Nuclear waste shipping on Great Lakes protested

[marmar]

Nuclear waste shipping on Great Lakes protested
Francis X. Donnelly / The Detroit News


A plan to ship 16 steam generators on the Detroit River and Great Lakes has sparked an international outcry.

What alarms residents on the U.S. and Canadian sides of the waterways is the material inside the generators -- nuclear waste.

The generators, which are the size of a city bus, were used by a nuclear power plant in Canada that now wants to send them to a recycling plant in Sweden.

Environmentalists and elected officials said a shipping mishap could contaminate the lakes, a source of drinking water in the region.

They're also worried the plan could lead to more radioactive waste being transported on the Great Lakes.

"It's a bad idea," said Michael Keegan, chairman of the Monroe-based Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes. "It sets a dangerous precedent."

U.S. and Canadian towns along the proposed route are miffed they were never told about the plan.

Alerted by a Michigan environmentalist perusing the records of Canada's nuclear regulatory agency, three Canadian mayors and two Michigan state legislators opposed the shipment. .........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100911/METRO/9110372/Nuclear-waste-shipping-on-Lakes-protested#ixzz0zENSxYMh

[Kolesar]

1. Penn Power sent a hot pressure vessel down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers to Hanford dump

...via the Panama Canal. That was 20 years ago. It was from the small reactor that was in Shippingport, PA, near the Ohio border.

[DrGregory]

2. BALONEY!

What alarms residents on the U.S. and Canadian sides of the waterways is the material inside the generators -- nuclear waste.
======================

This Detroit News reporter ( my home town is in Oakland County -
the northern suburbs of Detroit ) doesn't know of what he speaks.

Steam generators do NOT have "nuclear waste".

Nuclear waste is the spent uranium fuel from a reactor.

In a CANDU reactor, like a US PWR; thermally hot coolant water
at high pressure circulates through the reactor and through one
side of the steam generator, which is a heat exchanger; and back
to the reactor. The other side of the SG at lower pressure allows
the water to boil to steam to turn the turbine.

Although a steam generator may pick up a small amount of activated
material due to impurities in the water; this low level activity
material is NOT "nuclear waste" - the term reserved for the
high level activity material that comes from the reactor core.

More needless fear mongering by the scientifically illiterate.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

3. Another example of nuclear propaganda

"It isn't "nuclear waste, it's a puppy."

"Trust us" say the phony public relations experts from the nuclear industry.


To paraphase Barbara Bush on a much more apt application of the expression:

JUST SAY NO TO NUCLEAR POWER

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrGregory]

59. WRONG AGAIN!!

To paraphase Barbara Bush on a much more apt application of the expression:

JUST SAY NO TO NUCLEAR POWER
========================================

It wasn't Barbara Bush that created the "Just Say No" campaign.

It was Nancy Reagan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Say_No

"Just Say No" was an advertising campaign, part of the U.S. "War on Drugs", prevalent during the 1980s and early 1990s, to discourage children from engaging in recreational drug use by offering various ways of saying no. Eventually, this also expanded the realm of "Just Say No" to violence, premarital sex, and any other "vices" that young people might try. The slogan was created and championed by First Lady Nancy Reagan during her husband's presidency.

Dr. Greg

[bananas]

4. wrong - there are many kinds of nuclear waste

When announcing the BRC, the term "used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste" was specifically used to indicate that used nuclear fuel is not the only kind of nuclear waste the commission would be studying; and this terminology is not new, for example this article gives specific references to the term being used this way in both 2010 and 1978:

http://www.ananuclear.org/Issues/GlobalNuclearEnergyPartnership/Library/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/302/Default.aspx

A Perspective On U.S. Nuclear Waste Policies For The Last 40 Years
published Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Submitted to Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future
March 24, 2010

Download the pdf with sources here.

On January 29, 2010, Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Steven Chu named a 15-member Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, as part of the Obama administration’s commitment “to promoting nuclear power in the United States and developing a safe, long-term solution for the management of used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.”

<snip>

HAVE WE BEEN HERE BEFORE?

<snip>

On March 13, 1978, President Jimmy Carter established a Nuclear Waste Management Task Force, chaired by the DOE Secretary, “to formulate recommendations for establishment of an Administration policy with respect to long-term management of nuclear wastes and supporting programs to implement this policy.”

<snip>

The IRG’s task was to look at all major classes of nuclear waste:

* High Level wastes (HLW) – from nuclear weapons and irradiated fuel from commercial plants,
* Transuranic wastes (TRU) – plutonium-contaminated waste from nuclear weapons,
* Low Level wastes (LLW) – wastes that are not in other classifications,
* Uranium mine and mill tailings.

The IRG final report stated: “Because it is not possible to predict with accuracy a number of important future decisions which will impact nuclear waste management, the IRG has used two scenarios to illustrate different potential levels of requirements in management and disposal for both existing and future wastes.” One “lifetime” scenario reflected “a geographically centralized waste management system…designed to minimize the need of LLW burial ground acreage and the need and number of geologic repositories” for TRU and HLW.

<snip>

The NRC website also explains the various ways nuclear waste is categorized:

http://www.nrc.gov/waste.html

<snip>

Regulated Waste

* Low-level waste (LLW) includes radioactively contaminated protective clothing, tools, filters, rags, medical tubes, and many other items
* Waste incidental to reprocessing (WIR) refers to certain waste byproducts that result from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, which the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has distinguished from high-level waste (described below)
* High-level waste (HLW) is "irradiated" or used nuclear reactor fuel
* Uranium mill tailings are the residues remaining after the processing of natural ore to extract uranium and thorium

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) does not regulate all sources of radioactivity; see Who Regulates Radioactive Materials and Radiation Exposure for details.

<snip>

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part061/part061-0055.html

§ 61.55 Waste classification.

(a) Classification of waste for near surface disposal. (1) Considerations. Determination of the classification of radioactive waste involves two considerations. First, consideration must be given to the concentration of long-lived radionuclides (and their shorter-lived precursors) whose potential hazard will persist long after such precautions as institutional controls, improved waste form, and deeper disposal have ceased to be effective. These precautions delay the time when long-lived radionuclides could cause exposures. In addition, the magnitude of the potential dose is limited by the concentration and availability of the radionuclide at the time of exposure. Second, consideration must be given to the concentration of shorter-lived radionuclides for which requirements on institutional controls, waste form, and disposal methods are effective.

(2) Classes of waste. (i) Class A waste is waste that is usually segregated from other waste classes at the disposal site. The physical form and characteristics of Class A waste must meet the minimum requirements set forth in § 61.56(a). If Class A waste also meets the stability requirements set forth in § 61.56(b), it is not necessary to segregate the waste for disposal.

(ii) Class B waste is waste that must meet more rigorous requirements on waste form to ensure stability after disposal. The physical form and characteristics of Class B waste must meet both the minimum and stability requirements set forth in § 61.56.

(iii) Class C waste is waste that not only must meet more rigorous requirements on waste form to ensure stability but also requires additional measures at the disposal facility to protect against inadvertent intrusion. The physical form and characteristics of Class C waste must meet both the minimum and stability requirements set forth in § 61.56.

(iv) Waste that is not generally acceptable for near-surface disposal is waste for which form and disposal methods must be different, and in general more stringent, than those specified for Class C waste. In the absence of specific requirements in this part, such waste must be disposed of in a geologic repository as defined in part 60 or 63 of this chapter unless proposals for disposal of such waste in a disposal site licensed pursuant to this part are approved by the Commission.

<snip>

[DrGregory]

5. Use your own quoted definition

The IRG’s task was to look at all major classes of nuclear waste:

* High Level wastes (HLW) – from nuclear weapons and irradiated fuel from commercial plants,
* Transuranic wastes (TRU) – plutonium-contaminated waste from nuclear weapons,
* Low Level wastes (LLW) – wastes that are not in other classifications,
* Uranium mine and mill tailings.
=========================================================

Thanks for handing me the sword to demolish your contention.
Consider yourself hoisted on your own petard.

So which of the above does a steam generator fall into?

It is certainly not high level waste. It is certainly not
transuranic waste. It isn't low level waste either - a
steam generator doesn't become radioactive just because
some radioactive material was passed through it. Radioactivity
is not "contagious".

Additionally, a steam generator is not uranium mine or
mill tailings.

So why would you call a steam generator nuclear waste?

Dr. Greg

[bananas]

9. The old generators are considered low-level radioactive waste

Here's an article about the generators being replaced at San Onofre:

http://www.ocregister.com/news/-262478--.html

Published: Aug. 17, 2010
Updated: Aug. 18, 2010 10:21 a.m.
Giant generators bound for nuclear plant
By PAT BRENNAN
ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

<snip>

"It's pretty exciting for me," said Mike Wharton, Southern California Edison's senior project leader for the steam generator replacement, as he watched two cranes slowly swing the first of the generators onto the barge Tuesday. "By the time this is all done, I will have been working on this with a few other people for about a decade."

<snip>

The old generators are considered low-level radioactive waste, and all four will be shipped to a waste disposal site in Utah sometime next year, Wharton said.

<snip>

You incorrectly said, "It isn't low level waste either - a
steam generator doesn't become radioactive just because
some radioactive material was passed through it."
Actually, that is exactly what happens.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't understand this,
considering all the other stuff you've gotten wrong.

[madokie]

10. As I've said so many times before the pro nuclear people can't be trusted to be truthful as this

clearly show.

"It isn't low level waste either - a
steam generator doesn't become radioactive just because
some radioactive material was passed through it." dr greg

Actually, that is exactly what happens.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't understand this,
considering all the other stuff you've gotten wrong."

Its the precedent that this would be setting that they are opposed to as much as anything is what I get from the protesters. And I have to agree with that.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrGregory]

12. Contagious radioactivity - I don't think so.

Actually, physicists have a little story to make
fun of the people who are stupid enough to believe
that radioactivity is "contagious".

We all know that you can shield yourself from
radioactivity by a shield made of lead, for instance.

However, if merely being exposed to radioactivity
makes something radioactive - then the lead shield
would become radioactive. So we would need another
layer of lead to protect us from the first layer
of lead. However, if radioactivity is contagious;
then the first layer of lead would make the second
layer radioactive and again we are unprotected.

So we would have to put a third layer of lead to
protect us from the second layer. However, if
radioactivity is contagious....

This would go on FOREVER - we would never be able
to shield ourselves from radioactivity since every
thing we use as a shield would itself become
radioactive.

However, those that subscribe to the "contagious"
theory are unable to think that far ahead and thus
won't see the logical contradiction - because we
all know that we can use shields.

Like the old proverb says, "Genius has its limits,
but STUPIDITY is BOUNDLESS."

Dr. Greg

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrGregory]

52. WRONG AGAIN!!

Despite your crackpot theories, the generators did become radioactive
========================================================

The generators didn't become radioactive.

It appears that the power company didn't clean a
radioactive coating of corrosion products off the
generators.

However, the actual steel that comprises the generators
themselves are NOT radioactive.

This is what one gets when people don't know science
and have to interpret the missives of reporters.

First the reporters don't know the science - so the
report itself isn't accurate. Then we get those that
think that radioactivity is "contagious" falsely
interpreting the errant missives of the reporter.

That's why we need good science instruction in
grade schools - for everyone - not just those that
opt for it.

Dr. Greg

[caraher]

55. How is the corroded part of a generator not a part of the generator?

This is just silly - the fact is that what they propose to ship is, indeed, radioactive. Using parallel logic, were they proposing to ship fuel rods one could equally - and with equal absurdity - assert,

"The fuel rods are not radioactive. It appears that the power company didn't remove the radioactive fuel from the rods."

And did you actually read the article in the OP? The estimate from the recycling company is that they could recycle 90% of the steel and 10% would still be radioactive waste. So 10% of the generator is this "radioactive coating of corrosion products?" Perhaps they're being conservative...

This has bupkus to do with inadequate science education.

[DrGregory]

57. ,,,your inadequate science education it seems.,..

How is the corroded part of a generator not a part of the generator?
================================================================

It's NOT a corroded part of the steam generator. In order to get
activated, it has to have gone through the reactor core. It has
to be a corroded part of something ELSE that got activated and
then was deposited in the steam generator by the coolant.

In any case, this is much ado about nothing as I calculated in
another post.

You are making the ASSUMPTION - UNWARRANTED as it appears; that
ALL the material in the 10% returned as waste is radioactive.
It could be stable material mixed with a small portion of
radioactive material.

