work in the area of resource assessment and the transition to a renewable energy grid. I also included a link to his popular press article in SciAm towards the bottom of the OP.

[Jamastiene]

2. K&R

[ixion]

3. I live off the grid. Right now, I am producing more energy than I am consuming.

so it is most certainly feasible.

The myth that it can't replace the grid is propagated and maintained by Big Energy.

[Marblehead]

4. unfortunately

our government is owned by the fossil fuel industry as well as any other industry that has big bucks.

[grahamhgreen]

5. Big K&R, the solutions are simple and obvious!

[kristopher]

15. Yes they are but the noise from the nuclear industry is successfully drowning them out

The information in the OP really needs to be widely shared.

[Gregorian]

7. We need storage. Maybe a world wide grid would solve that problem.

We're not really ready yet. Not unless we want to throw it all away and start over again once photovoltaics are more efficient. But even that isn't as big an issue as storage.

I haven't heard any discussion of a world wide grid. Maybe it's impractical in that the distances are huge. Losses might make it not worthy of discussion.

The bottom line is that almost anything is better than coal.

[kristopher]

8. That is false. You are sharing another nuclear industry canard about their competition

We have storage technologies that work to scale and economically. When the grid needs to install storage it can be done; we just don't need it yet.

[Gregorian]

13. I want to hear specifically what you mean.

I'm assuming we are using only renewables. Not coal, not nuclear. Hydro is storage. All of the rest are not. And do require storage.

Now I'm being somewhat unrealistic since we have our Diablo Canyon nuclear plants and Hoover dams.

I've heard a few people on this forum try to claim that the grid has some kind of storage property. If that's what you are trying to convey, then you need an education. Otherwise I don't know what you're talking about. When the sun is down, photovoltaics do not generate. When there is no wind, no generation.

[kristopher]

14. I have an extremely good education on this specific topic, thank you anyway.

If you have proof that my claims are wrong then produce it. I've completely supported my claims with a very comprehensive set of sources in the OP.

[Gregorian]

16. So do I.

edit- I see what they are talking about. And I agree that it's the direction we should be headed. I have been urgently wanting to go this way for decades. We're still far away from anything yet. I'm always suspicious when I see claims that we're ready for this. Most people just are not realistic. There is a carbon footprint that is very large until we get some kind of renewable infrastructure in place.

At any rate, I agree with the sentiment. There is a world of details between what we want, and getting results that are equal to our fossil fuel rich lifestyle. This is why I am not so excited about the claims. It's fractional improvement. It's worth doing.

[kristopher]

17. Then demonstrate it. I have...

These are your initial claims that are shown false by the papers in the OP:
We're not really ready yet. Not unless we want to throw it all away and start over again once photovoltaics are more efficient. But even that isn't as big an issue as storage."

We are ready.

Storage is not an impediment and it isn't needed on a large scale for many years.

PV doesn't need to be more efficient, it needs to be less expensive.

[Gregorian]

19. I was editing my previous post. You migh want to read it again.

We're ready to start. That's all I'm saying. It's going to be a slow start. And it's not going to be simple.

[kristopher]

24. It may be sooner and simpler than you think.

I too was pessimistic until last year when two things happened. The first was the release of the first comprehensive academic study of China's renewable energy resources. It showed vast resources that, if I'm correctly reading what happened next, had never been seriously considered by their policymakers.

From the WSJ:
BEIJING -- China announced new regulations to increase the use of renewable energy such as wind and hydropower by forcing electricity-grid operators to prioritize their use, in a bid by the world's top greenhouse-gas emitter to reduce its reliance on coal.
The new measures were passed Saturday by the standing committee of the National People's Congress, China's legislature, as an amendment to the 2006 renewable-energy law, the state-run Xinhua news agency said. The amendment will force powerful state-owned electric grid companies, responsible for distributing electricity from power plants, to buy all the electricity generated from renewable sources even when it is more expensive and more complicated to use than electricity from coal-fired plants.

The new legislation "contributes to the global fight on climate change," said Wang Zhongying, director of the renewable-energy center under a think tank affiliated with China's National Development and Reform Commission, according to Xinhua.
Coal currently accounts for 70% of China's total energy use. China wants to increase use of renewable-energy sources to 15% of its total by 2020, up from 9% last year. The goal is related to a separate target announced by top leader Hu Jintao last month ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit to reduce China's carbon emissions relative to economic output by 40% to 45% from 2005 levels by 2020. The absolute levels of emissions will continue to grow, however, as China's economy expands.
http://wwww.online.wsj.com/article/SB126192809041606467.html

You can compare this to US policy that prioritizes based exclusively on delivered cost. What this means in practical results is that peole wanting to invest in the energy sector will usually follow the safest investment - meaning the one that is guaranteed to sell their power. That, in turn, means that their grid will orient itself around those renewable sources. It is like a Feed in Tariff on steriods.

Given the pent up energy demand in China this will promote huge investment in renewable deployment and manufacturing. Unlike nuclear these sectors respond to such investment by dramatic efficiency improvements and cost reductions.

So even though we are the slow kids on the block due to the owners of assets making up the present system, the cost reductions we are in for are going to undercut them no matter what they do. They have lost the war.

