This Solar Cell That Splits Water Into Hydrogen and Oxygen Could Be The Cat's Meow.

[NNadir]

Photochemical conversion of solar energy involves endergonic reactions with light as their 6nergy source. The principles and advantages of chemical conversion of solar energy by using semiconductor materials have been extensively reviewed, e.g. by Manassen et al. <1>, Nozik <2>, Bolton <2> and Bard <4>. The photoelectrochemical splitting of water to hydrogen and oxygen on illuminated semiconductor materials has been a subject of considerable research effort during the last decade such as by Fujishima and Honda <5, 6>, Mavroides et al. <7>, Gerischer <8>, Nozik <9>, Bockris and Uosaki <10>, Mavroides <11>, Tomkiewicz and Fay <12>. There would, however, be great attraction in alternative systems of energy storage, such as by production of reduced carbon or nitrogen compounds. The system water-carbon dioxide-semiconductor could be such an alternative photosynthetic system, in which water and carbon dioxide are the reactants and the semiconductor is the device which, by absorption of light, provides the charges necessary for the redox process. The chief attraction of a direct conversion of carbon dioxide into an organic fuel by sunlight is to eliminate the costly intermediate steps of generating, separating and storing hydrogen.

The reduction products are easy to handle and represent no environmental hazard.

See that?

It's easy.

This paper dates from um, 1983, and is the work of three Isreali scientists. The reference is Solar Energy Materials 8 (1983) 425-440.

The Abstract of this breakthrough paper is here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7571-4829VHV-67&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1983&_alid=1065345325&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=12885&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=9&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=43ccfe5a96cca5eb99277301c6bf141c">ELECTROCHEMICAL MEASUREMENTS ON THE PHOTOELECTROCHEMICAL REDUCTION OF AQUEOUS CARBON DIOXIDE ON p- ALLIUM PHOSPHIDE AND p-GALLIUM ARSENIDE SEMICONDUCTOR ELECTRODES

I am sure that there have been many solar breakthroughs in the last 26 years which accounts for how you came to have your solar hydrogen HYPErcar in your driveway.

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. Solar Cell technology is at a total stand still right now. All the research money is

going into the pockets of Stanford/Silicon Valley MBA venture capitalists. If you don't believe me, google solar cell & see who is involved.

[NNadir]

3. Solar energy is widely funded publically and privately around the world.

The big problem is that it just doesn't work all that well.

[PurgedVoter]

4. Interesting, three comments all with a pretty negative slant.

Pumping a limited resource from underground sure looks better on paper, but the devil is in the details. Ripping up the landscape and destroying rivers before the airborne disaster is also much more expensive when you put the full effect into details.

Of course thieves will show up and siphon money off the second a push is made. This is a given. You can't just throw money at things that require thought and money.

Solar works really well. Solar power is worth investing in, but if you are not careful where you throw money, it is likely to go to the same thieves who manipulate oil prices, over turn governments, suppress efficient cars, and poison communities. These folk not only want the money, they also want dramatic failure.

[no limit]

5. You think the only alternative to solar is pumping oil from the ground?

Straw-man much?

Solar cell technology doesn't work, throwing money at it is throwing money down a drain. Solar mirrors that drive a steam turbine on the other hand are great investments in areas that have a lot of sun. Wind is good in other areas.

But you know the one technology that actually works but many people here don't want to support because it sounds scary? Nuclear power. It's safe, clean, and reliable. It isn't cheap, but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than solar.

[Javaman]

6. "It's safe, clean, and reliable." what do you do with the waste? nt

[no limit]

7. Shoot it to the moon for all I care. But even storing it here is perfectly safe

At least much safer than pumping co2 off in to the atmosphere. Here you can atleast control the waste.

[Javaman]

8. Where do you plan on storing it? I have yet to read or find a clear

example of safe storage. Even the salt cavern leaks.

So where will it go?

[no limit]

11. Yucca mountain is one place to store it. Will keep it out our enviroment for over a thousand years

The current system for storing it onsite isn't all the effective or cost efficient but it is also perfectly safe.

[Javaman]

24. Call me crazy, but Yucca Mountain is still our environment.

and the half life for most Nuclear waste is 1.5 million years.

So again, where would we store it?

[no limit]

25. Nuclear waste is not a hazard for 1.5 million years

depending on the fuel much of it is fairly safe to process after a couple decades.

