Two Studies conclude 100% renewable energy is viable and desirable

[kristopher]

Although these reports have similar titles, they are from different groups.

Study 1)

ABSTRACT

100% Renewable Electricity – A roadmap to 2050 for Europe and North Africa.

The study prepared by the European and international climate experts at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the European Climate Forum, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the International Institute for Applied System Analysis, examines the potential for powering Europe and North Africa with renewable electricity exclusively by 2050 and the opportunities this transformation to the power sector presents. The study provides policy makers and business leaders with clear direction and a step wise approach on how to achieve the 2050 vision.

The study looks at the market in terms of financial, infrastructure and government policy milestones for policy makers and business to answer the “what if” question. The roadmap addresses four critical areas of intervention: Policy, Markets, Investments and Infrastructure and looks at the ability to foster a stable, long term and transparent regulatory framework that will promote confidence with investors and enable the build-up of the required supply chain and grid infrastructure.

News article on study here: http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2260359/researchers-conclude-100-per
Download here: http://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/imagelibrary/detail.aspx?MediaDetailsID=1694&ClientID=1

Study 2)

Roadmap 2050: a practical guide to a prosperous, low-carbon Europe
No abstract is available, but you can download the executive summary as well as the full report here: http://www.roadmap2050.eu/downloads

From news article:

Europe can switch to low carbon sources of energy without jeopardising reliability or forcing up energy bills to punitive levels, according to a major new study that claims to be the most comprehensive assessment to date of the viability of zero carbon power supplies.

Roadmap 2050: a practical guide to a prosperous, low-carbon Europe will be released later today and will demonstrate how transitioning to a low or zero carbon power supply based on high levels of renewable energy would have no impact on reliability, and would have little impact on the cost of producing electricity in the period up to 2050.

The report was developed by think tank the European Climate Foundation (ECF) in collaboration with a number of leading economists and energy industry experts, and includes contributions from McKinsey, KEMA, Imperial College London and Oxford Economics.

Its analysis argues that cost effective zero carbon power is not reliant on technology breakthroughs, although it warns that they would help to further reduce the cost of decarbonisation.

Matt Phillips, a senior associate with the ECF, said many of assumptions made at the outset of the research project had been proved wrong.

"When the Roadmap 2050 project began it was assumed that high-renewable energy scenarios would be too unstable to provide sufficient reliability, that high-renewable scenarios would be uneconomic and more costly, and that technology breakthroughs would be required to move Europe to a zero-carbon power sector," he said. "Roadmap 2050 has found all of these assertions to be untrue."...

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2261182/landmark-report-explodes

[Terry in Austin]

1. Good news. And necessarily true.

By 2050, the non-renewables will be just about 100% unavailable.

[Christopher Calder]

65. It is all nonsense! Don't drink the renewable energy kool aid!

Renewable energy is a disaster, and the people who wrote the article are scientific frauds. Other than hydroelectric power, none of the renewable energy sources are of any value at all for large scale energy production. Geothermal is NOT a renewable energy source. Geothermal is a useful and reliable energy source, but geothermal wells eventually run cold, so geothermal could be branded an "alternative" energy source, but not a renewable energy source.

See: "The Renewable Energy Disaster" at: http://renewable.50webs.com/

These people who have drunk the renewable energy kool aid have a very bad track record. They created the global biofuel disaster that has done more environmental damage than any new activity of man in the 21st century. Biofuels have killed more people than both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, and now these same people are claiming we can run the world on solar cells and windmills. It will never and can never happen.

We need power plants with a very small ecological footprint that do not take up allot of space or materials to manufacture. ALL of the renewable energy schemes take up enormous amounts of space and resources because they have to be fantastically large structures to collect such weak and diffuse energy as the wind and the sunlight. People can't understand the difference between diffuse and concentrated. Only concentrated energy works for large scale energy production. Solar and wind power will always be horribly expensive, horribly inefficient, and always take up monstrous amounts of space. The only useful renewable energy source for large scale production is hydroelectric, and even hydro takes up lots of space. Fortunately, many people enjoy the large lakes that hydroelectric power plants create, so hydro works, but there is little room for more hydro power plants on overcrowded planet earth.

