Bill Gates to back 4th-gen nuclear

[wtmusic]

"Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has broken from philanthropic work fighting poverty and disease to take on another threat to the world's poor -- climate change.

'Energy and climate are extremely important to these people,' Gates told Friday a TED Conference audience packed with influential figures including the founders of Google and climate champion Al Gore.

'The climate getting worse means many years that crops won't grow from too much rain or not enough, leading to starvation and certainly unrest.'

Gates said he is backing development of 'terrapower' reactors that could be fueled by nuclear waste from disposal facilities or generated by today's power plants."

<>

"Gates dismissed climate change skeptics, saying terrapower would render arguments moot because the energy produced would be cheaper than pollution-spewing methods used today.

'The skeptics will accept it because it is cheaper," Gates said. "They might wish it did put out CO2, but they will take it.'"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h_iNFAG254im4XHNHGNRIpKj6bLA

Makes me almost want to go out and buy Windows. :P

[dkf]

1. What's wrong with solar?

I don't get the obsession with nuclear.

[kristopher]

7. Nothing is wrong with solar or wind.

Most supporters of nuclear either have little regard for the external consequences of the technology, or they don't understand the issue of energy, or they have a vested financial interest in promoting the technology.

Note the low level of support compared to renewables. The supporters of nuclear power are, by and large, the same demographic that supports coal power and "drill baby drill".

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

***********************************************************************

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. On a practical level there is no where near enough of it available, particularly for urban areas

I have a large solar plant, and starting this year I will be paid for the excess energy I have been "donating". I understand the issues with both alternative energy generation and transfer. It will be a warm dry summer in San Francisco before the larger urban areas will ever be able to be any where near self sufficient in terms of alternative energy. In the long term, nuclear may be the only viable answer for places like New York and Los Angeles.

My power bill for the last years was admin fees only. Next year I expect a profit. Grid tie solar is just grand....

[kristopher]

13. You do NOT "understand the issues with ... alternative energy generation"

Since your conclusion is totally fallacious it is clear you are poorly informed on the topic.
Aside from some failures of understanding implicit in your remarks about solar, you have omitted all the other renewable resources that are available such as wind, wave/current/tidal, geothermal and biomass.

Perhaps you could benefit from a trip to the library; it doesn't help many who suffer from willful ignorance but as a "professor" I'd hope that you simply haven't kept up with the issue.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. Actually I do, having been involved with it for several decades and am quite current

For the reason I am also cognizant of its limitations, not to mention the politics and legalities involved with it. I focused on solar because I use it daily and an intimately familiar with its pluses and minuses. While it works superbly here in the southwest, its not going to get us off other power sources any time soon in New Hampshire or Massachusetts.

The key point is that the overall *practical* energy density available for all forms of alternative energy are not enough to supply the US. There was a recent study that said it could be done, but upon critical review its flaws were enormous. Alternative energy can support local demand but until substantive progress is made on energy storage, that is about it. We are not going to cover the southwest in PV cells (regardless of their technology) and keep Times Square's lights on, at least not at this point.

In CA there are issues with transmission lines. Most alternative energy sites are away from populated areas (sometimes NIMBY, sometimes its the right place). The state has had a hard time getting permission to build the power lines needed to get the power where it is needed. This mostly involves large installations, not so much the smaller home or business based systems. Thus the trend for localized use. Once energy hits the main grid, it can go anywhere (with attendant losses)

I am not a big fan of the current nuclear energy approaches, even though France claims to make it work. However given the state of national and world oil reserves, our options may be limited in the long run. There are a number of interesting technical approaches being developed, I hope one or more will pan out. Terrapower (the one Bill Gates is backing) is one of them. Otherwise the large high density urban areas are going to have some serious problems. Alternative energy (of all kinds) and conservation will not support NYC, Philly, Detroit, etc.

All that said, you make charges without discussion. If you think I am wrong, state why, just don't hold a tantrum with ad hominum attacks.

[kristopher]

24. Everything you say is false.

It is a litany of misinformation that simply has no basis in fact. For example, your statement that "Alternative energy can support local demand but until substantive progress is made on energy storage, that is about it" demonstrates your knowledge base is no deeper than the typical sunday supplement in a newspaper would yield. Storage is one of the LEAST critical issues facing us.

There are literally dozens of studies showing the ability of renewables to do what you claim can't be done. Suppose YOU support your outrageous claims with some sort of documentation? Fundamental to the paper below is a basic resource and technology assessment. There are many others.

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.

[FBaggins]

12. Nothing is "wrong" with solar

Or wind for that matter. They both make up valuable, clean, and cheap options.

What they can't do it provide the reliable 24/7 power that is required.

[kristopher]

14. That is false in many ways.

We can meet our 24/7 power needs with a completely renewable portfolio.

Nuclear is NOT "clean" simply because it doesn't emit CO2.