And you are absolutely right Yucca Mountain is still our enviroment. But I would much rather only Yucca Mountain be affected by humans than the entire atmosphere. Nothing in this world is free, you will have to make trade offs. We could keep pumping CO2 in to the air while pretending technologies like solar will save us or we can apply real and practical solutions to this problem; the major part of that solution being nuclear power. I can't wait to see a world where I can plug my electric car in to a power source generated from nuclear energy. CO2 would no longer be an issue.

No other "clean" power source comes close to the reliability and cost effectiveness of nuclear power. That doesn't mean nuclear power is perfect; but its the best we got right now. And if you are worried about global warming this should be a no brainer. 97% of France's power comes from nuclear from what I recall, they aren't growing 3rd arms as far as I know.

[kristopher]

30. Wow, when you're wrong, you are really wrong

Perhaps you are taking that expression about something being "a no brainer" just a bit too literally...

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

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

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.

[no limit]

31. Wow you found a study on the internet

I can find you many studies that say man made global warming doesn't exist, does it make it true?

The study also doesn't mention how nuclear compares to coal in terms of pollution. This study also seems to rank enviromental risks much higher than efficiency. In a perfect world that would be the main factor, but we don't live in the perfect world.

And finally any study that says "theoretically" shouldn't be taken as gospel. Theoretically we can move all our power generation to this:



But again there's the issue of dealing with the real world which really sucks.

[kristopher]

34. Okay, I understand now...

You are a student of the Rush Limbaugh School of Rhetoric.

You will not find any peer reviewed studies on the internet that say anthropogenic global warming doesn't exist.

The PEER REVIEWED study by Jacobson DOES rate both nuclear and coal with CCS. It doesn't compare it to coal without CCS because coal without CCS is the problem we are fixing The study compares and contrasts possible SOLUTIONS with EACH OTHER in order to determine which is BEST. It does this by taking into account ALL the real world issues involved so that the cure doesn't in some way turn out to be worse than the disease.

Nuclear loses.

[no limit]

36. I'm sorry that I do not have access nor the time to read the entire study

but since you clearly read it you can defend it.

So you admit this study doesn't compare nuclear to coal. Instead it compares it to the imaginary clean coal that doesn't yet exist. Hmm...that's very interesting. This kind of goes back to my point how people like you want to fix the world with fairy dust while people that live in the real word (the OP for example) wants to use technology that we have today even if that technology comes with some set backs. And when it comes to nuclear vs coal (something the study you posted didn't research making that study irrelevent to our debate, a more relevent article would be: http://www.uow.edu.au/eng/phys/nukeweb/reactors_nuc_v_coal.html) nuclear is by far the clear winner.

And you are absolutely right, coal is the evil we need to replace. Today we can do that with nuclear so lets start there. In the mean time nobody is saying that we shouldn't be researching alternatives, we should be (although with solar PV we are pissing our money away). And in 60 years we might have the technology to replace nuclear with something cleaner.

Solar and wind can not replace coal for a very long time, I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know this. You can be smug all you want and repeat that "I'm wrong" but sitting on your ass as the planet heats up isn't the way to go.

[kristopher]

39. You are still wrong.

Basic reasoning skills seem to be in extremely short supply around here lately...

Let's start with this, "So you admit this study..."

No, I didn't "admit" anything. I corrected your earlier (and continuing) false application of logic where you say: nuclear is better than coal regarding CO2 emissions, therefore nuclear is the preferred option to coal.

ALL the options are better than coal in regard to CO2 emissions, but the totality of their characteristics when rated AGAINST EACH OTHER is the information that we need to determine which technologies we should encourage to REPLACE coal.

The paper you cite informs us very little on the issue of which of the competing technology we should use to replace coal. It simply restates the same nuclear industry/Republican canard - nuclear is better than coal regarding CO2 emissions, therefore nuclear is the preferred option to coal. The Jacobson paper, on the other hand, is a comprehensive analysis of all energy options THAT ARE READY TO DEPLOY and thus provides a large amount of precisely the information needed to establish what will be the best course to follow to meet our climate change, energy security, and environmental goals.

You repeated statement that "Solar and wind can not replace coal for a very long time" has been shown to be wrong so many times that saying it at this point in time is really nothing more than a baldfaced lie.

[no limit]

41. You are good at ignoring points

or you completely miss them.