SEE: http://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/HeresiesFinal.pdf

[Hello_Kitty]

2. K and R. eom

[DrGregory]

3. Not by solar

>Two Studies conclude 100% renewable energy is viable and desirable

Not by solar alone without energy storage.

That's OBVIOUS!!!

[kristopher]

4. No one said "solar alone", that is YOUR strawman and it is irrelevant.

[DrGregory]

5. In the other thread...

No one said "solar alone", that is YOUR strawman and it is irrelevant
===================================

But that IS what we were discussing in the other thread!!!

In any case, it is unlikely that we will have 100% "renewable"
energy.

All serious proposals contemplate a MIX of energy technologies,
of which renewables play a part; but are not the whole story.

The Obama Administration is certainly NOT going 100% renewable.

The problem with renewables is that when you get your energy
from Mother Nature - you can only get as much as Mother Nature
is offering.

At night, you can't get solar - Mother Nature isn't offering any.

The wind is not blowing whenever we need / desire power.
I live near a windfarm, and it was really hot the other day, and
the turbines were barely turning. The wind farm certainly didn't
provide much, if any; for our air conditioning load.

We will ALWAYS need energy sources that have a "throttle" so that
we can get energy on demand. Renewables do not have throttles.
We can not demand energy from renewables; but only harvest the
paltry amounts Mother Nature offers.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

6. No, we were not.

You tried to claim large scale dedicated storage is required for every renewable generating plant. You further tried to paint a picture of danger created by such dedicated storage.

Your fundamental claim was that renewables alone cannot do the job.

On all counts you are incorrect.

[DrGregory]

7. MISQUOTE...

You tried to claim large scale dedicated storage is required for every renewable generating plant. You further tried to paint a picture of danger created by such dedicated storage.

Your fundamental claim was that renewables alone cannot do the job.

On all counts you are incorrect.

====================================

Do you always MISQUOTE what people say??
We call that a "strawman" in science - usually the
tactic of someone who knows they LOST the argument.

I was VERY SPECIFIC in the conditions. I didn't
say "every renewable" plant. I stated specifically
that if a solar plant wanted to supplant a current
1 Gwe fossil or nuke plant.

We considered a hypothetical situation in which we
had a 1 Gwe fossil or nuke and we wanted to supplant;
aka replace it with a solar plant. What would be
necessary for a COMPLETE replacement.

The fossil / nuke plant can deliver power 24/7. The
solar plant can NOT do that - it doesn't produce
power at night.

The ONLY way for a solar plant to be a 100% replacement
for the capabilities of a fossil / nuke is if it has
energy storage capability.

Why can't the "true believer" solar proponents acknowledge
this. It is TRIVIALLY OBVIOUS.

But NO - they have to quote error-filled screeds by
Amory Lovins, or the missives of some "wish tank".
( not "think tank" - I don't call what they do "thinking" )

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

8. More red herrings and strawmen

You can't address the answer to your baseless criticism so you persist in advancing red herrings and strawmen. You have been shown to be completely uninformed about how our power system presently works and how it can potentially work as a noncarbon renewable grid.

I gave you a very comprehensive and detailed study by persons qualified to analyze the SYSTEM. You dismiss those as the product of a "wish tank."

Unlike you I've provided a source which includes the data. You have proven that you are not operating as a scientist by ignoring valid data that conflicts with what you want to believe.

The report was developed by think tank the European Climate Foundation (ECF) in collaboration with a number of leading economists and energy industry experts, and includes contributions from McKinsey, KEMA, Imperial College London and Oxford Economics.