Dr. Greg

[caraher]

76. this is a matter of reading what I write and not words stuffed in my mouth

First, I'll thank you to refrain from casting aspersions on my science education, about which you know literally nothing. Incidentally, I'll add that I know nothing of yours, either. After all,...



Perhaps I'm a dog! ;)

Second, in no way does my saying that 10% of the material is treated as radioactive waste imply that I assume, believe, or in any way remotely suggest that the returned material is anything other than mostly stable material with a mixed-in portion of radioactive material. That's true, for all practical purposes, virtually any radioactive waste that I can think of - even things hot enough to kill you!

I'm simply reporting what the article in the OP said:

They were going to stay there permanently, but Bruce Power learned about a Swedish company that could recycle 90 percent of the machines, Peevers said.

The recycling process reduces the radioactivity of the material, which can then be used as scrap. The remaining 10 percent is too contaminated to recycle and will be returned to Bruce Power for storage. (emphasis added)

The fact that the material was depositing in the generator by the coolant is immaterial. I never claimed that the activation occurred in situ; I was merely pointing out that the radioactive material is actually present within the physical object they are shipping. And that would pass any reasonable test for saying "the object is radioactive." For instance, one time I was in my shared office taking a background reading on a survey meter before doing a routine set of measurements and got a big countrate. One of the guys in my office said, "Oh, I just came back from having a thallium scan." Under any sane use of language, he was radioactive beyond the usual natural radioactivity we all have in our bodies. But by your reasoning, I'd be wrong to say this, because the thallium wasn't produced in his body by direct irradiation, but by becoming lodged in his tissues following injection?!?!?!

Now I have no problem with the proposed shipment; the risks seem minimal, and if this thing sinks to the bottom of one of the Great Lakes the worst-case harm is dwarfed by, say, the coming of Asian carp. But it's hard to put this kind of thing into perspective for those worried about the effects of radioactive waste when nuclear advocates spend so much effort arguing that things that are patently radioactive, are not!

[Dead_Parrot]

13. A very interesting post

It's like watching a train wreck, but with thoughts instead of carriages.

[bananas]

16. Yes, when someone says "DUmmies" it's very interesting.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bananas]

17. DrGregory, in the Science forum, they are laughing at you

because you are such a fucking idiot!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x70422
:rofl:

[madokie]

19. I remember that post

:puke:

A troll trapped in his mothers basement because she has lost the key to the door leaving him with no way to get out comes to mind

what a dweeb

makes 'big guy' seem almost tolerable

[DrGregory]

20. Just because they post in science forum doesn't make them experts

Just because people post in the science forum does
not mean they know science.

I see we have people in the science forum that
are just as clueless about science as the ones
in this forum.

Again I see that reading their posts that they
do not understand the concept of re-emission as
per the Stephan-Boltzmann law.

Only 10% of the energy is DIRECTLY reflected as
light - however, the Stephan-Boltzmann Law applies
and more energy is re-radiated.

I'm not concerned about people laughing at me -
I'm sad that there are not more people that are
versed in high school physics.

Dr. Greg

[bananas]

31. One doesn't have to be an expert

to know that you're laughably wrong.
:rofl:

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrGregory]

6. Under what classification is a steam generator

§ 61.55 Waste classification.
=======================

I see you can be a "quote monkey" - now
let's see if you can APPLY the regulations.

Under what classification does a steam generator
fall - and why would it be called nuclear waste.

Just because something has been in the reactor
containment, does not mean it is intensely
radioactive.

So what criteria of the nuclear waste definition
is met by a steam generator which is not made
of uranium and is not high level radioactive...

Dr. Greg

[madokie]

8. "It's a bad idea," said Michael Keegan, chairman of the Monroe-based Coalition for a Nuclear Free

Great Lakes. "It sets a dangerous precedent."

Edit

[OnlinePoker]

14. It's not "intensely radioactive"

The company acknowledges that it is low level radiation, probably from the heavy water that traveled through the pipes inside the generator. If it wasn't, they would recycle them in Canada as they have had them in storage at Bruce Power for some time. The company they are shipping them to will be able to recycle 90% of the generators and return the remaining 10% to Bruce for permanent storage.

[DrGregory]

21. Heavy Water is NOT radioactive.

The company acknowledges that it is low level radiation, probably from the heavy water that traveled through the pipes inside the generator.
=============================================

Heavy water is NOT radioactive. Normal water
is H2O - 2 normal Hydrogen atoms and an Oxygen
atom. Heavy water is water made with heavy
hydorgen - D2O - deuterium and oxygen.

Here is a link to the chart of the nuclides.

http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/

Deuterium or h-2 is the heavy hydrogen. Type
h-2 in the box at right and see what comes up.

Under the heading of half-life denoted T1/2
what does it say about heavy hydorgen. It says
it is STABLE - i.e. not radioactive.

Dr. Greg

[OnlinePoker]

22. So then why does the company refer these as having low level radiation?

If the company says it's radioactive, I trust them more than I do someone on the net who puts himself down as Dr.-anything.

[DrGregory]

23. the reason was wrong.

If the company says it's radioactive, I trust them more than I do someone on the net who puts himself down as Dr.-anything.
======================

If the company says it is radioactive; then
I accept that.

However, YOU said it was radioactive due to
the heavy water. I showed you that heavy
water is NOT RADIOACTIVE and therefore
can not be the reason for the radioactivity.

If it is radioactive, it is radioactive for
SOME OTHER REASON than heavy water.

I don't dispute the company's contention that
it is slightly radioactive - I dispute your
explanation.

( Perhaps there were some impurities that they
didn't clean out)

But it is not radioactive due to heavy water;
first because heavy water is not radioactive,
and second, even if something is radioactive,
it doesn't make other materials radioactive,
in general.

Dr. Greg

[OnlinePoker]

24. Perhaps this is the reason

"Although many people associate heavy water primarily with its use in nuclear reactors, pure heavy water is not radioactive. Commercial-grade heavy water is slightly radioactive from minute traces of contaminating natural tritium present in it, but the same is true of ordinary water as well. Heavy water which has been used as a coolant in nuclear power plants contains substantially more tritium due to neutron bombardment of the deuterium in the heavy water (Tritium is a health risk when ingested in large quantities)."

Since there is no way they could fully purge the piping in the system of all the tritium, they sealed it shut and are shipping it off for recycling.

[bananas]

25. No, it's not just tritium

Here's a similar steam generator:

http://www.wmsym.org/archives/2007/pdfs/7131.pdf

WM’07 Conference, February 25 – March 1 2007, Tucson, AZ
Paper #7131
NEW TREATMENT CONCEPT FOR STEAM GENERATORS-
TECHNICAL ASPECTS
Anders Lindström, Bo Wirendal and Maria Lindberg

<snip>

The component that should be treated was a steam generator (SG) from the Ringhals 3 NPP.
The dimensions of the SG were Length: 21 meter, Diameter: 4.5 meter, the weight: 310
metric tons; the storage volume was approx. 400 m3.

The estimations of the radiation exposure to the operators were based on measurements. Co-
60 was in the range of 0.65 TBq. For the long-lived isotopes, Ni-63 was the dominant in the
range of 16 TBq.

<snip>

[DrGregory]

54. So we can calculate the amount of radioactive material...

The estimations of the radiation exposure to the operators were based on measurements. Co-
60 was in the range of 0.65 TBq.
----------------------------------------------------

So we have 0.65 TBq = 0.65e12 Bq = 0.65e12 decays / sec.

Decay rate dN/dt = -lambda N = -0.65e+12 decays / sec

lambda = decay constant = ln(2) / half-life.

The half-life of Co-60 is 5.27 years or 1925.1 days
or 1.66e+08 sec

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt-60

Therefore lambda = ln(2)/half-life = 4.16e-09 inverse seconds.

The number of atoms N = 0.65e+12 inverse seconds / 4.16e-09 inverse seconds
= 1.56e+20 atoms

There are 6.023e+23 atoms in a mole - so the number of moles
we have is 1.56e+20 / 6.023e+23 = 2.59e-04 moles

Now the mass of 1 mole in grams will equal the isotopic weight.
That is a mole of Co-60 will have of mass of 60 grams.

We have 2.59e-04 moles; so the mass of Co-60 is 0.0156 grams.

So we are making all this fuss over less than 1/50-th of a gram.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

65. so we have less than 1/50-th of a gram of Co-60

[bananas]

80. No, that is NOT the total radioactivity..

You are misreading the article I quoted.
I posted that only to show OnlinePoker that tritium was not the only source of contamination.
The article only mentions two isotopes, there are many others.
Your misreading of the article has led you to the wrong conclusion.

[DrGregory]

49. BALONEY!

Since there is no way they could fully purge the piping in the system of all the tritium, they sealed it shut and are shipping it off for recycling.
===================================

BALONEY - that's like saying there is
no way to purge all the water from a
water glass. The dry cycle on your
dishwasher does it quite well.

The tritium is in / is part of
the water.

Dr. Greg

[hunter]

26. How toxic is it compared to a barge full of coal?

:shrug:

[kristopher]

27. How toxic is it compared to a bucketful of sunshine or a breath of fresh air?

That is the more appropriate question.

[Nihil]

28. That will (hopefully) be the more appropriate question in several years time.

At the moment, however, if you are not prepared to accept Hunter's question
and the comparison to coal, you might as well stick to pixie dust.

[kristopher]

29. Peer reviewed literature by a highly respected academic says you are wrong.

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.

[bananas]

30. hunter: "How does poking out one's left eye compare to poking out one's right eye?"

kristopher: "Don't poke out either eye!"
nihil: "I don't like that outside-of-the-box thinking"
bananas: "It's not outside-of-the-box thinking, it's common sense"

[Nihil]

32. And another pixie-dust supporter joins in (with an invalid analogy)

Like I said, in the future I truly hope that solar & wind (and tidal,
geothermal, hydro) will be the alternative to shipping barge-loads
of radioactive substances (from uranium mines, coal mines, wherever)
around the Great Lakes (or anywhere else for that matter).

Here & now you have the grand choice of doing the above or trying to
persuade the great unwashed that they have to trim their energy consumption
back to the levels that can be supported by solar & wind (etc.) as any
claims that coal is *not* currently needed to replace nuclear are sheer
fantasy.

I do not deny that it would be nice if both coal and nuclear were shut off
tomorrow. I do deny that it is in any way a realistic option.
:shrug:

[kristopher]

34. Denying science is a hallmark of right wing thinking.

Stop spreading false nuclear industry propaganda. Either PROVE your statement about renewable energy or stop making it.

A new Yucca Mountain every 2 years

The renewable option: Is it real?
SUNLIGHT: 100,000 TW reaches Earth’s surface (100,000 TWy/year = 3.15 million EJ/yr), 30% on land. Thus 1% of the land area receives 300 TWy/yr, so converting this to usable forms at 10% efficiency would yield 30 TWy/yr, about twice civilization’s rate of energy use in 2004.

WIND: Solar energy flowing into the wind is ~2,000 TW. Wind power estimated to be harvestable from windy sites covering 2% of Earth’s land surface is about twice world electricity generation in 2004.

BIOMASS: Solar energy is stored by photosynthesis on land at a rate of about 60 TW. Energy crops at twice the average terrestrial photosynthetic yield would give 12 TW from 10% of land area (equal to what’s now used for agriculture). Converted to liquid biofuels at 50% efficiency, this would be 6 TWy/yr, more than world oil use in 2004.

Renewable energy potential is immense. Questions are what it will cost & how much society wants to pay for environmental & security advantages.

The nuclear option: size of the challenges
• If world electricity demand grows 2%/year until 2050 and nuclear share of electricity supply is to rise from 1/6 to 1/3...

–nuclear capacity would have to grow from 350 GWe in 2000 to 1700 GWe in 2050;

– this means 1,700 reactors of 1,000 MWe each.

• If these were light-water reactors on the once-through fuel cycle...
---–enrichment of their fuel will require ~250 million Separative Work Units (SWU);
---–diversion of 0.1% of this enrichment to production of HEU from natural uranium would make ~20 gun-type or ~80 implosion-type bombs.

• If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium...
---–the associated flow of separated, directly weapon - usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;
---–diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.

• Spent-fuel production in the once-through case would be...
---–34,000 tonnes/yr, a Yucca Mountain every two years.

Conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, but doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.

Conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, but doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.

Mitigation of Human-Caused Climate Change
John P. Holdren (currently Obama's Science Adviser)

This 2006 statement from Holdren doesn't include any technical limit on renewables ability because there are none. It also was written when the the prevailing wisdom on the costs of nuclear power were seriously underestimated by a 2003 MIT paper that Holdren co-authored. So the implicit price advantage towards nuclear that Holdren notes when he speaks of whether "society wants to pay" for the benefits of renewables has since been shown to be totally false.