I totally agree that those alternative power sources are the ideal solutions. What I keep repeating is that those alternative power sources won't be capable to replace coal for a very long time. Anyone that suggests otherwise is full of crap. I love above how your rethorical question included the idea that as long as you have enough land to replace 60% of your power usage you are golden. You didn't mention how much land that would require if using solar. So you can keep ignoring the point that these power systems can't truly replace coal power plants any time soon. If you study says otherwise then please quote it the part where it says that, I'm all ears. Tell me what would be required to replace coal with a combination of Wind, hydro, and solar power; I doubt the study you quoted has that information. Also tell me how many decades before these alternative sources could truly replace coal.

Yet the proven technology that can replace coal today is nuclear. And since nuclear is a hell of a lot cleaner than coal why would you resist replacing coal plants with nuclear plants? You would be replacing evil with a much lesser evil.

[kristopher]

43. I'm not ignoring anything - your basic premise is false.

You write yet again, "the proven technology that can replace coal today is nuclear. And since nuclear is a hell of a lot cleaner than coal why would you resist replacing coal plants with nuclear plants? You would be replacing evil with a much lesser evil."

"The proven technology that can replace coal today is nuclear."

The "the" in that sentence implicitly states that renewable resources cannot replace coal. There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers saying that renewables CAN replace coal; it is something that has been KNOWN since the late 70s.

Since those alternatives are less expensive and also have far fewer external costs than nuclear, and since nuclear requires much more time to build up, the alternatives are preferable to nuclear.

Now let me address directly your attempt to draw a distinction between renewables and nuclear on the basis of a claim that nuclear is somehow more "proven" than renewables. Like all the other arguments thrown about on the internet regarding the strong points of nuclear, this one is also self serving hooey that doesn't stand up to examination.

The nation's nuclear fleet is a mish-mash of uniquely designed facilities that provide no PROVEN design template from which we can definitively conclude price/performance statistics with any greater degree of reliability than we can with wind, solar or any other established renewable energy technology. In fact, the simplicity of design for renewable energy technologies means that we are much more sure of the long term price and performance of wind and solar than we would be of *yet another* design competition to find an acceptable cookie cutter version of a monsterously complex nuclear power source.

What I believe you are doing is conflating the similarity of large scale thermal steam generation via heat produced by nuclear power with large scale thermal steam generation via heat produced by coal. You possess the FALSE belief that this similarity is a valid basis to conclude nuclear is a better choice.

Meeting the challenge of energy security and global warming is going to require a vast effort that we don't want to have to do again any time soon. The way we approach the search for a solution to these problems starts with that idea and leads to this question: "If we were designing from scratch a system to power our culture, what would it look like?

Hands down that system is build around sustainable energy sources that have the least known external costs. Let me repeat that, since we are designing and building largely from scratch, it is inconceivable that we WOULD NOT buid that system around sustainable energy sources that have the least known external costs.

That then leads to questions of how to best maximize the existing infrastructure and resources in accomplishing this transition - and frankly that is the discussion we need to be having, not this repeated diversion down the dead-end path of the Republican energy preference for nuclear.

[no limit]

59. You completely failed to address my point

Instead you went down this path about how renewables are the ideal solution, something I already agree with. What I asked you is how long will it take to replace coal with these power sources including the additional R&D that is required. Is it 5 years, 10 years, 50 years?

Nuclear energy is proven to work, you can go look at france if you don't believe me. There is no more R&D that needs to be done before we can start replacing coal plants with nuclear plants, we can start doing that today. And within a decade or 2 coal could be eliminated. If we go with your idea of how we go about replacing coal plants we will still be having this discussion 60 years from now (assuming we aren't all under water).

[kristopher]

62. There is MORE R&D required with nuclear than renewables.

I did address your point, you just don't like the answer. Wind and solar are proven, simple technologies that need no improvement to accomplish the task of replacing ALL fossil fuels. Nuclear, on the other hand, is an extremely complex method of producing power that has risks so great that the design features simply have not been able to be standardized in the manner you imagine they have. Each and every project is STILL a unique endeavor that is always a work in progress insofar as design is concerned.

The plan Al Gore endorses posits replacing ALL fossil fuels with renewable energy over 10 years. See "RePower America".

I'm not sure what you mean "you went down this path about how renewables are the ideal solution"? The Jacobson paper rates technologies based on all important factors, including resource size and the ability/time needed to deploy.