[DrGregory]

10. I know how our power system works a lot BETTER than you do.

You can't address the answer to your baseless criticism so you persist in
advancing red herrings and strawmen. You have been shown to be completely
uninformed about how our power system presently works
====================================================

I know very well how our power system works.

Unlike some here, I know that the power system has to be able
to meet an electrical load AT NIGHT!!!

A solar power plant can't do that UNLESS it can store energy.

ALL the studies in the world won't alter that basic bit
of elementary school physics.

Do you not understand that all the consideration of a SYSTEM
doesn't alter the fact that solar plants don't work at night?

What is it about night time that you don't understand.

Contrary to your ILL-FOUNDED assertions, your sources do NOT
disprove my contention that solar power plants do NOT work
at night.

That's ALL I'm trying to say - but the "true believer"
solar proponents can't accept the most OBVIOUS limitation
to their favorite SUB-PAR technology - so they have to
trot out study after study after non-sequitur study -
NONE of which refute the OBVIOUS claim that solar power
plants do NOT work at night.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

11. No nukes needed

http://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/imagelibrary/detail.aspx?MediaDetailsID=1694&ClientID=1

100% Renewable Electricity – A roadmap to 2050 for Europe and North Africa

The combination of increased demand for electricity and security of supply is a very powerful driver of major power
sector change in Europe and worldwide. Currently, for example, about 50% of Europe’s energy demand is met with
imported fuels and there are projections that this could increase to 70% in the coming decades1. Economic
development and increasing use of electricity-consuming devices will increase future demand for electricity.

Alongside demand and security of supply issues, climate change also poses a global threat. Substantial and fairly
rapid decarbonisation of electricity generation and many other sectors will have to take place if the world is to have
any chance of staying within the 2oC goal for limiting the effects of global warming. In Chapter 3 we look at these
and other challenges facing the region’s current power systems and examine whether a vision of Europe, in
combination with countries in North Africa, developing an integrated power grid with 100% of electricity generation
coming from renewable sources by 2050 is possible.

The key components of such a vision are:
• A regional power system based on a SuperSmart Grid;
• The rapid scaling up of all forms of renewable power, with the ultimate goal of decarbonising electricity
generation in Europe and North Africa;
• A unified European power market that is united with the North African one, allowing for the free trading of
electricity between all countries;
• The production of electricity at the most suitable sites by the most suitable renewable technologies; and
• Affordable electricity for each European Union and North African country and the eradication of energy poverty.

In Chapter 4, we set out a roadmap that outlines what European Union and North African (EU-NA) climate change
and energy policy developments need to occur in the period to 2050 if this vision is to be achieved. Supported by a
coherent policy transition, such a roadmap of activities could support the delivery of a sustainable, reliable and
integrated power system for EU-NA. It proposes a holistic view, taking into account existing infrastructure and
electricity generation capacities, and illustrates the necessary market, financial, infrastructure and policy milestones
that would need to be put in place. It also considers other drivers and forces that could either promote or hinder the
vision and suggests ways in which these could be managed for success.

Of course, in addition to renewables, there are other routes to addressing these concerns – most significantly, the
expansion of nuclear power and the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) from the burning of fossil
fuels. Our exclusion of these routes from this report is not intended as any comment on their merit. Our goal is to
examine what it would take to shift even further to a 100% renewable electricity supply.

The 2050 vision requires simultaneous and coordinated progress on many fronts – finance, technology, research
and development (R&D), the development of adequate supply chains, change in generation mix and grid capability.
Our 2050 roadmap identifies the key enabling areas to be government policy, investment, market structure, and
infrastructure, and outlines the developments needed in each to achieve the 2050 vision. The developments in
each are considerable and complex but we believe they are achievable....

http://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/imagelibrary/detail.aspx?MediaDetailsID=1694&ClientID=1

[madokie]

14. Solar is not the only option Dr Greg

We have a pumped storage lake battery that saves our local power company lots of money during peak usage periods. Its a small 750 acre surface area lake and it produces energy for as long as eight hours a day, sometimes even longer. I could look up the power it produces but I doubt you'd be interested as it doesn't fit in with your view of how things really are. This battery I speak of can be recharged by any number of power sources other than the hydro that it mostly is.