Either prove your statement with some serious recent research or please have the integrity to stop making false claims.

[Nihil]

36. You are the one who is denying the facts that I stated.

As I suspect you didn't bother to read my previous post, I'll highlight
the appropriate words in the hope that you will not do your usual trick
of claiming that I was saying something other than what I did:

> Like I said, in the future I truly hope that solar & wind (and tidal,
> geothermal, hydro) will be the alternative to shipping barge-loads
> of radioactive substances (from uranium mines, coal mines, wherever)
> around the Great Lakes (or anywhere else for that matter).
>
> Here & now you have the grand choice of doing the above or trying to
> persuade the great unwashed that they have to trim their energy consumption
> back to the levels that can be supported by solar & wind (etc.) as any
> claims that coal is *not* currently needed to replace nuclear are sheer
> fantasy.
>
> I do not deny that it would be nice if both coal and nuclear were shut off
> tomorrow. I do deny that it is in any way a realistic option.

Are you seriously denying that it is *not* possible to shut off both coal
and nuclear tomorrow?

To remove the double negative in the above question: "Are you seriously
proposing that it *is* possible to shut off both coal and nuclear tomorrow?"

If your answer to the above questions is "No" then you had no justification
to make your accusations that I am "anti-science" and making "false claims".

If your answer to the above questions is "Yes" then you are completely
off the rails and allowing your hatred for even a partially nuclear situation
to blind you to the facts of the current environment.
:wow:

[kristopher]

37. Coal is not currently needed to replace nuclear and nuclear is not currently needed to replace coal

Either one can be replaced with CURRENT renewable energy technologies.

Your attempt to switch the meaning of your original post to one centered around the idea of switching all coal and nuclear off in a single instant is a blatantly false interpretation. Your clear intent was to state that renewable energy is not an adequate energy source around which to restructure our energy supply and that we must continue to build nuclear plants until so future day when renewable energy is more than "pixie dust".

April 22, 2009
Energy Regulatory Chief Says New Coal, Nuclear Plants May Be
Unnecessary
By NOELLE STRAUB AND PETER BEHR, Greenwire
No new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission said today.
"We may not need any, ever," Jon Wellinghoff told reporters at a U.S. Energy Association forum.
The FERC chairman's comments go beyond those of other Obama administration officials, who have strongly endorsed
greater efficiency and renewables deployment but also say nuclear and fossil energies will continue playing a major role.
Wellinghoff's view also goes beyond the consensus outlook in the electric power industry about future sources of electricity.
The industry has assumed that more baseload generation would provide part of an increasing demand for power, along
with a rapid deployment of renewable generation, smart grid technologies and demand reduction strategies.
Jay Apt, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Electricity Industry Center, expressed skepticism about the feasibility
of relying so heavily on renewable energy. "I don't think we're where Chairman Wellinghoff would like us to be," Apt said.
"You need firm power to fill in when the wind doesn't blow. There is just no getting around that."
Some combination of more gas- or coal-fired generation, or nuclear power, will be needed, he said. "Demand response can
provide a significant buffering of the power fluctuations coming from wind. Interacting widely scattered wind farms cannot
provide smooth power." ...

[Nihil]

38. Which part of "Here & now" are you having difficulty with?

> Coal is not currently needed to replace nuclear and nuclear is not currently
> needed to replace coal

That is false. CURRENT levels of renewable energy generation cannot replace
CURRENT levels of coal-fired generation or CURRENT levels of nuclear generation.

You are repeatedly & deliberately trying to redirect the thread rather
than facing up to the points that were actually stated.

I'm not surprised you keep trying to change the subject to include FUTURE
options (and if you'd read my posts, you'd have seen that I agree with
the potential for the FUTURE anyway) but I'm not letting you get away
with it this time.


28> That will (hopefully) be the more appropriate question in several years time.

32> Like I said, in the future I truly hope that solar & wind (and tidal,
32> geothermal, hydro) will be the alternative

32> Here & now you have the grand choice of doing the above or trying to
32> persuade the great unwashed that they have to trim their energy consumption
32> back to the levels that can be supported by solar & wind (etc.) as any
32> claims that coal is *not* currently needed to replace nuclear are sheer
32> fantasy.

Clue: "Here & now" doesn't involve the words "if", "will", "could", "potential"
or "hopefully" - it is talking about the current situation, not one of the many
possible futures.

For someone who is so quick to accuse others of "lying", "BS" and "blatantly
false" behaviour, you are sadly apt to do the same yourself.

:-(

(Edited to remove unnecessary comment)

[kristopher]

41. Your words are clear.

You wrote, "any claims that coal is *not* currently needed to replace nuclear are sheer fantasy."

Where is the coal plant you have provided supposed to come from, magic hand waving?

You are OBVIOUSLY talking about building replacement coal generation if nuclear plants are taken offline. Your terms "here and now" and "hope (they) will be" are plainly references to current and future technological potential. The technological potential to replace both coal and nuclear are here and now, we do not need to wait for some day in the future. If we want to replace a coal plant we can, right now, build replacement generation from renewable sources.

Your explanation simply doesn't fit what you wrote. Sorry, but you attempted to make a false claim, and it bothers you that I called you on it; buck up and walk it off. The fact that it bothers you is a very good thing - it proves you have real set of ethics.

[TheWraith]

56. Ah, the obfuscation of large numbers.

Throwing around lots of zeros with no context to make it seem like a minor problem, when you actually are concealing the real numbers you're talking about.

"SUNLIGHT: 100,000 TW reaches Earth’s surface (100,000 TWy/year = 3.15 million EJ/yr), 30% on land. Thus 1% of the land area receives 300 TWy/yr, so converting this to usable forms at 10% efficiency would yield 30 TWy/yr, about twice civilization’s rate of energy use in 2004."

1% of the Earth's land area sounds small. Up until you do the math to figure out that that's 1.5 million square kilometers, or roughly 3.6 times the size of California, over which you would need to pretty much completely destroy the ecosystem in order to pave it over with solar panels. Put another way, that's one sixth of the United States. Not to mention the fact that that would equate to HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of times more solar panel production than has been achieved throughout human history. Currently, they're producing about 15 gigawatts a year of new solar panels, at which rate producing as many as is envisioned for this would take about two thousand years. Even if you stipulated a ten-fold increase in solar cell production, it still wouldn't be done for centuries.

[kristopher]

60. How much land area is covered by building?

Roads?

Your remarks are, as usual, poorly considered.

[TheWraith]

61. "Poorly considered" in this context apparently means "Stop poking holes in my math."

Let's take a look at that, shall we? The area, in square kilometers, of the world's 100 largest cities is about 176,860 km2.

http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-area-125.html

That's just over one tenth the size of the area you'd need to flatten with solar panels to make your math work. An area almost ten times the size of the one hundred largest cities on the planet. That's not just New York and LA, that's Rio, Paris, fucking Buffalo New York. It includes Chattanooga and Poughkeepsie and McAllen, Texas. And that's ALL the area of all those cities, not just large buildings but also roads, parks, homes, reservoirs, airports, undeveloped areas, dumps, everything.

And that's still barely over ten percent of what you're envisioning.

[kristopher]

62. How much global area is covered with buildings and roads?

[TheWraith]

63. 0.3% of the planet's land surface is urbanized, 0.55 to 0.7% suburbanized.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/001689-how-much-world-covered-cities

[TheWraith]

67. *Crickets*

Apparently he can't even pretend anymore that his math holds up.

[kristopher]

68. You haven't answered my question.

[TheWraith]

69. Yes I did. You just didn't like the answer.

And you can't actually rebut anything I've said in this thread, so you're just pretending like you have.

[kristopher]

70. I asked about buildings and roads, not urban and suburban

Those are distinctly different metrics; or do you assert that the entire population of the globe lives either an urban or suburban setting while all indoor activity is also limited only to urban/suburban environments?


It is also noteworthy that you dismiss peer reviewed science for blog science.

[TheWraith]

71. You asked about buildings and roads, not the areas where there ARE buildings and roads?

Pedantic nonsense at it's best. The amount of roads and buildings in rural areas would be an astrisk compared to urban and rural areas.

More to the point, you're completely sidestepping the fact that you're talking about urban areas that took hundreds of years to build, and yet you seem to imagine we can rebuild all human-occupied areas of the planet within the next ten years or so, while multiplying production of solar cells a thousand fold. You've lost the argument, and now you're just trying to avoid admitting it.

[kristopher]

72. You are uninformed and your conclusion is false as a result

Global rural/urban population distribution varies from between 75/25 for agricultural economies to 25/75 for industrial economies.

Your metric is too flawed to be useful by itself. Anytime you do research like this there are going to be a number of ways to tease out the information you want; your particular selection of the urban/suburban land area could serve many useful functions, but telling us how much of the planet in total is covered by roads and roofs isn't one of them.

After that let me know how much of the land is under cultivation.

The bottom line is that your claim of land area being a prohibition for renewables is demonstrably incorrect if we use existing land uses as a guide. Land use is included in the study below.

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.

[TheWraith]

73. Yet another reposting of the same meaningless spam.

The fact of the matter is that there are not enough buildings on the planet Earth to house all the solar cells we'd need to supply our energy, and there's not one one HUNDREDTH the production capacity to MAKE all those solar cells, let alone all the associated infrastructure, and the rebuilding of millions of square kilometers of cities, towns, and villages. But to avoid acknowledging that, you ask meaningless questions which no one can answer to your satisfaction, and then pretend that it's the other person's fault, obfuscating your loss with another reposting of the same gobbledygook you've been flogging for months.

[kristopher]

75. Prove it.

I offered a peer reviewed article in a top flight academic journal by a highly qualified academic that has NEVER been disputed in peer reviewed literature. What are your qualifications; that you are a reader of the Nuclear Energy Institute blog?



CURRICULUM VITAE

Last Updated August 21, 2010


Mark Z. Jacobson
Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Professor by Courtesy of Energy Resources Engineering
Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Mailcode 4020
473 Via Ortega, Room 397
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-4020, USA
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Internet: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson

Degrees and Employment

B. S., with distinction, Stanford University, Civil Engineering, 1988
B. A., with distinction, Stanford University, Economics, 1988
M. S., Stanford University, Environmental Engineering, 1988
M. S., UCLA, Atmospheric Sciences, 1991
Ph. D., UCLA, Atmospheric Sciences, 1994
Research Asst., UCLA, Atmospheric Sciences, 1989-1994
Teaching Assistant, UCLA, Atmospheric Sciences, 1989-1994
Postdoctoral Student, UCLA, Atmospheric Sciences, June-September, 1994
Assistant Professor, Civil & Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, 1994-2001.
Associate Professor, Civil & Environmental Engineering, Stanford Univ., 2001-2007
Professor, Civil & Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, 2007-present
Professor by Courtesy of Energy Resources Engineering, Stanford Univ, 2007-present
Associate Director, Environmental Fluid Mechanics Laboratory, Stanford University, September, 1996-present.
Director and co-founder, Atmosphere/Energy Program, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, 2004-present.
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment, January 2008-present
Senior Fellow, Precourt Institute for Energy, January 1, 2010-present

Scientific Background

The main goal of Jacobson’s research is to understand physical, chemical, and dynamical processes in the atmosphere better in order to address atmospheric problems, such as climate change and urban air pollution, with improved scientific insight and more accurate predictive tools. He also evaluates the atmospheric effects of proposed solutions to climate change and air pollution, examines resource availability of renewable energies, and studies optimal methods of combining renewables. To accomplish many of these goals, he has developed and applied numerical solvers to simulate gas, aerosol, cloud,radiative, and land/ocean-surface processes. In 1993-4, he developed the world’s first combined gas-aerosol-radiative air-pollution model with interactive feedback to weather on any scale, and in 2001, the first nested global-through-urban air-pollution-weather-climate model. In 2000, he discovered that black carbon, the main component of soot particles, may be the second-leading cause of global warming in terms of radiative forcing after carbon dioxide. This finding provided the original scientific basis for proposed U.S. laws H.R. 1760 (Black Carbon Emissions Reduction Act of 2009, March 26, 2009), H.R. 7250 (Arctic Climate Preservation Act, Oct. 2, 2008), S.R. 110-489 (Black Carbon Research Bill, Sept. 17, 2008), and S.849.IS (Bill to Require the EPA to Study Black Carbon, April 22, 2009). His findings that carbon dioxide domes over cities and carbon dioxide buildup since preindustrial times have enhanced air pollution mortality through its feedback to particles and ozone served as a scientific basis for the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of the first regulation of carbon dioxide from vehicles in the United States (the California waiver). He has also studied the effects of aerosols on ultraviolet radiation, the effects of aerosol mixing state on atmospheric heating, the effects of biomass burning on climate, the effect of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on air pollution and the ozone layer, the effects of aerosols on winds and precipitation, the effects of ethanol and diesel vehicles on air quality, and the effects of agriculture on air pollution. His group’s development of the world’s first wind map based on data at the height of modern wind turbines has served as a scientific justification for the wind component of the Repower America and Pickens Plan energy proposals. To date, he has published two textbooks and about 100 peer-reviewed journal articles. Several hundred researchers have used computer models that he has developed. In 2005, he received the American Meteorological Society Henry G. Houghton Award for "significant contributions to modeling aerosol chemistry and to understanding the role of soot and other carbon particles on climate.” His paper, "Effects of ethanol versus gasoline on cancer and mortality in the United States" was the top-accessed article in Environmental Science and Technology for April-September, 2007. His “Review of energy solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security” was the top-accessed paper during March 2009 from Energy and Environmental Sciences, and his paper, “Influence of future anthropogenic emissions on climate, natural emissions, and air quality” was the top-accessed paper during May 2009 among all Journal of Geophysical Research journals.