Here is a better summary of his paper. It is an online copy of a briefing prepared for Sen. Bingaman:

Review of Solutions to Global Warming, Air
Pollution, and Energy Security

Briefing to Senator Jeff Bingaman
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee

Yang and Yamazaki Environment and Energy Building
Stanford University
October 8, 2008

Thank you, Senator Bingaman, for meeting with us today. I would like to discuss a
review of proposed solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy
security that is the culmination of several years of work. I have handed out a draft copy of
the review, which contains the calculations referred to here in an appendix, and some
slides. The review considers the proposed solutions with respect not only to climate,
pollution, and energy security, but also to water supply, land use, wildlife, resource
availability, thermal pollution, water pollution, nuclear proliferation, and reliability.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options were considered. The
electricity sources included solar-photovoltaics (PVs), concentrated solar power (CSP),
wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and
storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options included corn-E85 and cellulosic E85.
To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, I examined their
comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned above 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 sources and vehicle type were considered. Upon
ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories,
four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerged. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) included wind-
BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 included CSP-BEVs, Geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs,
tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 included hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-
BEVs. Tier 4 included corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first (best) in seven out of 11 categories, including mortality,
climate damage reduction, footprint on the ground, water consumption, effects on
wildlife, thermal pollution, and water chemical pollution. In fact, the U.S. in 2007 could
theoretically replace all onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by electricity from 73,000-
144,000 5-MW wind turbines operating in 7-8.5 m/s mean wind speeds. This number of
turbines is less than the 300,000 airplanes the U.S. produced during World War II. Such
wind-BEVs could reduce U.S. CO2 by 32.5-32.7% and nearly eliminate 15,000 onroad

gasoline vehicle-related air pollution deaths per year in the U.S. projected in 2020 (a
reduction from about 20,000/yr today). The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 500,000-1
million times less than that of producing ethanol for E85 regardless of whether ethanol is
from corn or prairie grass, 10,000 times less than those of CSP-BEVs or PV-BEVs, 1000
times less than those of nuclear- or coal-BEVs, and 100-500 times less than those of
geothermal, tidal, or wave BEVs. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-
BEVs cause the least wildlife loss as well, accounting for bird fatalities.

Although HFCVs are less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs provide a greater
benefit than any other vehicle technology aside from wind-BEVs. Wind-HFCVs are also
the most reliable combination due to the low downtime of wind turbines, the distributed
nature of turbines, and the ability of wind’s energy to be stored in hydrogen over time.

The Tier 2 combinations (CSP-, Geothermal-, PV-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs) all
provide outstanding benefits with respect to climate and mortality and are also
recommended. Among Tier 2 combinations, CSP-BEVs result in the lowest carbon
emissions and mortality. Geothermal-BEVs requires the lowest array spacing among all
options examined. Although PV-BEVs result in slightly less climate benefit than CSP-
BEVs, the resource available for PVs is the largest among all technologies considered.
Further, many PVs can be implemented unobtrusively on rooftops. Underwater tidal-
BEVs are the least likely to be disrupted by terrorism or severe weather.

Tier 3 options (hydro-, nuclear-, and coal-CCS-BEVs) are less desirable.
However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with
respect to climate- and health-relevant emissions, is an excellent load balancer, thus
recommended. Nuclear and coal-CCS are not recommended since they emit significantly
more carbon and air pollutants than the Tier 1 and Tier 2 options or hydroelectricity, and
the large-scale spread of nuclear energy poses a nuclear weapons security threat to all
nations, as illustrated shortly.

Specifically, coal, with CCS (and its 85-90% reduction in coal-plant exhaust
emissions), puts out about 77-110 times more lifecycle carbon and other pollutants per
kWh than wind energy. Coal-CCS emissions are primarily from the mining and transport
of coal, exhaust that escapes the CCS equipment, the greater time-lag between the
planning and implementation of a coal-CCS plant that from a wind, solar, or geothermal
plant, and potential leakage from underground storage reservoirs. Further, the addition of
CCS equipment to a coal power plant requires an additional 14-25% energy for coal-
based integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) systems and 24-40% for
supercritical pulverized coal plants according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Such equipment also does not capture health-damaging pollutants, such as NOx,
NH3, and SOx.