[DrGregory]

35. pumped stoage for hydro

>This battery I speak of can be recharged by any number of power sources other than the hydro that it mostly is.

I very much support pumped storage - I've seen one of the first -
the Luddington plant on the shores of Lake Michigan.

I doubt your last statement - pumped storage is basically a
hydro plant. It's dumb to store the output of one hydro
plant in another - just keep the energy stored the energy in the first.

Dr. Greg

[Dead_Parrot]

37. Not entirely true

If the original generation is done in a run-of-the-river hydro plant, adding storage to turn it into a "peaker" is perfectly sane.

[madokie]

43. True, they have three dams on this river and they were/are storing their late night excess

It didn't fit in with the good Dr's world view though, its either black or white in that world, no color at all, he just seems to like to 'dictate too and doubt from.' Not so smart if you ask me
GRDA, the state owned power company, tries to keep the lake levels at a constant rather than letting them vary so that is one of the reasons for the pumped hydro to begin with. For years they wouldn't let you inside the fence to the pumped storage lake but after about 10 years or so they finally figured out that they we're going to keep us out anyway so they started building public ramps. Its some of the best bass and catfish fishing around here.

[DrGregory]

50. thats the way of science...

>It didn't fit in with the good Dr's world view though, its either black or white in that world, no color at all,

In science and math, we have correct answers;
and everything else is wrong.

One of my professors, whose name is David; tells
the story of one time he gave back graded exams
to his class. He had given one student partial credit
on one of the problems to a student, but the student
felt he should have gotten more credit than the
professor gave him. The two were arguing about it in
the hall.

The Dean came by and said, "Dave, when you two figure
out how much a wrong answer is worth, let me know."

Dr. Greg

[Dead_Parrot]

51. Not really

If the question is "how do you get from Seattle to Miami?", for instance, I hope it's blindingly obvious there is more than one correct answer.

[madokie]

52. That sounds more like a clouding of the issue rather than what your intent was

At the moment I'm finding I hold very little respect for your opinion in any of these discussions, mostly due to that attitude of I'm right and you're wrong you throw around so much. Even when you've been shown to be completely wrong you still try to cloud the issue. Which is fine if thats how you want to do things but I'd rather live and learn. I come here to share my opinion but mostly to learn.

We have a couple, three other posters here in the E/E forum with the same attitude and I feel the same about them also so its not only you.
Have a great evening Doc, I plan too :hi:

[DrGregory]

54. I doubt that..

At the moment I'm finding I hold very little respect for your opinion in any of these discussions, mostly due to that attitude of I'm right and you're wrong you throw around so much. Even when you've been shown to be completely wrong you still try to cloud the issue. Which is fine if thats how you want to do things but I'd rather live and learn. I come here to share my opinion but mostly to learn.
-------------------------------

First; I have been correct. I found a bunch of people haggling over the propaganda from the
anti-nuke community that the Sandia test was flawed - and I proved the Sandia tests to be valid.

I just had to correct some poster that claimed that enrichment technology and the weapons
proliferation issue therewith was the foundation of nuclear energy. I pointed to the fact
that the Canadian nuclear power program and the CANDU reactor they design work with
uranium that has NOT been enriched.

I have yet to be shown in error - there are those here who "think" < term used loosely >
that they've shown me to be in error - but that is just their ignorant delusions.

I don't think it's about learning as you claim - I think it's about foisting more
propaganda on the unsuspecting and the uncritical.

Dr. Greg

[madokie]

13. The more you type the more I see that you are not likely what you claim to be

have a great evening Dr Greg :hi:

[jpak]

19. It's the We-hate-Amory-Lovins cult

who knew there were so many...