Nuclear is NOT cheap; the price forecast for power from new nuclear plants is between $0.25 - $0.30 per kwh. Wind is between 4-12 cents /kwh.

[FBaggins]

20. Nope.

We can meet our 24/7 power needs with a completely renewable portfolio

The only way to do this is to substantially overbuild (likely by a factor of more than three to one or greater). Even then it would mean sacrificing what people consider "reliable power" to mean. In some parts of the country that means lives lost.

Nuclear is NOT cheap; the price forecast for power from new nuclear plants is between $0.25 - $0.30 per kwh

I love how quickly rampant speculation becomes settled fact for you. Either way, solar/wind becomes quite a bit more expensive when you factor in overbuilding and distribution for a "completely renewable portfolio"

Nuclear is NOT "clean" simply because it doesn't emit CO2.

This is true. But it's substantially cleaner than any of of the fossil-fuel options. If you want reliable 24/7 power all across the country, some of it has to come from one of those two options.

Wind is between 4-12 cents /kwh.

It's actually more like 4-30 cents/kwh... but that doesn't matter, because that's how much it costs when they are operating. When the wind isn't blowing it doesn't matter how cheap they might otherwise be.

[kristopher]

21. Repeating the same falsehood doesn't make it true.

There is a huge body of work over decades that shows your assertion regarding renewable energy to be false and I've posted enough of it to back that up.

I challenge YOU to back up your assertion with an analysis of substance.

[FBaggins]

26. Lol... if you actually believed that...

...it would be your last post.


And no... you may have posted something that in your fantasy world amounts to proving it false... but you haven't come close.

The facts are simple. Wind and solar cannot provide 24/7 reliable power that a utility can count on. Nothing has even come CLOSE to that. In order for the combination to come closer, there needs to be substantial excess generation capacity in other geographic areas that can be shared across a substantially beefed up national grid.

I challenge YOU to back up your assertion with an analysis of substance

Easy. It's called "a cold, windless night after a week of cloud cover." It happens every winter in many parts of the country.

[kristopher]

27. That proves nothing except that it demonstrates the lack of support for your claims

Your claim is that renewables cannot provide 24/7 power to users. You've altered that now to "power that a utility can count on". You are also trying to wriggle out of your hole by saying that we must reconfigure our grid.
Yes we will have to reconfigure our grid; so what?

That amounts to a tacit admission on your part that your original claim is, indeed, false.

ETA: I almost forgot to address your "proof" of a windless night on our all renewable grid; where my home is heated and powered by the gravel battery underneath it; or maybe it is powered by the biomethane CAES system that catches spille wind; or perhaps it is just runs from my Toshiba lithium battery pack; or wave energy; or tidal energy; or water current energy generation; or geothermal...

The only thing lacking is your understanding.

[FBaggins]

28. Repeating the same falsehood doesn't make it true.

Your claim is that renew ables cannot provide 24/7 power to users.

That's correct. They can't.

You've altered that now to "power that a utility can count on"

Right... that was to avoid confusion. There are a couple advances that will theoretically get a solar plant through the night (IF it's summer time and IF the day wasn't too cloudy, etc). I wanted to be clear what "24/7" meant. That's no "wiggle room" - it's closing of wiggle room for you.

I'll "alter" (i.e., define) it even more. If you live within a reasonable distance of Hoover Dam, you can get all the reliable, cheap, clean electricity that you could need.

To replace fossil fuels, you need to provide power all across the country and have it approach 99.9% availability. No combination of renewable options comes anywhere close. It's not good enough that a solar plant has overnight storage if it's winter in the mid-west and the sun hasn't come out from behind the clouds in the last week.

IOW... it isn't a "claim" - it's a hard fact. One that you have trouble accepting, but that makes it no less a fact.


Yes we will have to reconfigure our grid; so what?

So that cost needs to be included in your BS claim of 4 cents per kwh.


That amounts to a tacit admission on your part that your original claim is, indeed, false.

In your world of permanent eisegesis? I have no doubt. Which is why I waste little time on you.

[kristopher]

29. It is time for you to document your bullshit.

You have NEVER posted anything to support your claims.

That is because they are false.

If you could support them, you'd be plastering the proof everywhere.

The fact that you can't is de facto proof that you have nothing to substantiate your nonsense.

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.

[FBaggins]

30. "Document" a negative, eh?

Typical.

YOU have yet to document that such a thing IS possible (and no, your frequently spammed Jacobsen article doesn't come close)... yet you want everyone to accept that THAT is the scientific consensus and any opposing position must be proven?

The fact that you can't is de facto proof...

Once again... a standard that you can't come close to living up to... or you would never post again.

Thanks for playing. No partial credit awarded for vigorousness.