Nuclear power puts out about 24 times more lifecycle carbon and other pollutants
per kWh than wind energy. For nuclear, carbon emissions include those due to the mining
and transport of uranium, the opportunity-cost emissions due to the time-lag between
planning and operation of a nuclear power plant (10-19 years), and the risk (between 0
and 1) of carbon emissions due to the burning of cities associated with nuclear war or
terrorism that is linked to the future increase of nuclear fuel production in nuclear power
plants worldwide. For example, the explosion of 1.5 MT of nuclear weapons material, or
0.1% of the yields proposed for a full-scale nuclear war, during a limited nuclear
exchange or a terrorist attack in a megacity would burn 63-313 Tg of fuel in city
infrastructure, adding CO2 and 1-5 Tg of soot to the atmosphere, much of it to the
stratosphere, and killing 3-17 million people based on a recent paper (Toon et al.).

As stated in a Los Alamos Report in August 1981, “There is no technical
demarcation between the military and civilian reactor and there never was one.”
Currently, 42 countries have fissionable material to produce weapons; 22 of these
countries have facilities in nuclear energy plants to produce enriched uranium or to
separate plutonium; 13 of these countries are active in producing enriched uranium or
separating plutonium; 9 of these countries have nuclear stockpiles. Having a nuclear
reactor facilitates the basis for obtaining uranium that can then be used either for energy
production and either secretly or openly for weapons production. The U.S. would need to
add 200-275 850 MW nuclear power plants to power all U.S. electric vehicles, and once
the U.S. started to do this, most countries of the world would try to follow, increasing the
risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. Any solution to global warming, air pollution, and
energy security on a large scale must involve technology that can be disseminated
worldwide. As such, this technology cannot be nuclear. If the U.S. uses alone nuclear,
this will undercut international efforts to slow global warming and air pollution mortality.

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 may cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk as discussed above. The
largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

An important issue to address with respect to wind, solar, and wave power is
intermittency. Intermittency can be reduced in several ways, including (1)
interconnecting geographically-disperse intermittent sources through the transmission
system, (2) combining different intermittent sources (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal,
tidal, and wave) to smooth out loads, using hydro to provide peaking and load balancing,
(3) using smart meters to provide electric power to electric vehicles at optimal times, (4)
storing wind energy in hydrogen, batteries, pumped hydroelectric power, compressed air,
or a thermal storage medium, and (5) forecasting weather to improve grid planning.
Currently, the greatest limitation to the large-scale implementation of new, clean electric
power plants is limited transmission line availability.

In sum, the use of wind, concentrated solar, geothermal, tidal, photovoltaics,
wave, and hydroelectric to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs will result in the
most benefit and least impact among the options considered. Coal-CCS, nuclear, corn-
E85, and cellulosic-E85 put out much more carbon and health-damaging pollutants than
the other options examined. Thus, the investment in corn- or cellulosic ethanol, coal-
CCS, or nuclear at the expense of the others will cause certain climate and health
damage, thus economic damage. Because sufficient clean natural resources (wind,
sunlight, hot water, ocean energy, gravitational energy) exists to power all energy for the
world, our failure to focus on these resources by diverting our attention to less efficient or
non-efficient options will guarantee that the significant environmental and energy
problems we face today will not be solved any time soon. The philosophy, that we should
try a little bit of everything is wrong. We need to focus on the technologies that provide
the best benefit. We know which technologies these are.

Finally, the relative ranking of each electricity option for powering BEVs also
applies to the electricity source when used to provide electricity for general purposes. The
implementation of the recommended electricity options for providing vehicle and general
electricity requires organization. Ideally, good locations of energy resources would be
sited in advance and developed simultaneously with an interconnected transmission
system. This requires cooperation at multiple levels of government.

[no limit]

65. You think that we can replace all fossil fuels within 10 years?

I went to the repower america web site, didn't find a claim that bold anywhere on there; I could be missing it. But my question is really directed at you and if you think thats a real possibility. I'm all ears, I'd love to be proven wrong. But as you respond keep in mind that the united states alone consumes about 3.5 terawatts of power each year. From what I recall the largest wind farm in the world (roscoe wind complex in texas) generates about 700 megawatts of power and requires about 100,000 acres of land. The following average coal plant puts out twice that at a tiny fraction of the cost on a small plot of land:



I dont want to get in to a discussion about the enviromental effects of stripping 100,000 acres of land, but you get the point.