:D

[jpak]

18. Amory Lovins rules

word

:rofl:

[Enthusiast]

40. NAY SAYER alert.

Actually mother nature offers more energy than any other source. And it is hardly a paltry amount. But thank you for your right wing/fossil fuel industry talking points.

All fossil fuels are essentially stored solar energy and hydro is essentially a combination of stored solar and geothermal energy. And nuclear is also mother nature, in case you didn't know it.

[Dead_Parrot]

41. a staph infection is also mother nature

Doesn't meant it's that awesome.

[Dead_Parrot]

9. How exciting. I look forward to you posting them.

In the meantime, I'll read these ones about 100% electricity, and 80% energy.

[madokie]

12. Great news if ever I've read great news

Rec.

[Kringle]

15. Europe needs to go first

they should turn off their,
coal, nat gas and nuclear,
electrical power stations.

everybody wins

[Dead_Parrot]

16. Incidentally, the previous discussion on the 'Roadmap' report is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=241568#241977

[kristopher]

17. That thread is only about the second study; AFAIK, the first has never been posted here.

Either one shatters the oft repeated false assertion by nuclear supporters that renewable energy cannot provide for our needs.

[Dead_Parrot]

20. Erm...

That why I said "the previous discussion on the 'Roadmap' report is here". Because it was about the roadmap report. Y'know, the The second one.

Figured out the difference between electricity and energy yet?

[kristopher]

21. They are both "Roadmap" reports.

Both have "Roadmap 2050" in the title. In any case, either one shatters the oft repeated false assertion by nuclear supporters that renewable energy cannot provide for our needs.

Learned to read yet?

[Dead_Parrot]

22. My apologies

Since one is titled "Roadmap2050", written by the Roadmap 2050 project and found at www.roadmap.eu, whilst the other is titled "100% Renewable Electricity", written by PriceWaterhouseCoopers and found at www.pwc.co.uk, I figured everyone would know which one I was talking about when i said "the roadmap report" since they probably have an IQ in double digits.

A foolish assumption, and I'll try not to make it again.

Now, would like you like me to explain the difference between electricity and energy to you? I can do some pictures if that helps, and this time I promise not to make any dangerous assumptions about reading age.

[kristopher]

23. Both shatter false nukenut claim that we need nukes...

[Dead_Parrot]

24. Is that a yes or a no?

I've grabbed a couple of books from my daughter's room I can scan and upload. I've got pictures of lightning and trucks and all sorts. Actually, here's a picture of a train you can colour in:



See if you can guess whether it runs on electricity, or another form of energy.
And try to stay inside the lines. :)

[kristopher]

25. Both shatter false nukenut claim that we need nukes...

[Dead_Parrot]

26. And here's a windmill:

This makes a form of energy. But do you think it's electricity, or something else?

[kristopher]

27. I love letting you go on like this...

Now let's see, as I'm an energy policy analyst which is more probable:

1) I don't know the difference between electricity and energy;

2) When I wrote "Two Studies conclude 100% renewable energy is viable and desirable" I was creating a truncated headline version of a larger sentence such as "Two studies conclude that 100% renewable energy sources are a viable and desirable means of powering a noncarbon electric power sector for Europe and north Africa";

3) Dead Parrot is trying to smear the messenger who carries bad news for those shilling for nuclear power?


In any case, both reports (and many others besides) destroy the false claims routinely made here by nuclear supporters that we need nuclear power.

We don't.

[Dead_Parrot]

28. Frankly...

...given that you have something of a history of latching onto stuff because you like the look of it without actually reading or checking it, and then going back and trying to change definitions to fit whatever you said, (such as the "refurbished" wind farm at Kamaoa) I'm going with option 1.