You may find it informative to look at this analysis by Citigroup as it pertains to nuclear's ability to compete in the energy market. In particular note the section "What the market should not take for granted".

https://www.citigroupgeo.com/pdf/SEU20085.pdf

[Zoeisright]

9. Wow! Lots of actual facts!

That should cause some of the nuke porn heads to explode.

[kristopher]

25. Please bookmark and share the information with others.

Thanks.

[Modern_Matthew]

10. We need a switch, but a gradual one. nt

[kristopher]

11. I disagree but it is a matter of opinion, not physical limitations

We could - if the political will was there - make a complete transition in as little as 10 years. It is not likely the country would be so motivated, but with the economic trends behind declining renewable costs and increased demands on energy from developing economies it looks probable that we will transition a lot faster than most analysts think. The main reason is that China has no established energy infrastructure to speak of and their efforts to electrify their nation are going to pay off for us in a big way as they attract boatloads of manufacturing investment into renewables to meet their demand.

[azul]

12. What would you choose if you knew something horrible was happening?

A quick all-out change that only lets the earth's temperature rise 2 degrees and causes only X number of extinctions, or a gradual switch to alternatives, until oil dries up and we are done fighting over it, that causes a rise of 4 degrees or more and a massive extinction event?

Why would you even take the chance with such dire consequences even a remote possibility?

[ixion]

18. It was a gradual shift if we started in the 70's... now we're behind the curve

so it needs to be sooner rather than later.

[kristopher]

38. Truer words have not been spoken,

The sooner is China.

The later is the US.

[upi402]

29. Gradual, as in... LAST YEAR!

:bounce:

[etherealtruth]

20. Excellent information

[Ignis]

21. K&R. The argument for nukes ignores risk vs. reward.

[kristopher]

26. It does if they are able to control the discussion.

But I really get offended by their dishonesty and tend to push back pretty hard.

[Call Me Wesley]

22. Totally living on hydropower here.

Here's the dam, and yes, that's the one James Bond jumped from ...



So, what will happen if this dam, which is the highest in Europe, breaks?

There will be casualties. The houses built near to it will probably be gone, and then, the lake behind the dam will flood into a big valley and loose its power quickly, draining into the biggest lake of this country.

But, but, what about the hydration levels that will spread after this catastrophic evidence?

Hydration will be absorbed in organic tissues, which means that the grass and plants there will carry it, and if we eat a salad grown from there, we will take a huge amount of hydration fallout. Which, of course, is a problem, since hydration is naturally accumulated by rainfalls. It will never stop, and we will be hydrated for years to come. No one really knows the half-life of hydration or the imminent danger of H2O to human cells. Taken in excessive amounts, it may lead to spontaneous relieving. For safety measures, there are public urinals. Professional trained people will be happy to assist you.

Not drinking water will help you from being hydrated. Also, avoiding brooks, streams, lakes, seas will prevent you from getting high doses of hydration. Thank you!

[kristopher]

34. my family is impacted, but I have to take personal responsibility, it was our choice.

That's a hoot at a time when I needed it.

Thanks.

[Luminous Animal]

23. Kick.

[Luminous Animal]

27. Another kick for an excellent post.

Today I found out that some of the "states" in Spain are at 70% renewable electric power production. Mostly wind. That is incredible.

[Luminous Animal]

30. Another kick to counter the pro-nuclear propaganda.

[upi402]

28. Super post, thanks! n/t

[Enthusiast]

31. K&R and PLUS ONE MILLION! nt

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

32. Nice job!

[bananas]

33. 'researchers are "biased" against nuclear power because reality is biased against nuclear power'

That's a great quote!

Nuclear supporters invariably claim that research like this is produced because the researchers are "biased against nuclear power". That is false. They have a preference,however that preference is not irrational; indeed it is a product of careful analysis of the needs of society and the costs of the various technologies for meeting those needs. In other words the researchers are "biased" against nuclear power because reality is biased against nuclear power. We hear this same kind of claim to being a victim of "liberal bias" from conservatives everyday and it is no different when the nuclear proponents employ it - it is designed to let them avoid cognitive dissonance associated with holding positions that are proven to be false.

[whatsa]

35. some more thought needed

All of this I applaud and moving towards more green energy is important/ inevitable.
seasonal(daily or yearly)/ intermittent sources are great to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

I work closely with energy providers and the unfortunate problem with these discussions is..

Idealism without accountability and its focus purely in a future context.

No-one and I mean all of the idealists, will touch on Base-load delivery and on-demand issues.

This is where the focus must be if we are ever to have a sustainable solution.

And quite honestly this is where ALL future developement dollars need to be spent.


I think it is time for the "Oh buts" to end and the real discussion to start.



Green energy base-load and on-demand systems. Can they deliver?

[kristopher]

37. Baseload is a by-product of the economic structure not a technical requirement of the system

I would suggest that you would benefit from more factual information and less dogma since what you are saying is false. There is no technical requirement for "baseload" power, it is little more than an *economic by-product* of a machine (the grid) that is constructed around large scale centralized thermal generation.

It is a favorite canard of both the nuclear and fossil fuel industries.

Perhaps you'd like to try to defend your position against my "idealism" and show an actual academic analysis that is aimed specifically at disproving the viability of a distributed grid based on renewables. I can save you some trouble, though; there aren't any because the configuration is not only viable it is far superior to the present structure.

[RainDog]

36. k&r - and bookmarked to fully read

GREAT thread with lots of useful information.

Thanks!