Awards, Scholarships, and Fellowships

Yale Book award, 1982

Distinguished Scholar Award, Palo Alto Unified School District, 1983

Faculty Cup award, "Presented in recognition of outstanding academic achievement and
leadership by the administration and faculty of H. M. Gunn Senior High School," 1983

National Merit scholarship, 1983

Harvard College Honorary National Scholarship, "Highest award given by Harvard University to members of incoming class, based on academic distinction and extracurricular achievement," 1983

NCAA-ITCA scholar-athlete of the year award, 1985, 1986, 1987

Division I NCAA-ITCA Academic All-American, 1987

Stanford University Tennis scholarship, Stanford University, 1986-7

Department of Civil Engineering academic fellowship, Stanford University, 1987

Second place, ASCE hazardous waste essay writing competition, 1987

Chancellor's fellowship, UCLA, 1989

Neiburger teaching award, UCLA, 1992

Dissertation Year fellowship, UCLA, 1993-4

NSF Career Early Development Award, 1995-1998

Powell Foundation Award, Stanford University, 1995-1996

Frederick Terman Fellowship, Stanford University, 1997-2000

Presidential Research Grant for Junior Faculty, Stanford University, 1998

NASA New Investigator Award, 1999-2002

Research Incentive Award, Office of Technology & Licensing Stanford Univ., 2001-2002

American Meteorological Society Henry G. Houghton Award "for significant contributions to modeling aerosol chemistry and to understanding the role of soot and other carbon particles on climate," 2005

Editors' Citation for Excellence in Refereeing, Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 2005

Most-accessed article April-June 2007; second-most-accessed article July-September 2007, in the Journal, Environmental Science & Technology, “Effects of ethanol (E85) versus gasoline on cancer and mortality in the United States.”

Partial share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize as a research contributor to and reviewer of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 3rd and 4th Assessment Reports, cited for “efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”

Editor Highlight in Geophysical Research letters for “On the causal link between carbon dioxide and air pollution mortality,” February 2008

Top three most popular research news stories of 2008 published by Environmental Research Web: "Carbon dioxide increase causes air pollution deaths", a news story on "On the causal link between carbon dioxide and air pollution mortality"http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/research/37302

Top three "Most Interesting Science and Technology News of 2008", by Blogher, "Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security", http://www.blogher.com/most-interesting-science-and-technology-news-2008?

Economist.com "noteworthy journal article" for January 2009, "Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security", www.economist.com/business/management/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13008534

Top-downloaded paper, "Influence of future anthropogenic emissions on climate, natural emissions, and air quality", all Journal of Geophysical Research Journals, May 2009.

Top-downloaded paper, "Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security", Energy and Environmental Science, March 2009.

One of the top two science stories of 2009 according to Science of the Times, "A path to sustainable energy by 2030", Scientific American, November 2009.

American Geophysical Union Research Spotlight, Short-term effects of controlling fossil-fuel soot, biofuel soot and gases, and methane on climate, Arctic ice, and air pollution health,” July 29, 2010.

Top-cited first author, Stanford University School of Engineering, all departments, for first-authored papers published since Jan. 1, 1994.

Grants

U.S. EPA Global Air Pollution Modeling, 1994 - 1997
U.S. EPA Urban Air Pollution, 1995 – 1998
NSF Climate Modeling, 1997 – 2000
NSF Climate Modeling, 2001-2004
U.S. EPA Climate Modeling, 2001-2002
U.S. EPA Climate Modeling, 2002-2003
NASA Climate Modeling, 2004-2007
Global Climate and Energy Project, Effect of hydrogen on air pollution, 2004-2007
NASA Climate and Air Pollution Modeling, 2004-2007
U.S. EPA, Climate Effects on Air Pollution, 2007-2011
NASA Effects of Aerosols on Clouds, 2007-2010
U.S. Army, Transport of Airborne and Waterborne Particles Center, 2007-2012
Federal Aviation Administration, Effects of contrails on climate, 2007-2009
U.S. Dept. of Energy, Effects of hydrogen on the atmosphere, 2007-2009
Precourt Institute for Energy Efficiency, Optimizing renewable energy, 2008-2009
Federal Aviation Administration, Effects of low-sulfur jet fuel on climate, 2008-2009
National Science Foundation, Measuring and modeling organic aerosols, 2008-2011
Federal Aviation Administration, Effects of Aviation on Climate, 2009-2010
Federal Aviation Administration, Effects of Rerouting Polar Aircraft, 2009-2010
Federal Aviation Administration, ACCRI, 2010-2012

Unique Features of GATOR-GCMOM (Click here)

Ph. D. Thesis

Jacobson M. Z. (1994) Developing, coupling, and applying a gas, aerosol, transport, and radiation model to study urban and regional air pollution. Ph. D. Thesis, Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, 436 pp.

Books

Jacobson, M. Z., Fundamentals of Atmospheric Modeling. Cambridge University Press, New York, 656 pp., 1999.
Jacobson, M. Z., Fundamentals of Atmospheric Modeling, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, New York, 813 pp., 2005
Jacobson, M. Z., Atmospheric Pollution: History, Science, and Regulation, Cambridge University Press, New York, 399 pp., 2002.


Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles as First Author

1. Jacobson, M. Z., and R. P. Turco, SMVGEAR: A sparse-matrix, vectorized Gear code for atmospheric models, Atmos. Environ., 28A, 273-284, 1994.

2. Jacobson, M. Z., R. P. Turco, E. J. Jensen, and O. B. Toon, Modeling coagulation among particles of different composition and size, Atmos. Environ., 28A, 1327–1338, 1994.

3. Jacobson, M. Z., and R. P. Turco, Simulating condensational growth, evaporation, and coagulationof aerosols using a combined moving and stationary size grid, Aerosol Sci. and Technol., 22, 73 –- 92, 1995.

4. Jacobson, M. Z., Computation of global photochemistry with SMVGEAR II. Atmos. Environ., 29A , 2541-2546, 1995.

5. Jacobson, M. Z., A. Tabazadeh, and R. P. Turco, Simulating equilibrium within aerosols and non-equilibrium between gases and aerosols, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 9079–-9091, 1996.

6. Jacobson, M. Z., R. Lu, R. P. Turco, and O. B. Toon, Development and application of a new air pollution modeling system. Part I: Gas-phase simulations, Atmos. Environ., 30B, 1939 –- 1963, 1996.

7. Jacobson, M. Z., Development and application of a new air pollution modeling system. Part II: Aerosol module structure and design, Atmos. Environ., 31A, 131 –- 144, 1997.

8. Jacobson, M. Z., Development and application of a new air pollution modeling system. Part III: Aerosol-phase simulations, Atmos. Environ., 31A, 587 –- 608, 1997.

9. Jacobson, M. Z., Numerical techniques to solve condensational and dissolutional growth equations when growth is coupled to reversible reactions, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 27, 491–-498, 1997.

10. Jacobson, M. Z., Improvement of SMVGEAR II on vector and scalar machines through absolute error tolerance control. Atmos. Environ., 32, 791 –- 796, 1998.

11. Jacobson, M. Z., Studying the effects of aerosols on vertical photolysis rate coefficient and temperature profiles over an urban airshed, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 10,593-10,604, 1998.

12. Jacobson, M. Z., Isolating nitrated and aromatic aerosols and nitrated aromatic gases as sources of ultraviolet light absorption, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 3527-3542, 1999.

13. Jacobson, M.Z., Studying the effects of soil moisture on ozone, temperatures, and winds in Los Angeles, J. Appl. Meteorol., 38, 607, 616, 1999.

14. Jacobson, M. Z., Studying the effects of calcium and magnesium on size-distributed nitrate and ammonium with EQUISOLV II, Atmos. Environ., 33, 3635-3649, 1999.

15. Jacobson, M. Z., A physically-based treatment of elemental carbon optics: Implications for global direct forcing of aerosols, Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 217-220, 2000.

16. Jacobson, M. Z., Global direct radiative forcing due to multicomponent anthropogenic and natural aerosols, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 1551-1568, 2001.

17. Jacobson, M. Z., Strong radiative heating due to the mixing state of black carbon in atmospheric aerosols, Nature, 409, 695-697, 2001.

18. Jacobson, M. Z., GATOR-GCMM: A global through urban scale air pollution and weather forecast model. 1. Model design and treatment of subgrid soil, vegetation, roads, rooftops, water, sea ice, and snow., J. Geophys. Res., 106, 5385-5402, 2001.

19. Jacobson, M. Z., GATOR-GCMM: 2. A study of day- and nighttime ozone layers aloft, ozone in national parks, and weather during the SARMAP Field Campaign, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 5403-5420, 2001.

20. Jacobson, M. Z., and G. M. Masters, Exploiting wind versus coal, Science, 293, 1438-1438, 2001.

21. Jacobson, M. Z., Analysis of aerosol interactions with numerical techniques for solving coagulation, nucleation, condensation, dissolution, and reversible chemistry among multiple size distributions, J. Geophys. Res., 107 (D19), 4366, doi:10.1029/ 2001JD002044, 2002.

22. Jacobson, M. Z., Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon plus organic matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming, J. Geophys. Res., 107, (D19), 4410, doi:10.1029/ 2001JD001376, 2002.

23. Jacobson, M. Z., Development of mixed-phase clouds from multiple aerosol size distributions and the effect of the clouds on aerosol removal, J. Geophys. Res., 108 (D8), 425, doi:10 1029/2002JD002691, 2003.

24. Jacobson, M. Z., J. H. Seinfeld, G. R. Carmichael, and D.G. Streets, The effect on photochemical smog of converting the U.S. fleet of gasoline vehicles to modern diesel vehicles, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L02116, doi:10.1029/2003GL018448, 2004.

25. Jacobson, M.Z., and J.H. Seinfeld, Evolution of nanoparticle size and mixing state near the point of emission, Atmos. Environ., 38, 1839-1850, 2004

26. Jacobson, M. Z., The short-term cooling but long-term global warming due to biomass burning, J. Climate, 17, 2909-2926, 2004.

27. Jacobson, M.Z., The climate response of fossil-fuel and biofuel soot, accounting for soot’s feedback to snow and sea ice albedo and emissivity, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D21201, doi:10.1029/2004JD004945, 2004.

28. Jacobson, M.Z., A solution to the problem of nonequilibrium acid/base gas-particle transfer at long time step, Aerosol Sci. Technol, 39, 92-103, 2005.

29. Jacobson, M.Z., A refined method of parameterizing absorption coefficients among multiple gases simultaneously from line-by-line data, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 506-517, 2005

30. Jacobson, M.Z., Studying ocean acidification with conservative, stable numerical schemes for nonequilibrium air-ocean exchange and ocean equilibrium chemistry, J. Geophys. Res., 110, D07302, doi:10.1029/2004JD005220, 2005.

31. Jacobson, M.Z., W.G. Colella, and D.M. Golden, Cleaning the air and improving health with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, Science , in press, 2005.

32. Jacobson, M.Z., D.B. Kittelson, and W.F. Watts, Enhanced coagulation due to evaporation and its effect on nanoparticle evolution, Environmental Science and Technology, 39 , 9486-9492, 2005.

33. Jacobson, M.Z., Effects of absorption by soot inclusions within clouds and precipitation on global climate, J. Phys. Chem . A , 110, 6860-6873, 2006.