Found your crayons yet? I've finished my windmill:



Pretty neat, huh? Ran out of purple doing the train, though :(

[kristopher]

29. Frankly

Given that you spend all of your time on DU trying to find something to criticize in my posts. I'd say you are failing miserably in your assigned mission.

[Dead_Parrot]

30. Trying to put this gently as I can...

...but I think you are over-estimating your importance.

[kristopher]

31. Right...

That's why you've written 8 posts out of the 30 on this thread trying to get under my skin over a perfectly acceptable headline.

[Dead_Parrot]

33. If you find confusing 'Energy' and 'Electricity' "perfectly acceptable"...

...you're not much of an analyst.

Hmm. There's a redundant clause in there somewhere.

Truth is, I've got nothing better to do just now. Except colouring in: Look, I've done a boat:



Neato.

[XemaSab]

38. You of all people should know:

[Nihil]

39. Shhhh! This is an interesting mix of trivium & trivia!

I'm enjoying D_P's blend of grammar, rhetoric & logic interspersed with
artistic interludes!

:evilgrin:

[Dead_Parrot]

42. Yeah, but I think Kris has stopped playing

So now I'm just playing with myself.

Sigh. Nothing changes...

Edit to add: Point of order, is it possible to enjoy trivia if you're already enjoying trivium? Unless you meant tritium, which is different in trivial ways.

[Nihil]

44. Re: Point of order

> Point of order, is it possible to enjoy trivia if you're already enjoying
> trivium?

I believe it is most definitely possible to enjoy "insignificant trifles of
little importance" as interludes to break up the (slightly) more serious parts
involving "the lower division of the liberal arts: grammar, logic & rhetoric"
without causing too much confusion on the part of the reader by having the
former as the plural of the latter.


> Unless you meant tritium, which is different in trivial ways.

Who would have thought that changing a single letter, a difference in ASCII
of merely two, could have such a wide-ranging effect on the E/E readers?

Few people would get upset about an excess of trivium at an educational
establishment but if it were reported as "tritium" ...?!
:hide:

(ETA: Such a wide-ranging effect that I managed to type it twice before noticing!)

[Dead_Parrot]

45. I hate you.

:hi:

[Nihil]

46. Awww ... I was just concerned for your eyesight ...

.42> So now I'm just playing with myself.

:hi:

[Dead_Parrot]

47. :P

[txlibdem]

32. How did Big Coal succeed in getting us to fight over Solar vs Nuclear?

Why does every solar thread have to end up a fight with nuclear proponents claiming that solar can't provide 100% of our energy needs? It can.

Conversely, why does every nuclear thread get practically taken over with solar proponents?

The truth is that either solar or nuclear could provide 100% of our electricity needs. We should be joining forces to succeed in getting off coal and other fossil fuels, not bickering and arguing amongst ourselves.

[Dead_Parrot]

34. That's crazy talk

Why, if we did that, we'd end up solving the problem instead of destroying the planet. And then where would we be?

[DrGregory]

36. only with storage

>Why does every solar thread have to end up a fight with nuclear proponents claiming that solar can't provide 100% of our >energy needs? It can.

ONLY with energy storage - with its attendant risks.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

48. Nuclear is the fallback position for the people who profit from coal generation.

The stakeholders who benefit from nuclear energy are largely synonymous with the stakeholders who benefit from large scale coal generation. Minerals mining interests, large project development firms like Bechtel and Halliburton, private electric generating entities like NRG and many of the public utilities are all stakeholders whose profits are protected and enhanced by nuclear power but are threatened by a distributed grid where solar and other forms of distributed generation are commoditized.

Public support for the two technologies is also very closely aligned. The motivation of most who support coal and nuclear is founded on energy security concerns.

Ipsos/McClatchy Poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. May 6-9, 2010. N=1,016 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"As I read some possible government policies to address America's energy supply, tell me whether you would favor or oppose each. First, would you favor or oppose the government ?"