[kristopher]

31. It is easy to show that a system can't work if the system, in fact, can't work.

Your appeal to the "you can't prove a negative" shows just how much of an intellectual desert you live in. Your using an argument that applies if I were to claim that god exists because you can't prove god doesn't exist. To prove that god doesn't exist would require omniscience; which no one has.

Another case would be if there was no evidence to support my assertions. However, that too doesn't apply since there is a HUGE body of academic and practical literature that PROVES my assertions true. I've posted several here.

In the case before us we have a well defined, specific system which you claim "cannot work" but you have no evidence to support that assertion.

The burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders.

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.

[FBaggins]

32. That's not a scientific statement.

Though yes... it's quite easy in this case. I have already done so here. You're just blind to it.

Your using an argument that applies if I were to claim that god exists because you can't prove god doesn't exist.

Closer than you think.. yes. This is parallel to a religious belief for you. There is no way to prove (to you) that your belief is flat wrong. I would sooner waste my time on a hare krishna believer. Were you at all open to facts it would be easier.

Another case would be if there was no evidence to support my assertions. However, that too doesn't apply since there is a HUGE body of academic and practical literature that PROVES my assertions true. I've posted several here.

You've done nothing of the sort. You haven't even come close to the same zip code of anything like "proving" your assertions. Finding someone who MAKES an assertion that you agree with is NOT the same thing as proof. Your eisegesis was obvious enough (as with your immediate acceptance of the .25/kwh BS that you now recycle as de fide.

All you have is a spammed theory that is entirely untested and ignores (or flat out lies) its major shortcomings.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. False as to fact

No one working in energy policy energy believes that "We can meet our 24/7 power needs with a completely renewable portfolio." Recent studies that have claimed that have been debunked in the professional literature. Too many practical limitations including geographical distances, required retrofitting, installation & support costs etc.

Alternative energy (in all forms) can provide relief in net demand on power suppliers which is clearly a good thing, but the US can not use renewable sources alone at this point.

Your are right about repeating a falsehood does not make it true. However the falsehood is that the US could use only renewable sources. Read the *professional* literature, not the over hyped press releases.

[kristopher]

25. Provide some documentation.

You cannot for your statements are false. You are parroting nuclear/fossil fuel industry propaganda.

I *am* an energy policy analyst.

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

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


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[joshcryer]

2. Only nuclear I really back.

But it ain't happening.

[Don Caballero]

3. A true lion of progress

[struggle4progress]

4. Isn't Billy Boy the major owner of Terrapower?

[kristopher]

6. It seems his name is on the patent and he started the company

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10286732-56.html?tag=mncol;txt

[struggle4progress]

8. ""We're going to make the cows that don't fart. You name it, we've got it under control."

:spray:

[struggle4progress]

5. "Your Liquid Sodium Cooled Terraform Reactor has encountered a problem and cannot be shut down

until 2120"

[TheMadMonk]

11. So go for the liquid thorium salt reactor.

Proven decades ago and abandoned because it had limited and difficult to realise weaponisation potential.

Self regulating. Physics inherent in the design and construction cause it to automatically slow down if it gets too hot. Thermal expansion causes some of the fuel to move out of the core where it can not take part in the nuclear reaction. With less fuel in the core the reaction rate and temperature fall.

Can co-burn (in sub-critical side-reactions) just about anything remotely fissile from old fuel rods to old bombs.

Can "incinerate" other forms of nuclear waste.

Anual waste output measured in kilograms not tons.

What's not to like?

Oh that's right. Governments can't easily make weapons with it. And governments get to make the decissions.

[kristopher]

15. Odd that India, with its large thorium reserves, can't get that rolling; don't you think?

They are highly motivated but what you describe just isn't happening.

That's because what you describe is pure horsehockey.

[DeadEyeDyck]

10. he is one of those few people on the planet that

actually can make a difference. Whether you like it or not, and most of you don't, whench MS sets it's sail, the world tacks in it's wake!

[kristopher]

16. The only thing Gates is good at is theft.

He stole the original idea that made him money.
He lucked into a legal monopoly on a key component of the most widely used business computer system.
He stole the concept of windows from Mac (and totally screwed up the execution) to keep from going out of business.

He is a parasite and I can't imagine a worse fate than to give that greedy dunderhead monopolistic control of our energy technologies.

[tinrobot]

17. He's also given billions to help cure diseases like malaria

Since leaving Microsoft, Gates has done a lot of very good things.

[kristopher]

18. If a hungry person shares their last bit of food it speaks to the worth of the individual...

...but that isn't what's happening when a proven greed machine like Gates sets out to buy himself an image with his lucre.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/thebusinessofgiving/2009193675__heres_how_the_article.html

[wtmusic]

19. A bit over the top.

MS hasn't been a leader for two decades. A very successful (and lucky, IMO) campaign of copycatting and market manipulation has made up for it. But without getting into that debate for the umpteenth time, in recent years Gates has been making a big and positive difference in the world.