34. Jacobson, M.Z., and Y.J. Kaufmann, Aerosol reduction of the wind, Geophys. Res. Lett ., 33 , L24814, doi:10.1029/2006GL027838, 2006.

35. Jacobson, M.Z., Effects of ethanol (E85) versus gasoline vehicles on cancer and mortality in the United States, Environ. Sci. Technol ., 10.1021/es062085v, 2007.

36. Jacobson, M.Z., Y.J. Kaufmann, Y. Rudich, Examining feedbacks of aerosols to urban climate with a model that treats 3-D clouds with aerosol inclusions, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24205, doi:10.1029/2007JD008922, 2007.

37. Jacobson, M.Z., On the causal link between carbon dioxide and air pollution mortality, Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L03809, doi:10.1029/2007GL031101, 2008,

38. Jacobson, M.Z., Effects of wind-powered hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on stratospheric ozone and global climate, Geophys. Res. Lett., in press, 2008.

39. Jacobson, M.Z., The short-term effects of agriculture on air pollution and climate in California, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D23101, doi:10.1029/2008JD010689, in press, 2008.

40. Jacobson, M.Z., Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security, Energy & Environmental Science, 2, 148-173, doi:10.1039/b809990c, 2009

41. Jacobson, M.Z., and D.G. Streets, The influence of future anthropogenic emissions on climate, natural emissions, and air quality, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D08118, doi:10.1029/2008JD011476, 2009

42. Jacobson, M.Z., Effects of biofuels vs. other new vehicle technologies on air pollution, global warming, land use, and water, Int. J. Biotechnology, 11, 14-59, 2009.

43. Jacobson, M.Z., and M.A. Delucci, A path to sustainable energy by 2030, Scientific American, November 2009 (cover story).

44. Jacobson, M.Z., The enhancement of local air pollution by urban CO2 domes, Environ. Sci. Technol., 44, 2497-2502, doi:10.1021/es903018m, 2010.

45. Jacobson, M.Z., Short-term effects of controlling fossil-fuel soot, biofuel soot and gases, and methane on climate, Arctic ice, and air pollution health, J. Geophys.Res., 115, D14209, doi:10.1029/2009JD013795, 2010.

46. Jacobson, M.Z., and D.L. Ginnebaugh, The global-through-urban nested 3-D simulation of air pollution with a 13,600-reaction photochemical mechanism, J. Geophys. Res.,115, D14304, doi:10.1029/2009JD013289, 2010.

Additional Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles (Alphabetical)

47. Archer, C. L., and M. Z. Jacobson, Spatial and temporal distributions of U.S. winds and wind power at 80 m derived from measurements , J. Geophys. Res ., 108 ( D9 ) 4289, doi:10.1029/2002JD002076, 2003 .

48. Archer, C. L., M.Z. Jacobson, and F.L. Ludwig, The Santa Cruz eddy. Part I: Observations and statistics, Mon. Wea. Rev., 133 , 767-782, 2005 .

49. Archer, C. L. and M.Z. Jacobson, The Santa Cruz eddy. Part II: Mechanisms of formation, Mon. Wea. Rev ., 133 , 767-782 , 2005.

50. Archer, C.L., and M.Z. Jacobson, Evaluation of global wind power, J. Geophys. Res, 110 , D12110, doi:10.1029/2004JD005462, 2005 .

51. Archer, C.L., and M.Z. Jacobson, Supplying baseload power and reducing transmission requirements by interconnecting wind farms, J. Applied Meteorol. and Climatology, 46, 1701-1717, doi:10.1175/2007JAMC1538.1, 2007, www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/.

52. Barth, M. C., S. Sillman, R. Hudman, M. Z. Jacobson, C.-H. Kim, A. Monod, and J. Liang, Summary of the cloud chemistry modeling intercomparison: Photochemical box model simulation, J. Geophys. Res., 108 (D7) doi: 10.1029/2002JD002673, 2003.

53. Carmichael, G. R., D. Streets, G. Calori, H. Ueda, M. Amann, M. Z. Jacobson and J. E. Hansen, Changing trends in sulfur emissions in Asia: Implications for acid deposition, air pollution, and climate, Environmental Sci. Technol., 36, 4707-4713, 2002.

54. Chen, Y., S. Mills, J. Street, D. Golan, A. Post, M.Z. Jacobson, A. Paytan, Estimates of atmospheric dry deposition and associated input of nutrients to Gulf of Aqaba seawater, J. Geophys. Res ., 112 , D04309, doi:10.1029/2006JD007858, 2007.

55. Colella, W.G., M.Z. Jacobson, and D.M. Golden, Switching to a U.S. hydrogen fuel cell vehicle fleet: The resultant change in emissions, energy use, and global warming gases, J. Power Sources , 150, 150-181, 2005.

56. Delitsky, M. L., R. P. Turco, and M. Z. Jacobson, Nitrogen ion clusters in Triton's atmosphere, Geophys. Res. Lett., 17, 1725-1728, 1990.

57. Drdla, K., A. Tabazadeh, R. P. Turco, M. Z. Jacobson, J. E. Dye, C. Twohy, and D. Baumgardner, Analysis of the physical state of one Arctic polar stratospheric cloud based on observations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 21, 2475-2478, 1994.

58. Dvorak, M., D.L. Archer, and M.Z. Jacobson, California offshore wind energy potential, Renewable Energy, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2009.11.022, 2009.

59. Edgerton, S.A., M.C. MacCracken, M.Z. Jacobson, A. Ayala, C.E. Whitman, and M.C. Trexler, Critical review discussion: Prospects for future climate change and the reasons for early action, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 58, 1386-1400, 2008.

60. Elliott, S., R. P. Turco, and M. Z. Jacobson, Tests on combined projection / forward differencing integration for stiff photochemical family systems at long time step, Computers Chem., 17, 91‹102, 1993.

61. Elliott, S., M. Shen, C. Y. J. Kao, R. P. Turco, and M. Z. Jacobson, A streamlined family photochemistry module reproduces major nonlinearities in the global tropospheric ozone system, Computers Chem., 20, 235-259, 1996.

62. Elliott , S., C.-Y. J. Kao, F. Gifford, S. Barr, M. Shen, R. P. Turco, and M. Z. Jacobson, Free tropospheric ozone production after deep convection of dispersing tropical urban plumes, Atmos. Environ., 30A, 4263-4274, 1996.

63. Freedman, F. R., and M. Z. Jacobson, Transport-dissipation analytical solutions to the E-ε turbulence model and their role in predictions of the neutral ABL, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 102, 117-138, 2002.

64. Freedman, F., and M. Z. Jacobson, Modification of the standard ε-equation for the stable ABL through enforced consistency with Monin-Obukhov similarity theory, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 106, 383-410, 2003.

65. Fridlind, A. M., and M. Z. Jacobson, A study of gas-aerosol equilibrium and aerosol pH in the remote marine boundary layer during the First Aerosol Characterization Experiment (ACE 1), J. Geophys. Res., 105, 17,325-17,340, 2002.

66. Fridlind, A. M., M. Z. Jacobson, V. -M. Kerminen, R. E. Hillamo, V. Ricard, and J.-L Jaffrezo, Gas/aerosol partitioning in the Arctic: Comparison of size-resolved equilibrium model results with data, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 19,891-19,904, 2000

67. Fridlind, A. M., and M. Z. Jacobson, Point and column aerosol radiative closure during ACE 1: Effects of particle shape and size, J. Geophys. Res., 108 (D3) doi:10.1029/2001JD001553, 2003.

68. Ginnebaugh, D.L., J. Liang, and M.Z. Jacobson, Examining the Temperature Dependence of Ethanol (E85) versus Gasoline Emissions on Air Pollution with a Largely-Explicit Chemical Mechanism, Atmos. Environ., 44, 1192-1199, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.12.024, 2010.

69. Hu, X.-M, Y. Zhang, M.Z. Jacobson, and C.K. Chan, Evaluation and improvement of gas/particle mass transfer treatments for aerosol simulation and forecast, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D11208, doi:10.1029/2007JD009588, 2008.

70. Jiang, Q., J.D. Doyle, T. Haack, M.J. Dvorak, C.L. Archer, and M.Z. Jacobson, Exploring wind energy potential off the California coast, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L20819, doi:10.1029/2008GL034674, 2008.

71. Kempton, W., C.L. Archer, A. Dhanju, R.W. Garvine, and M.Z. Jacobson, Large CO2 reductions via offshore wind power matched to inherent storage in energy end-uses, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L02817, doi:10.1029/2006GL028016, 2007.

72. Ketefian, G.S., and M.Z. Jacobson, A mass, energy, vorticity, and potential enstrophy conserving boundary treatment scheme for the shallow water equations, J. Comp. Phys., 228, 1-32, doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2008.08.009, 2009.

73. Kreidenweis, S. M., C. Walcek, G. Feingold, W. Gong, M. Z. Jacobson, C.-H. Kim, X. Liu, J. E.Penner, A. Nenes and J. H. Seinfeld, Modification of aerosol mass and size distribution due to aqueous-phase SO2 oxidation in clouds: Comparisons of several models, J. Geophys. Res., 108 (D7) doi:10.1029/2002JD002697, 2003.

74. Liang, J., and M. Z. Jacobson, A study of sulfur dioxide oxidation pathways over a range of liquid water contents, pHs, and temperatures, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 13,749-13,769, 1999.

75. Liang, J., and M. Z. Jacobson, Comparison of a 4000-reaction chemical mechanism with the Carbon Bond IV and an adjusted Carbon Bond IV-EX mechanism using SMVGEAR II., Atmos. Environ., 34, 3015-3026, 2000.

76. Liang, J., and M. Z. Jacobson, Effects of subgrid mixing on ozone production in a chemical model: Dilution may reduce bulk ozone production efficiency, Atmos. Environ., 34, 2975-2982, 2000.

77. Lu, R., R. P. Turco, and M. Z. Jacobson, An integrated air pollution modeling system for urban and regional scales. Part I: Structure and performance, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 6063-6080, 1997.

78. Lu, R., R. P. Turco, and M. Z. Jacobson, An integrated air pollution modeling system for urban and regional scales. Part II: Simulations for SCAQS 1987, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 6081-6098, 1997.

79. Ma, Jianzhong, J. Tang, S.-M. Li, and M. Z. Jacobson, Size distributions of ionic aerosols measured at Waliguan Observatory: Implication for nitrate gas-to-particle transfer processes in the free troposphere, J. Geophys. Res., 108, (D17) 4541, doi:10.1029/2002JD003356, 2003.

80. Moya, M., S. N. Pandis, and M. Z. Jacobson, Is the size distribution of urban aerosols determined by thermodynamic equilibrium? An application to Southern California, Atmos. Environ., 36, 2349-2365, 2001.

81. Naiman, A.D., S.K. Lele, J.T. Wilkerson, and M.Z. Jacobson, Parameterization of subgrid aircraft emission plumes for use in large-scale atmospheric simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 2551-2560, 2010.

82. Sta. Maria, M.R.V., and M.Z. Jacobson, Investigating the effect of large wind farms on energy in the atmosphere, Energies, 2, 816-836, doi:10.3390/en20400816, 2009. (link to www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/816/pdf)

83. Stoutenburg, E.D., N. Jenkins, and M.Z. jacobson, Power output variations of co-located offshore wind turbines and wave energy converters in California, Renewable Energy, 35, 2781-2791, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2010.04.033, 2010. (LINK TO www.stanford.edu/group.efmh/jacobson/PDF%20files/WindWaveStoutenburgRenEn2010.pdf)
84. Streets, D. G., K. Jiang, X. Hu, J. E. Sinton, X.-Q. Zhang, D. Xu, M. Z. Jacobson, and J. E. Hansen, Recent reductions in China's greenhouse gas emissions, Science, 294, 1835-1836, 2001.

85. Stuart, A. L., and M. Z. Jacobson, A time-scale investigation of volatile chemical retention during hydrometeor freezing: 1. Non-rime freezing and dry-growth riming without spreading, J. Geophys. Res., 108 (D6), 4178, doi:10.1029/2001JD001408, 2002.

86. Stuart, A. L., and M. Z. Jacobson, Volatile chemical retention during dry-growth riming: A model. J. Geophys. Res., 109 , D07305, doi:10.1029/2003JD004197, 2004.