"Increasing federal funding for research on wind, solar and hydrogen technology"
Favor Oppose Unsure
73......17......10

"Spending more on subway, rail and bus systems"
Favor Oppose Unsure
63......24......13

"Allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters"
Favor Oppose Unsure
49......38......12

"Promoting the increased use of nuclear power"
Favor Oppose Unsure
46......39......15

"Some people believe that offshore drilling is necessary so that America can produce its own energy and not depend on other countries for oil. Other people believe that offshore drilling is a bad idea because of risks to the environment. Which of these comes closer to your view?" Options rotated
Necessary A bad idea Unsure
60..............35................4

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

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)

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

"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

"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

A renewable grid is structured differently than a grid that relies primarily on large scaled centralized thermal systems like nuclear and coal. It really is a case where spending money in one area is counterproductive to efforts in the other area. Both approaches require a lot of upstream development of human and physical resources to scale them up sufficient to meet the need. If we want our most rapid and cost effective solution to climate change, it would be best to focus our efforts on one or the other.

Amory Lovins' article in "Foreign Affairs" describes concepts of the "hard path" and "soft path" of energy use. If you haven't read it, you might enjoy it.
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E77-01_EnergyStrategyRoadNotTaken

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.

[Dead_Parrot]

49. ...

[XemaSab]

53. If I'm a shill for anything it's Big Hydro

Ever do any FERC relicensing, kid?

I thought not.

[txlibdem]

55. How about getting 60% from Solar and Wind, 40% from Nuclear and Geothermal

One day we will agree on something. I am awaiting that day...

[Nederland]

56. How about this?

Take a big pile of money and divide it into thirds. One third for wind, one third for solar, one third for nuclear. Let each industry build as much capacity as they can for two presidential cycles (8 years). Then recalibrate based upon how much new power came online from each and base the next four years of funding on those numbers. For example, if after eight years new wind installations produced 30 TWh a year, new solar installations produced 15 TWh a year, and new nuclear installations produced 15 TWh a year, then next four years of funding would be divided up 50% wind, 25% solar, 25% nuclear. Repeat every four years.

The advantage of doing things this way is obvious: it ensures that the money flows to the solution that actually delivers the most new power. It doesn't matter what Jacobson, NNadir or Kristopher says will happen, all that matters is what actually does happen. The solution that can actually deliver the goods gets the money, the losers don't.

[kristopher]

57. This isn't a race that just started.

But sure, I get it. Since your preferred solution is now sucking hind tit in the empirical world where costs and performance data are overwhelming, you'd prefer we just ignore all the evidence and channel literally hundreds of billions into the losing technologies also - just to be "fair".

I find that a version of "fair" I associate closely with right wing reasoning. Fair as in "flat tax" fair if you know what I mean. It is an appeal to fairness that benefits only the current entrenched energy (money) interests, not the public at large. In fact, the nuclear industry has been the recipient of most of the non-fossil government support for over 50 years but the fundamental scale of the individual projects puts them out of the zone of projects that private enterprise can successfully accomplish on its own. We do not need to dump precious funds that could be used, for example, to deploy smart grid technology which has far reaching, big-bang-for-your-buck benefits.

Jacobson's analysis is solid and the results are so overwhelmingly clear that the criticisms nuclear fans routinely level cannot be construed as anything other than nitpicking.

[Dead_Parrot]

58. Hmmm

...the fundamental scale of the individual projects puts them out of the zone of projects that private enterprise can successfully accomplish on its own

So, you believe that if a project doesn't work without government subsidies, it should be left to fail?

[kristopher]

59. Can't you have a discussion that is reasoned instead of manipulative?

It is clear what I wrote: "...the nuclear industry has been the recipient of most of the non-fossil government support for over 50 years but the fundamental scale of the individual projects puts them out of the zone of projects that private enterprise can successfully accomplish on its own. We do not need to dump precious funds that could be used, for example, to deploy smart grid technology which has far reaching, big-bang-for-your-buck benefits."