And there is no more R&D required with nuclear to make it a replacement for coal; that's already being done as I pointed out so many times.

[no limit]

66. One final thing I want to add. 100,000 acres = 156.25 sq miles

156 sq miles is almost the size of my town of half a million people, Albuquerque.

[kristopher]

70. And that means what to you ....?

Do you see that little red dot in the green? That is the actual footprint of the turbines placed in the area where they are distributed.

[kristopher]

67. There is MORE R&D required with nuclear than renewables.

That statement is true, so if you have evaluated nuclear as needing no further R&D then neither does wind or solar.

Yes, we have the technical capability and the economic where-with-all to make a full transition within ten years. The comparison that most clearly demonstrates this is the ramp up to produce weapons platforms (tanks, planes and marine vessels) in WWII. As I've said, the technology isn't complex, we just need to foster a sufficient industrial base to get the job done.

You know, it is really easy to use google for things like this. For example "transition renewables 10 years" yielded as the first result:
http://www.wecansolveit.org/pages/al_gore_a_generational_challenge_to_repower_america/

"...That's why I'm proposing today a strategic initiative designed to free us from the crises that are holding us down and to regain control of our own destiny. It's not the only thing we need to do. But this strategic challenge is the lynchpin of a bold new strategy needed to re-power America.

Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.

This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans - in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.

A few years ago, it would not have been possible to issue such a challenge. But here's what's changed: the sharp cost reductions now beginning to take place in solar, wind, and geothermal power - coupled with the recent dramatic price increases for oil and coal - have radically changed the economics of energy... "

[no limit]

69. I went back and added a few things in an edit. Maybe you missed it since you didnt address any of it

The wind farm I pointed to above cost 1 billion dollars to build, spanned 100,000 acres and put out half of what a typical coal power plant puts out. If my math is correct to generate 700 gigawatts of power (a fraction of what we would actually need) with wind you would need to spend 1 trillion dollars and have around 10 million acres of land in areas close enough to populated areas so that the trasmission of the power generated can be efficient.

Please explain to me how you see this happening in 10 years?

Remember, we are dealing with a government that won't spend 1 trillion dollars in 10 years for health care.

[no limit]

42. No response? I was hoping to be told that I was wrong again.

[kristopher]

44. I occasionally have other things to do.

[no limit]

60. I figured posting "you're wrong" then pasting that study again wouldn't take that long

but thanks for putting in some effort this time.

[Javaman]

32. That's good information on the co2 issue, but that's not my concern...

"High level radioactive waste is generally material from the core of the nuclear reactor or nuclear weapon. This waste includes uranium, plutonium, and other highly radioactive elements made during fission. Most of the radioactive isotopes in high level waste emit large amounts of radiation and have extremely long half-lives (some longer than 100,000 years) creating long time periods before the waste will settle to safe levels of radioactivity."

http://www.history.rochester.edu/class/EZRA/index.htm

okay, so it's not 1.5 million years, but 100,000 years is still a very long time. So again, how does one make it safe? How do we dispose of it? I know for example that much of the waste from the early atomic bomb research is buried. I would think, this day in age, we would have a better plan in place other than continuing to bury waste that has the potential to contaminate the water table.

Also, what about the mining of the actual nuclear material? I have read enough regarding the Navajo Indians to know that they are facing a massive contamination issue from the tilling cast off from the original mines for the first atomic bombs.

How safe is the mining now?

[no limit]

33. Mining is a downside, so is radioactivity

Like I said nothing in this world is free, you'll have to have trade offs.

Coal also has to be mined, oil has to be pumped from the ground. And when I said that nuclear energy is clean I should have clarified that clean is a relative term. Is it as clean as solar or wind? Of course not. But its a crap load cleaner that oil, natural gas, or coal.

The storage of the nuclear waste is safe, so is the transportation of it (safe again being relative). The current system we have the waste is stored directly at the reactor in water tanks. This method is fine for now(no accidents have ever occured in this country where raidoactive waste got out) but as you can imagine as the waste builds up this won't be effective for much longer; thats why Yucca mountain was proposed. And since that has been scrapped we will have to find another long term storage solution.