87. Stuart, A.L., and M.Z. Jacobson, A numerical model of the partitioning of trace chemical solutes during drop freezing, J. Atmos. Chem ., in press, 2005

88. Tabazadeh, A., R. P. Turco, and M. Z. Jacobson, A model for studying the composition and chemical effects of stratospheric aerosols, J. Geophys. Res., 99, 12,897 - 12,914, 1994.

89. Tabazadeh, A., R. P. Turco, K. Drdla, and M. Z. Jacobson, A study of Type I polar stratospheric cloud formation, Geophys. Res. Let., 21, 1619-1622,1994.

90. Tabazadeh, A., M. Z. Jacobson, H. B. Singh, O. B. Toon, J. S. Lin, B. Chatfield, A. N. Thakur, R. W. Talbot, and J. E. Dibb Nitric acid scavenging by mineral and biomass burning aerosols, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 4185-4188, 1998.

91. Wilkerson, J.T., M.Z. Jacobson, A. Malwitz, S. Balasubramanian, R. Wayson, G. Fleming, A.D. Naiman, and S.K. Lele (2010) Analysis of emission data from global commercial aviation: 2004 and 2006, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 6391-6408. (LINK TO www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/aircraftflights.html)

92. Zhang, Y., C. Seigneur, J. H. Seinfeld, M. Z. Jacobson, and F. Binkowski, Simulation of aerosol dynamics: A comparative review of algorithms used in air quality models, Aerosol Sci. Technol., 31, 487-514, 1999.

93. Zhang, Y., C. Seigneur, J. H. Seinfeld, M. Jacobson, S. L. Clegg, and F. Binkowski, A comparative review of inorganic aerosol thermodynamic equilibrium modules: Similarities, differences, and their likely causes, Atmos. Environ., 34, 117-137, 2000.

94. Zhang, Y., B. Pun, K. Vijayaraghavan, S.-Y. Wu, C. Seigneur, S. Pandis, M. Jacobson, A. Nenes, and J. H. Seinfeld, Development and application of the model of aerosol dynamics, reaction, ionization, and dissolution (MADRID), J. Geophys. Res., 109 (D1), D01202, doi:10.1029/2003JD003501, 2004.

95. Zhang, Y., X.-Y. Wen, K. Wang, K. Vijayaraghavan, and M.Z. Jacobson, Probing into regional 03 and PM pollution in the U.S., Part II. An examination of formation mechanisms through a process analysis technique and sensitivity study, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D22304, doi:10.1029/2009JD011898, 2009.

96. Zhang, Y., X. Wen, K. Wang, K. Vijayaraghavan, and M.Z. Jacobson, Probing into regional O3 and particulate matter pollution in the United States: 2. An examination of formation mechanisms through a process analysis technique and sensitivity study, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D22305, doi:1029/2009JD011900, 2009.

97. Zhang, Y., P. Liu, X.-H. Liu, B. Pun, C. Seigneur, M. Z. Jacobson, W. Wang, Fine scale modeling of wintertime aerosol mass, number, and size distributions in Central California, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D15207, doi:10.1029/2009JD012950, 2010.

98. Zhang, Y., P. Liu, X.-H. Liu, M.Z. Jacobson, P.H. McMurry, F. Yu, S. Yu, and K.L. Schere, A comparative study of homogeneous nucleation parameterizations, Part II. 3-D model application and evaluation, J Geophys. Res., in press, 2010.


Invited Keynote Talks at Conferences / Workshops and Distinguished Lectures

1. Testing the impact of interactively coupling a meteorological model to an air quality model. Measurements and Modeling in Environmental Pollution Conference, Madrid, Spain, April 22 - 24, 1997.

2. Examining the causes and effects of downward ultraviolet irradiance reductions in Los Angeles., Environsoft 98 Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, Nov. 10 - 12, 1998.

3. Computational design of a global-through-urban scale air pollution / weather forecast model and application to the SARMAP field campaign, 8th Supercomputer Workshop, Tsukuba, Japan, September 18-20, 2000.

4. Control of black carbon, the most efficient method of controlling global warming, Air Pollution Modeling and Simulation conference, Paris, France, April 9-13, 2001.

5. Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming, Workshop on Climate and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, December 3-5, 2001.

6. Current and future effects of black carbon on climate, Sixth ETH Conference on Nanoparticle Measurement, Zurich, Switzerland, August 19th-21st, 2002.

7. Addressing global warming through a large-scale wind/hydrogen program, Symposium on Environmental and Occupational Safety, University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, November 6-7, 2003.

8. Advances in computer modeling of air pollution and climate, Third Canadian Workshop on Air Quality, Quebec City, Canada, March 24-26, 2004.

9. The climate response of soot, accounting for its feedback to snow and sea ice albedo and emissivity, Distinguished Lecture Series, Laboratory for Atmospheres at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, November 18, 2004.

10. Hydrogen and Wind Apollo Project, Symposium on converting existing city vehicles to utilize renewable hydrogen power, Foothill College, California, Dec. 9, 2005.

11. Effects on health and pollution of converting to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and feasibility of wind-hydrogen, Second HyCARE symposium, Laxenburg, Austria, Dec. 19-20, 2005.

12. Global climate change: Aerosol versus greenhouse gas causes and the feasibility of a large-scale wind-energy solution, Distinguished Lecture Series, Centre for Global Change Science, Dept. of Physics, University of Toronto, February 21, 2005.

13. Fossil-fuel soot's contribution to global warming, 2 nd International Conference on Global Warming and the Next Ice Age, Santa Fe, New Mexico, July 17-21, 2005.

14. The relative effects of greenhouse gases, absorbing aerosol particles, and scattering aerosol particles on global climate, Joint Session of the Atmospheric Chemistry and Atmospheric Aerosol Workshops, Telluride, Colorado, July 30-August 6, 2006.

15. Air quality impacts of biofuels, Woods Institute Biofuels Workshop, Stanford University, Dec. 5-6, 2006.

16. The role of black carbon as a factor in climate change and its impact on public health, Testimony in the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, D.C, October 18, 2007.

17. Comparative effects of vehicles technologies and fuels on climate and air pollution, Plenary presentation for EnviroSymp2007, Sustainable Solutions, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, Nov. 5-6, 2007.

18. A true-renewable-energy solution to global warming, Hon. Al Gore and Mrs. Tipper Gore, and the Alliance for Climate Protection, New York City, New York, January 10, 2008.

19. Global warming health effects and energy solutions. CIRES Distinguished Lecture, CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, Feb 8, 2008.

20. The relative impact of carbon dioxide on air pollution health problems in California versus the rest of the U.S., Testimony in the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Washington, D.C, April 9, 2008.

21. Briefing on the effects of carbon dioxide on air pollution mortality, American Meteorological Society, Washington, D.C., May 16, 2008.

22. Computer modeling of the atmosphere: Identifying causes and effects of and evaluating solutions to global warming, SimBuild Conference, Berkeley, California, July 30, 2008.

23. Effects of biofuels versus new vehicle technologies on air pollution, global warming, and landuse, Biofuels in the Midwest, a Discussion, Chicago, Illinois, September 5-7, 2008.

24. Biofuels in context / Energy solutions, 2008 Science for Nature Symposium, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, November 19-20, 2008.

25. The effect of locally-emitted CO2 on gases, aerosols, clouds, and health, Aerosol-Cloud-Climate Interactions Symposia, 11th Conference on Atmospheric Chemistry, American Meteorological Society, January 11-15, 2009, Phoenix, Arizona.

26. Aerosol Impacts on Climate, Energy, and the Economy, Goldschmidt 2009, Challenges to Our Volatile Planet, Davos, Switzerland, June 22-26, 2009.

27. Environmental Protection Agency Hearing: Endangerment and cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, Arlington, Virginia, May 18, 2009.

28 Effects of fossil-fuel and biofuel soot on snow, clouds, and climate and a review of methods of solving the climate problem, German NGO consortium, Berlin, Germany, June 19, 2009.

29. The global and regional climate and air pollution health effects of fossil-fuel versus biofuel soot, 13th ETH Conference on Combustion Generated Nanoparticles, Zurich Switzerland, June 22-24, 2009.

30. Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security, Aerosol Impacts on Climate, Energy, and the Economy, Goldschmidt 2009, Challenges to Our Volatile Planet, Davos, Switzerland, June 22-26, 2009.

31. A plan for a sustainable future, Council of Scientific Society Presidents, Washington D.C., December 3, 2009.

32. Effects of local CO2 domes on air pollution and health, Clean Power, Health Communities Conference, Oakland, California, February 10, 2010.

33. Ranking of energy solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security, Ted Conference Debate with Stewart Brand, Long Beach, California, February 11, 2010.

34. A plan for a sustainable future, GeoPower America, San Francisco, California, Febreuary 16, 2010.

35. A plan for a sustainable future, Beyond Zero, Melbourne, Australia, February 21, 2010 (internet presentation).

36. A plan for a sustainable future, European Forum for Renewable Energy Sources, European Parliament Building, Brussels, Belgium, March 22, 2010.

37. A plan for a sustainable future, Press and Information Office of the Federal Government, Berlin, Germany, March 23, 2010.

38. A plan for a sustainable future, Bundestag, German Parliament Building, Berlin, Germany, March 23, 2010.

39. Presentation at 10-year anniversary for Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG), Berlin, Germany, March 25, 2010.

40. Keynote Speaker, A plan for a sustainable future using wind, water, and sun, Clean Air Forum 2010, Sydney, Australia, August 19, 2010.

41. Speaker in plenary session, California Air Pollution Control Officer Association's (CAPCOA's) Climate Change Forum, San Francisco, California, August 30-31, 2010.

42. Plenary Speaker, 29th Annual Conference, American Association for Aerosol Research, Aerosol contribution to global warming, Arctic ice loss, and air pollution mortality and how to control it through large-scale renewable energy, Portland, Oregon, Oct. 25-29, 2010.

43. Keynote Speaker, A plan for a sustainable future, La Ciudad de Ideas, San Andres Cholula, Pueblo, Mexico, November 11-13, 2010.

Other Invited Talks at Conferences / Workshops Since 1994

1. Simulating the sensitivity of trace gas concentrations to hydrocarbon emissions. American Geophysical Union 1994 Fall Meeting, San Francisco, California, December 5-9, 1994.

2. Application of a sparse-matrix, vectorized Gear-type code (SMVGEAR) in a new air pollution modeling system, Symposium on Numerical Algorithms for Air Pollution Models in the Third International Congress on Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM), Hamburg, Germany, July 3-7, 1995.

3. Chemical mechanism solver techniques and implementation of mechanism, Workshop on Modeling Chemistry in Clouds and Mesoscale Models, National Center for Atmospheric Research, March 6-8, 2000.

4. Development of a global-through-urban scale nested and coupled air pollution and weather forecast model and application to the SARMAP field campaign, Institute for Mathematics and its Applications Annual Program, "Reactive flow and Transport Phenomena," U. of Minnesota, March 15-19, 2000.

5. A study of the climate response to natural plus anthropogenic aerosols, Telluride Atmospheric Chemistry Meeting, Telluride, Colorado, August 7-11, 2000.

6. A study of the mixing state of aerosols and the effect of the mixing state on global direct forcing, Workshop on Atmospheric Composition, Biogeochemical Cycles and Climate Change, Aspen Global Change Institute, Aspen, Colorado, August 11-19, 2000.

7. A global-through-urban scale air pollution, weather forecast model and application to the SARMAP field campaign, Workshop on Atmospheric Composition, Biogeochemical Cycles and Climate Change, Aspen Global Change Institute, Aspen, Colorado, August 11-19, 2000.

8. Control of black carbon, the most effective means of slowing global warming, International Conference on Computational Science (ICCS), San Francisco, California, May 28-30, 2001.

9. Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter, the most effective method slowing global warming, CIESIN/USEPA//Environment Canada workshop, Photoxidants, Particles, and Haze across the Arctic and North Atlantic: Transport, Observations, and Models, Palisades, New York, June 12-15, 2001.

10. Climate change mitigation and aerosols, Climate Change Impacts and Integrated Assessment Workshop VII, Snowmass, CO, July 30 - Aug. 10, 2001.

11. Exploiting the lower cost of wind versus coal and natural gas to address energy shortages, pollution, and the Kyoto Protocol. Economist's Summit: The Role of Renewable Energy in California's Future, Capital Building, Sacramento, California, September 5, 2001.

12. Controlling current and future diesel emissions and other sources of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter as an effective method of slowing global warming, Air Pollution as a Climate Forcing Workshop, East-West Center, Hawaii, April 29-May 3, 2002.