This isn't an arbitrary opinion, it is the demonstrated fact. Nuclear is a government scale enterprise, period. The cost is so large that the payback time is beyond financial planning horizons for any entity except governments. You can pretty it up and call it subsidies if you wish, but there is no scenario where the private sector can stand alone with fission power.

On the other hand, in the current global environment and with with little more than solid policy support, renewable technologies would have the rock solid foundation spurring a massive influx of private capital. A definitive US (better yet global) commitment to rapid adoption of renewable energy would be far more valuable to renewables than subsidies. Subsidies are but one signal that such a committment is being made; it is the commitment that is most important, not the signal itself.

With nuclear that can't help because of its scale, therefore it will always be a system that is tied to strong central control of the energy people need for living.

[Dead_Parrot]

60. Don't get me wrong...

...It just surprises me to see you arguing against government rebates and FITs for wind and solar so eloquently.

There's hope for you yet. :)

[kristopher]

61. Small, mean and petty...

[Dead_Parrot]

62. Hey - less of the "small", please.

[Nederland]

64. Correct, this isn't a race that just started

And as it stands right now nuclear is way out ahead.

Since your preferred solution is now sucking hind tit in the empirical world...

What empirical world would that be? I could have suggested that right off the bat we divide money up according to the percentages of the grid that each solution currently supplies, but I thought you'd have a problem with nuclear receiving 15-20 times more money than wind and solar. Is that the empirical evidence you were referring to? Or perhaps it's the empirical evidence that says that a single nuclear installation in Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Japan produces 2 to 3 times more electricity than all the solar installations in the world combined? Or maybe it's the empirical evidence that from 1998 to 2008, nuclear added 279 TWh of production, compared to 199 TWh for wind and 11 TWh for solar? Or perhaps it's the empirical evidence existing in France that shows that nuclear, and ONLY nuclear, has the proven real world ability to provide a country with the vast majority of it's electricity?

Say whatever you like about Jacobson's "analysis" of what "might" happen in the future. Such predictions are for losers that lack the current real world data that shows that their pet solution is better than the others.

[Nihil]

63. Hey, I agree with you!

> How about getting 60% from Solar and Wind, 40% from Nuclear and Geothermal
> One day we will agree on something. I am awaiting that day...

There aren't that many who are blindly claiming that a 100% "technologyX" solution
is the only one that can be considered (without being a right-wing troll, a blind
fool or any of the other habitual insults that are bounced around). That's a good
job really as a 100% "any technology you care to name" solution is pure fantasy.

60/40 works for me (though I'm not sure of the geothermal location in that
suggestion).

I didn't respond to your earlier post as I suspected (rightly as it seems)
that it would attract spam & bitterness but anyway ...

>> How did Big Coal succeed in getting us to fight over Solar vs Nuclear?

Lots of practice (supported by lots of money and lots of political clout).


>> Why does every solar thread have to end up a fight with nuclear proponents
>> claiming that solar can't provide 100% of our energy needs? It can.

Facts, figures, differences of opinion (like 180 degrees opposed) on their
interpretation and on picking out possible futures favourable to their cause.


>> Conversely, why does every nuclear thread get practically taken over with
>> solar proponents?

Habit. In addition to the above note on "selective interpretation", E/E just
loves an anti-nuke dogpile (especially if one of the more outspoken pro-nuke
posters started or supported the thread).


> The truth is that either solar or nuclear could provide 100% of our
> electricity needs.

The truth is that neither can provide a real world solution for 100% of
America's electricity needs and so the sooner that both sides acknowledge
that, the sooner we can move onto your next - most important - point ...

> We should be joining forces to succeed in getting off coal and other fossil
> fuels, not bickering and arguing amongst ourselves.

*THAT* is the most important point by far.

(After you manage this, please have a go at the Israel/Palestinian issue
as I hear there are more reasonable people involved with that squabble!)