And to be perfectly honest I don't have all your answers about how safe mining is now or even the exact effects long term storage has on the enviroment. I do know that you cant fairly compare how we dealt with this material in WWII to how we deal with it now. The simple undisputed fact is that nuclear is far more enviroment friendly than coal and oil and even natural gas. And we don't have a good alternative to these fossil fuels outside of nuclear when it comes to efficiency (taking hydro power out of the equation because you cant put up damns everywhere). So for now, as we look for a good alternative, lets replace coal plants with nuclear plants as France has done and many other countries are in the process of doing. This would eliminate our immediate CO2 problem (again eliminate is a relative term). It would create some other problems but I think those problems would be a lot less severe than what we will be dealing with in the next century as a result of fossil fuels.

Then we can look at solar power that concentrates sun light on a broiler to generate steam where there is a lot of sun, we can continue to put up wind farms where there is a lot of wind, continue to put up dams where thats a good option, etc. But all of that is a long ways out, nuclear power is here today. And even with all these alternative sources don't think they are all perfectly clean, they aren't. Solar panels are toxic in the manufacturing process and these materials also must be mined, wind farms must still be maintained and have power lines running from them, etc. The study from kristopher (who can't help repating that Im wrong) is a good study for seeing which energy sources are the cleanest; but you can't just look at what is the cleanest when you are looking for real world solutions that can help us in the short term.

[no limit]

38. As I was looking around I ran in to this

http://www.uow.edu.au/eng/phys/nukeweb/reactors_nuc_v_coal.html

Doesn't really show the effects of mining but shows that when it comes to pollution nuclear is the clear winner (by far).

[Nederland]

9. "Safe" is a relative term

As safe as what? Coal? Natural Gas? Solar? Wind?

Are you going to insist on different standards for different sources of power?

[Javaman]

40. Um what? I was asking about nuclear. radioactive waste is a little concerning to me.

and where do I say there should be different standards?

That was weird.

[Nederland]

45. Yes, you are asking about nuclear waste

And if there was a "safe" way to get rid of it.

Since "safe" is a relative term, I was asking what you were comparing it to. For example, it is my understanding that no one has ever died from exposure to nuclear waste. (Yes, lots of people died in Chernobyl, but that was due to a flawed design not used in anywhere in the West, not exposure to waste.) In comparison, tens of thousands of people die every year due to the air pollution caused by coal emissions. If you agree that standards should not be different, I would think you would be far more concerned about a waste product that kills thousands of people every year versus one that has never killed anyone.

Is that a fair question?

[Javaman]

46. Wow, you enjoy going from zero to weird, don't you?

well, enjoy that.

and please stop projecting, it's very unattractive.

:shrug:

[Nederland]

47. Projecting?

Projection is a defense mechanism that occurs when a person's own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else. Since I never attributed any unacceptable or threatening feelings to you, I can only assume you don't know what the term means or you lack an intelligent response to my question about whether or not coal emissions should be considered more dangerous than nuclear.

[kristopher]

48. Why do you keep repeating this irrelevant Republican caranrd?

NUCLEAR POWER IS SO FUCKING DANGEROUS THAT IT REQUIRES THE MOST SOPHISTICATED MONITORING AND SAFETY SYSTEMS USED ON THIS PLANET. ON TOP OF THAT IT REQUIRES REDUNDANT SAFETY SYSTEMS FOR THE BACKUP SAFETY SYSTEMS FOR THE SAFETY SYSTEMS.

The issue of waste being dangerous isn't a fucking MYTH created to put nuclear power out of business - it is a product of the fact that the waste MUST be dealt with in a way that NO OTHER WASTE BYPRODUCT has to be treated.

Continually pointing to the screw ups associated with a bad system (fossil fuels) DOES NOT negate the EXTREME danger associated with nuclear energy and its byproducts. THE FACT THAT THE DANGERS WERE RECOGNIZED EARLY ON DEFINITELY DOES NOT PROVE THAT NUCLEAR IS *SAFER* THAN ANYTHING. THE COMPLEXITY OF THE SYSTEMS AND THE LONG TERM DANGER FLOWING FROM THE PRODUCTION OF NUCLEAR POWER MEANS THAT THE PRESENT SAFETY RECORD OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IS UNSUSTAINABLE; SOONER OR LATER IT IS BOUND TO FAIL.

Give it a fucking rest.

[Nederland]

49. Wow

I used to disagree with you, but now that I see all those capital letters I realize just how wrong I was.

[kristopher]

50. You seem to be hard of hearing.

You repeat the same bullshit ad nauseum when you KNOW it is is bunk.