13. Addressing air quality and climate through soot control, Regional Workshop on Better Air Quality in Asia and Pacific Rim Cities 2002, Hong Kong, December 16-18, 2002.
Global warming impact of black carbon, Greenhouse Gas Reduction International Technology Symposium, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, California, March 11-13, 2003.

14. Climate and air pollution effects of gasoline, hybrid, and diesel vehicles (with and without a trap), Haagen-Smit Symposium, California Air Resources Board, Lake Arrowhead, California, May 6-9, 2003.

15. Causes of and Solutions to Global Warming, American Enterprise Institute Conference on Climate Change, Washington D.C., November 19, 2003.

16. Net climate effects of BC and OC 2: Consideration of multiple climatic effects. Air Quality & Climate Meeting on Black Carbon and Organic Carbon: Science, Inventory and Mitigation, U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Atmospheric Programs, Washington, D.C., December 3-4, 2003.

17. The effect of diesel on air pollution and global climate, Workshop on cruise ship operations, Cruise Terminal Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting, Port of San Francisco, San Francisco, California, January 23, 2004.

18. Black carbon effects on global warming and regional climate change, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington, February 12-16, 2004.

19. Numerical methods for treating size-resolved SOA formation and evolution among multiple size distributions in atmospheric models, Organic Speciation in Atmospheric Aerosol Research, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 5-7, 2004.

20. Black Carbon Effects on Climate with Different Emissions and Model Treatments, Aerosol Black Carbon and Climate Change: Emissions Workshop, San Diego, California, October 13-14, 2004.

21. The effect of particles on global and California climate, Interncontinental Transport and Climate Effects of Air Pollutants Workshop, Chapel Hill, NC, October 21-22, 2004.

22. The effects of aerosols on California climate, MODIS Science Team Meeting, Baltimore, Maryland, March 22-24, 2005

23. Regional effect of aerosols on winds, precipitation, and climate, 8th International conference of the Israel Society of Ecology and Environmental Quality Sciences, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel, May 30-June 1, 2005.

24. Global windpower and its potential effect on the hydrogen economy, 8th International conference of the Israel Society of Ecology and Environmental Quality Sciences, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel, May 30-June 1, 2005.

25. Role of aerosols in regional climate: A research frontier, Second Annual Climate Change Research Conference, California Energy Commission and First Scientific Conference, West Coast Governor's Global Warming Initiative, Sacramento, California, Sept. 14-16, 2005.

26. Apollo Project for Wind Energy and Wind-Hydrogen, J.P. Morgan Public Power and Gas Conference, New York, May 11-12, 2005.

27. The effects of aerosols on wind speed, temperatures, and water supply in California, Atmospheric Chemistry Workshop, Telluride, Colorado, July 30-August 6, 2006.

28. Numerical study of the effects of aerosols and irrigation on snow, rain, and regional climate in California, California Energy Commission, Sept. 13-15, 2006.

29. Effects of future emissions and a changed climate on urban air quality, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 20-22, 2007.

30. Effects of black carbon on climate. Symposium on protecting health and slowing global warming through reductions in non-Kyoto pollutants, Sacramento, California, March 29, 2007.

31. The Macro Perspective of Wind Power in the USA, From Local to Global: The Rhode Island Model for Harnessing Wind Power Worldwide, Roger Williams University School of Architecture, Art and Historic Preservation, April 19-20, 2007.

32. Comparing wind and other energy sources for addressing climate and air pollution, From Local to Global: The Rhode Island Model for Harnessing Wind Power Worldwide, Roger Williams University School of Architecture, Art and Historic Preservation, April 19-20, 2007.

33. Wind and rainfall reduction by aerosol particles, Aerosols - properties, processes, climate, Agapi Beach, Crete, April 22-24, 2007.

34. Potential of the wind energy sector, The Haagen-Smit Symposium, Aptos, California, May 14-17, 2007.

35. Extreme global warming and local cooling due to aerosol particles, American Geophysical Union Spring Joint Assembly, Acapulco, Mexico, May 22-25, 2007.

36. Comparative effects of vehicle fuels and technologies on air pollution and climate, Controlling Global Warming and Local Air Pollution - South Coast Air Quality Management District Technical Forum, Diamond Bar, California, June 28, 2007.

37. Effects of black carbon and other non-Kyoto pollutants on climate, Meeting of the California Air Resources Board Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee (ETAAC), Bechtel Conference Center, Stanford University, September 7, 2007.

38. Energy solutions to air pollution and climate change in California (coauthors, M. Dvorak, C.L. Archer, and G. Hoste), Fourth Annual California Climate Change Conference, California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California, Sept. 10-13, 2007.

39. Effects of future emissions and a changed climate on urban air quality, Impacts of Climate Change on Air Quality in the Pacific Southwest, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, California, October 11, 2007.

40. Examination of proposed strategies for addressing global warming and air pollution. Forum on Alternative Fuels for the Transportation Sector, California State Bar Association, Yosemite, California, Oct. 19-21, 2007.

41. Comparative effects of vehicle technologies and fuels on climate and air pollution. On the Road to Bali: Strengthening the Transatlantic Climate Cooperation, German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and the Heinrich Boell Foundation, San Francisco, California, Nov. 16, 2007.

42. The effects on health and climate of ethanol versus other vehicle technologies and fuels, Institute of Medicine’s Roundtable on Environmental Health, Sciences, Research, and Medicine workshop on Environmental Health, Energy, and Transportation: Bringing Health to the Fuel Mixture, National Academies Auditorium, Washington, D.C., Nov. 30, 2007.

43. A solution to the problem of nonequilibrium acid/base gas-particle transfer at long time step. International Aerosol Modeling Algorithms (IAMA) Conference, Davis, California, Dec. 6, 2007.

44. Comparative effects of ethanol (E85), gasoline, and wind-powered electric vehicles on cancer, mortality, climate-relevant emissions, and land requirements in the United States, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, California, Dec. 10-14, 2007.

45. Energy and Climate Change Symposium – “The Road to Renewables,” Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Los Angeles, California, Jan. 18, 2008.

46. Examining the effects of aircraft emissions on contrails and global climate, FAA/PARTNER Meeting, Ottawa, Canada, Mar. 25-26, 2008.

47. Effects of local versus global carbon dioxide emissions on local air quality and health, Environmental Protection Agency Division 9 symposium, Stanford University, Stanford, California, May 6, 2008.

48. The effects of ethanol vehicles on air quality and health, Frontiers Meeting on the Co-Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation, Wellcome Trust, London, May 27, 2008 (connected remotely).

49. Air pollution effects of and a comparison of energy solutions to global warming, Critical Review panel, Air & Waste Management Association Annual Meeting, Portland, Oregon, June 25, 2008.

50. Examining the effects of aircraft emissions on contrails and global climate, FAA/PARTNER Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, Oct. 22-23, 2008.

51. Evaluation of proposed solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security, Session on Environmental Consequences of the Changing Global Food System, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, California, Dec. 15-19, 2008.

52. Examining effects of black carbon on climate and how to mitigate them through different transportation options, International Council on Clean Transportation, London, UK, Jan. 5-6, 2009.

53. Examining the effects of aircraft emissions on contrails and global climate, FAA/PARTNER Meeting, Palm Springs, California, Feb. 26-27, 2008.

54. Effects of hydrogen on climate and ozone, Department of Energy, Washington, DC, May 19, 2009.

55. Quantifying the effects of aircraft on climate with a model that treats the subgrid evolution of contrails from all commercial flights worldwide, Aviation Emissions Characterization Roadmap Meeting, Washington, DC, June 9, 2009.

56. Review of energy solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security, Microsoft Research Workshop, Redmond, Washington, July 13, 2009.

57. The comparative effects of fossil fuel soot, biofuel soot, and gasses, and methane on regional and global climate, Arctic ice, and human health, 6th Annual PIER Climate Change Conference, California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California, Sept. 9, 2009.

58. Solutions to global warming, air pollution, energy security, The true costs of coal: Health solutions for the low carbon economy, Washington DC, October 15-16, 2009.

59. Assessing the impact of aviation on climate, FAA/PARTNER Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, Oct. 22, 2009.

60. Effects of soot on climate, National Association of Clean Air Agencies, Internet conference, November 17, 2009.

61. Development and application of algorithms that simulate the evolution of subgrid contrails from individual aircraft to quantify the global climate effects all commercial aviation, (Jacobson, M.Z., J.T. Wilkerson, A.D. Naiman, S.K. Lele), International Aerosol Modeling Algorithms (IAMA) Conference, Davis, California, Dec. 9-11, 2009.

62. Relative effects of fossil-fuel soot, biofuel soot and gases, and methane on climate, Arctic ice, and air pollution health, American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting, San Francisco, California, Dec. 14-18, 2009.

63. Relative effects of fossil-fuel soot, biofuel soot and gases, and methane on climate, Arctic ice, and air pollution health, Environmental Protection Agency Short-Lived Climate Forcing agent workshop, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, March 3, 2010.

64. Presentation in Brussels at EEAC Energy Working Group: Scenarios and policies for decarbonization, Brussels, Belgium, March 22, 2010.

65. Assessing the impact of aviation on climate, FAA/PARTNER Meeting, Chapel Hill, North Carolina (Internet presentation), March 24, 2010.

66. TBA, 7th California Wind Energy Collaborative Forum, Davis, California, June 7, 2010.

67. Aeorsol-Cloud-Climate Interactions Symposia, 13th Conference on Atmospheric Chemistry, American Meteorological Society, January 23-27, 2011, Seattle, Washington

Invited Seminar Talks Outside of Stanford University Since 1994

1. A gas, aerosol, transport, and radiation model for studying urban and regional air pollution, U. C. Berkeley Environmental Engineering Seminar Series, Berkeley, California, October 7, 1994.

2. Coupling global-scale meteorological and chemical models, Stanford Research Institute Atmospheric Chemistry Group Meeting, Menlo Park, California, February 10, 1995.

3. Numerical simulations of the transport and transformations of air pollutants in an urban airshed, Dept. of Meteorology, San Jose State University, San Jose, California, March 2, 1995.

4. Simulation pollution buildup in the Los Angeles basin with a coupled air quality - meteorology model. Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab, May 7, 1996.

5. Coupling chemical, radiative, and meteorological models in a study of global air pollution, NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, California, March 22, 1995.

6. Air pollution modeling. 3-hour seminar, Dept of Meteorology, San Jose State University, May 15, 1996.

7. Studying the feedback effects of aerosols on air temperatures and gas concentrations with an air pollution model. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, March 17, 1997.

8. Effects of Aerosols and Soil Moisture on Gas Concentrations and Temperatures in Los Angeles, NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, California, May 1, 1997.

9. Aerosol effects on air pollution, Department of Meteorology, San Jose State University, May 1, 1997.

10. UV absorption by particles and its effects on ozone in polluted air, NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, California, April 16, 1998.

11. The effects of absorption by organics and other particulate components on UV irradiance and ozone in Los Angeles, Systems Applications, Inc., San Rafael, CA, August 19, 1998.

12. Global direct radiative forcing due to multicomponent anthropogenic and natural aerosols, NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, California, February 18, 1999.

13. Global direct radiative forcing due to multicomponent anthropogenic and natural aerosols, Department of Oceanography, University of Washington, February 25, 1999.

14. Studying the effects of soil moisture on ozone, temperatures, and winds in Los Angeles, Dept. of Meteorology, San Jose State University, March 16, 1999.

15. Examining the causes and effects of ultraviolet radiation reductions in Los Angeles, Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, April 1, 1999.

16. Revised estimates of the global direct radiative forcing of aerosols due to a physically-based treatment of elemental carbon optics, Dept. of Geology & Geophysics, University of California, Berkeley, December 8, 1999.

17. Examining the climate response to anthropogenic and natural aerosols, NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, California, March 30, 2000.

18. Studying effects of the large scale on air pollution and weather in Northern California during SARMAP with a global-through-urban scale air pollution/weather forecast model, Environmental Engineering Seminar Series, U. C. Davis, April 10, 2000.

19. Justification for the control of black carbon, the second-leading cause of near-surface global warming, Environmental Chemistry Seminar Series, U. C. Riverside, November 21, 2000.

20. Control of black carbon, the most effective means of slowing global warming, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, February, 2001.

21. Control of black carbon, the most effective means of slowing global warming, NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado, April 18, 2001.

22. Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming, Rutgers University, New Jersey, March 29, 2002.

23. Black carbon, energy, and global warming, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland, August 21, 2002.

24. Black carbon and global warming, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Advisory Council Technical Committee Meeting, San Francisco, California, August 27, 2002.

25. The short-term cooling and long-term global warming due to biomass burning, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, November 12, 2002.

26. Addressing air quality and climate through soot control, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, Maryland, March 26, 2003.

27. Climate and air pollution issues related to black carbon and modern diesel vehicles, Cummins Science and Technology Advisory Committee meeting, Indianapolis, Indiana, July 9, 2003.

28. Climate and air pollution effects of black carbon and modern diesel vehicles, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, November 6, 2003.

29. Wind energy and climate, Cabrillo College, Aptos, California, November 13, 2003.

30. Climate and air pollution effects of black carbon and modern diesel vehicles, Department of Atmospheric Science, University of California, Los Angeles, February 18, 2004.

31. Climate and air pollution effects of diesel vehicles, and the impact of particle traps and NOx filters, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, March 12, 2004.

32. Effects of anthropogenic aerosol particles on California climate, California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California, October 28, 2004.

33. Diesel effects on climate and air pollution, Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy (STEP), Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, Nov. 1, 2004.

34. Enhanced coagulation due to evaporation and Van der Waals forces and its effect on nanoparticle evolution, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota, March 2, 2005.

35. The global and regional climate effects of black carbon and other particle components, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, April 14, 2005.

36. The effects of aerosols on global warming and regional climate, Sonoma State University, May 12, 2005.

37. The effects of aerosols on California and Los Angeles climate, North Carolina State University, October 3, 2005.

38. The relative effects of greenhouse gases, absorbing aerosol particles, and scattering aerosol particles on global climate, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, October 4, 2005.

39. Climate Change, Hurricanes, and Energy, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, University of South Florida, College of Public Health, Tampa, Florida, Oct. 27, 2005.

40. Global warming and hurricanes, Stanford Alumni Association, Portland, Oregon, November 5, 2005.

41. Addressing climate change with wind energy, Stanford University/University of British Columbia alumni associations meeting, Palo Alto, California, February 16, 2006.

42. Cleaning the air and improving health with hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, March 22, 2006.

43. New Energy, Merrill Lynch, New York City, New York, March 23, 2006.

44. Effects of E85 on air pollution in Los Angeles and the United States, California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California, July 26, 2006

45. Causes of and a wind-energy solution to global warming, Lockheed Martin/Advanced Technology Center colloquium, Palo Alto, California, November 9, 2006.
46. University of Wyoming / Stroock Forum on Energy Futures: Global changes that challenge Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, November 15, 2006.

47. Comparative methods of addressing climate-relevant emissions and air pollution from vehicles, Environmental Defense, Oakland, California, May 30, 2007.

48. Evaluation of proposed solutions to global warming, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Technical Committee, San Francisco, California, Aug. 6, 2007.

49. Comparative effects of vehicle technologies and fuels on climate and air pollution, Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, Nov. 13, 2007.

50. Causes of and proposed solutions to global warming and air pollution, Hewlett-Packard Labs, Palo Alto, California, January 24, 2008.

51. A renewable-energy solution to global warming, U. Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, March 27, 2008.

52. On the causal link between carbon dioxide and air pollution mortality, Lockheed Martin/Advanced Technology Center colloquium, Palo Alto, California, May 8, 2008.

53. Evaluation of proposed energy solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security, Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, February 3, 2009.

54. Review of energy solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security, Webcast to the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC), February 10, 2009.

55. Evaluation of energy solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security, Department of Geology & Geophysics Colloquium, Yale University, February 18, 2009.

56. Evaluation of energy solutions to global warming, air polllution, and energy security, Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) colloquium, Palo Alto, California, March 5, 2009.

57. Evaluation of energy solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Graduate Symposium in Environmental and Water Resources Engineering, University of California at Los Angeles, April 21, 2009.

58. Evaluation of energy solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security, IEEE Power Electronics Society, Santa Clara, California, April 23, 2009.

59. Review of energy solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security, Singularity University, NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, CA, July 15, 2009.

60. Evaluation of energy solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security, Electric Auto Association, Palo Alto, California, July 18, 2009.

61. Review of energy solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security, Earth and Ocean Sciences Seminar Series, Duke University, November 6, 2009.

62. Review of energy solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security, Environmental Engineering Fall 2009 Seminar Series, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, U.C. Berkeley, November 13, 2009.

63. A plan for a sustainable future, Clean Tech Forum, Campbell, California, December 8, 2009.

64. A plan for a sustainable future, DECCW Department, Sydney, Australia, August 20, 2010.

65. TBA, Modesto Area Partners in Science, Modesto, California, 2010.

Invited Seminar Talks at Stanford University

1. Computer simulations of urban and regional air pollution, Stanford University School of Engineering Sunrise Breakfast Club, Stanford, California, March 14, 1995.

2. Similarities and differences bet

[Confusious]

77. Talk about spam.

Wouldn't a link be easier? It'd be quicker to ignore, like I do with most the tripe you post.

Don't you have anyone other then one of these two guys you can spam us with?

As far as him proving it, considering your history, that would be pointless. God himself could say he was right, and you still wouldn't believe.

[Nihil]

78. And the best thing about this particular spamming post ...

... is that he overflowed the paste buffer!

> <Spam>
> <...>
> <More spam>
> <...>
> <Page after page of spam>
> <...>
>
> Invited Seminar Talks at Stanford University
>
> 1. Computer simulations of urban and regional air pollution, Stanford University
> School of Engineering Sunrise Breakfast Club, Stanford, California, March 14, 1995.
>
> 2. Similarities and differences bet
--------------------------------^^^^^ Oops ... too much spam!

:rofl:

[kristopher]

79. What's funny is that you think...

I guess i could leave it there and it would be complete and accurate, but, to finish the sentence:

What's funny is is that you think the bizarre definition you have where the qualifications of a top flight researcher is "spam". If y'all don't want to see Jacobson's work reposted so much then stop parroting discredited nuclear energy industry talking points - those are the real spam on EE.

[DrGregory]

64. At least he's consistent...

"Poorly considered" in this context apparently means "Stop poking holes in my math."
=======================================================

He's consistent - consistently WRONG!!!

Does anyone know what his area of expertise is; because
it surely is NOT physics, math, science, or anything
having to do with the science of energy.

He sounds like some economist, or political science type.

The problem is his science / math isn't worth the
electrons used to propagate it to the net.

Dr. Greg

[Confusious]

74. There is no math

only belief. To the exclusion of all else.

[caraher]

42. That's not the more appropriate question

This isn't about building new reactors vs. solar, it's whether it's safe to ship a radioactive generator to a recycling facility. It's completely appropriate to ask whether this is more or less hazardous than other hazards deemed acceptable.

And I say this without answering the question, even implicitly, in the affirmative. It's clear that at least parts of these generators are fairly "hot" - maybe they shouldn't be shipped this way. But it's this kind of knee-jerk reaction that allows pro-nukes to get away with statements like the one in the OP's article:

"Bruce Power officials said the environmentalists are automatically opposed to anything involving nuclear power."

Obviously, even if true, it doesn't make the shipment safe. But it does give utilities the propaganda option of dismissive responses rather than addressing the facts.

[kristopher]

43. That would be appropriate if the board were not an antirenewable nuclear wasteland.

But the poster is following a set pattern of information promulgation by promoting the false meme that it is either nuclear or coal. You cannot divorce the post from a position that has been staked out for several years.

But let's follow your very reasonable lead.

Renewables also produce wastes, but they are either rather benign (such as steel from wind turbines) or in the case of toxic by products from solar, able to be economically recycled back into the process at the site. Ergo, the need for shipping can be mitigated if necessary.

[Nihil]

44. Oh give it a break!

> That would be appropriate if the board were not an antirenewable nuclear
> wasteland.

That is such bollocks Kristopher!

Look at the first ten threads on E/E at this moment:

1) Fuel "recycling" a myth, a French report involuntarily demonstrates bananas
2) Nuclear waste shipping on Great Lakes protested marmar
3) Drumbeat: September 16, 2010 Javaman
4) ACS - If, Starting Today, No More Power Plants, Cars Etc. Were Built hatrack
5) Former LANL Employee Sentenced for Stealing Irradiated Gold bananas
6) Poll: Germans oppose nuclear power extension (61%-33%) kristopher
7) Will "Nuclear Power 2010" reach its goal? bananas
8) Blackwater sought to become the "intel arm" of Monsanto bananas
9) This month warmest on satellite record (so far): joshcryer
10) Hong Kong Announces A Program to Phase Out Coal Power. NNadir

Of those, only one (#10) is pro-nuclear, four (#3, #4, #8, #9) are neutral,
four (#1, #2, #6, #7) are anti-nuclear and one (#5) is spam (simple crime
being used as an anti-nuclear smear).

An "antirenewable nuclear wasteland" my arse!

[kristopher]

45. Your sampling method is self serving suckishnesss.

Given that pursuit of nuclear power IS NOT on the progressive agenda explain why it would be a full time job for several people to respond adequately to the constant bombardment of antirenewable/pronuclear propaganda.

[Nihil]

46. "a full time job for several people"?

"the constant bombardment of antirenewable/pronuclear propaganda"?

As I pointed out with the previous snapshot of the forum, the "side" that
are busily "employed" with bombarding their propaganda certainly isn't
the "antirenewable/pronuclear" one.

Consider exactly *who* around here spends his "full time job" pasting
that infamous puff-piece from Mark Zerorelevance Jacobsen all over the
fucking site, I think you should reconsider your accusations about people
posting "propaganda" ...

:crazy:

[kristopher]

47. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=258185&mesg_id=258729

[Nihil]

51. ..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=258185&mesg_id=258738

[Dead_Parrot]

48. "nuclear power IS NOT on the progressive agenda"

Yeah, the progressive agenda is to pull government support from anything that can survive without it and let big business sort out the mess.

Dammit, I need a new dictionary. The entry for progressive looks nothing like that: That's the entry for something else.

[DrGregory]

50. For the good of the country....

Given that pursuit of nuclear power IS NOT on the progressive agenda
---------------------------------------------

Perhaps it should be.

Dr Greg

[DrGregory]

53. WRONG AGAIN!!

Renewables also produce wastes, but they are either rather benign (such as steel from wind turbines) or in the case of toxic by products from solar, able to be economically recycled back into the process at the site.
=========================================================

For wind turbines, the waste is NOT the steel - the waste is all
the CO2 that was released to the atmosphere when all that steel
was smelted.

As far as toxic waste from solar; the waste from solar cell
manufacture is similar to the toxic waste from the manufacture
of computer chips.

So all the toxic waste sites in Silicon Valley are unnecessary
because it all can be recycled on site.

What products do you make out of the toxic waste from
the manufacture of silicon chips - for computing, for solar,
or otherwise?

Dr. Greg

[Nihil]

39. In an effort to drag your sub-thread back to the subject ...

> How toxic is it compared to a barge full of coal?

That would depend on whether the toxicity is evaluated in the raw state
(coal as dug up) or in a similar processed state (coal burnt and the
combustion products collected - instead of the usual "throw it into the
atmosphere/water/lungs" approach).

If the former then the answer is "slightly more toxic" but if the latter,
it is "definitely less toxic".

From the OP article:
>> The company contends that a person standing next to a generator for
>> several hours would receive the same radiation as a chest X-ray.

The toxic effects of the amount of coal ash & the gaseous products from
a barge full of coal are well documented so I don't think anyone (other
than maybe a coal industry spokesman) will argue with you on that.

(And no, before anyone tries to rat-hole this response, I am *NOT* in any
way implying that the original diversion was from a coal industry spokesman!)
:P

[One_Life_To_Give]

33. What are the consequences of an incident and probability?

Doesn't appear to me anyways that there is much consequence associated with an incident putting a generator in the lakes for a few weeks while it is recovered. And at that it is maybe a 10e-5 probability? Train to the coast would be lower probability of an incident but it's not clear if this will fit onto a train.

I can think of a whole lot of places where we routinely accept greater probabilities and/or more significant consequences without comment. This has IMO a low probability with a fairly straight forward mitigation should the worst case happen.

[Merchant Marine]

35. Statistically ships are much safer than trucks or rail

Especially during the calm months on the lakes when storms are rare.

[hunter]

58. Even if it falls in the lake it's not going to dissolve.

The radioactivity of these things is the radioactivity that didn't wash off.

It's a sad affair that there's no place in Canada or the USA to recycle this stuff. And these protesters have the gall to be concerned about jobs...

[Merchant Marine]

66. The ship itself likely poses a greater threat to the Great Lakes

Bunker fuel, lube oil, coolant additive, paints, etc etc. There' no shortage of nasty chemicals onboard a ship.