[Nederland]

51. Again with the mind reading?

Amazing how you "know" that I "know" something is bunk.

You truly are a man of many talents.

[kristopher]

52. Basic logic, my dear Watson.

You are intelligent, you have the relevant information and the inevitable conclusion from the data contradicts the misleading "qustions" you delight in posing.

That means that you have *chosen* to embrace a conclusion not supported by the data. What you engage in may be called wishful thinking, or willful ignorance, or just being squirrelly; but whatever you call it, it wraps around the fact that you KNOW where the data ends up.

You once wrote that I was arguing "opinion" as "fact". That is patently false. An opinion is a subjective judgment that is based on personal preferences. The only way my "opinion" is based on personal preference is that I "prefer" fact based analysis performed with rigorously applied reasoning.

The results of such analysis are a world away from "opinion".

[Nederland]

55. Facts? You don't know what they are

Like this little nugget: THE PRESENT SAFETY RECORD OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IS UNSUSTAINABLE

Is that a fact? A fact in the provable, demonstrable sort of way? Or is it an opinion?

You see, it must be an opinion Kristopher, because it deals with future events. You can say that there is X probability that the present safety record of nuclear energy is unsustainable, but you cannot say for certain that it will, absolutely and positively turn out to be unsustainable. The fact is that you have a very incorrect concept of what counts as a fact and what counts as an opinion. This example is but one of many that I could offer up.

[kristopher]

56. Bullshit.

You are conflating the difference between inductive and deductive logic with the idea of fact and opinion. (That conflation is a lesson straight from Limpballs, btw)

My preference for chocolate ice cream is an opinion, but when I say there will be X number of deaths this year from ZZ cause, that is a fact.

It hasn't happened yet, however when the available data is studied it may correctly be stated as a fact that this will occur. The process used to arrive at the factual conclusion is inductive reasoning; that does not make it "opinion". Another example would be: "the sun rises every morning, therefore it will rise tomorrow." While it is true that one day the sun will not rise, the statistical evidence supports the assertion that it will strongly enough that it is a fact.

The certitude you wish to claim as the lone realm of "fact" belongs to conclusions arrived at by deductive reasoning, the most famous example of which is: "A) All men are mortal, B) I am a man; C) therefore I am mortal." It isn't possible for both A and B to be true and C to not be true.

Only a very, very small number of the "facts" we deal with daily have this degree of validity.

[Nederland]

57. You are just wrong

The reason you can state that the sun will rise tomorrow as a fact is precisely because it has always been the case in the past. In contrast, the assertion that "the safety record of nuclear energy is unsustainable" is a statement that predicts that the way things have always been will change.

The fact that you don't grasp the difference speaks volumes.

[kristopher]

58. More bullshit.

That's like a person who jumps off the roof of a 100 story building saying, as they pass the 45th floor, "So far so good."

The complexity of the systems and the persistence of the dangers over tens of thousands of years make breakdown inevitable. It has already happened a number of times and it will happen again. You excuse these lapses with an "it can't happen again" line of reasoning but the fact is that even though any specific failure (like Chernobyl) may indeed be extremely unlikely to happen again, complexity of the systems and the persistence of the dangers ensure that opportunities for *large scale* failures will also persist.

And the fact is that it simply isn't necessary to take those risks. We are able to achieve the same results with none of the risks.

[Nederland]

61. Good, we are making progress

Yes, I would agree that over tens of thousands of years breakdown is inevitable. Well, inevitable is too strong a word, extremely probable is more accurate. The question really is, what exactly is the probability of breakdown per year per reactor, and what level of risk is too much? This is where facts leave us, because probability analysis is a inaccurate science to say the least, and any definition of acceptable risk is arbitrary. Every time you get on an airplane there is a certain probability that you will die. It is a very small probability, but a chance none the less. You say that it simply isn't necessary to take the risks of using nuclear power. This is true, but it is also true that it isn't necessary to get on an airplane--and yet we do it anyway. The reason is simple: we weigh the benefits of the action against the risk. Again, this is where facts leave us and mere opinion takes over. Any conclusion that says "nuclear is worth the risk" or "nuclear is not worth the risk" is ultimately an arbitrary one because any such analysis will hinge on the values you attach to the various factors in the equations. You say that nuclear isn't worth the risk. I disagree. Ultimately these are merely differences in opinion, not fact.

[kristopher]

63. It isn't just the time, it is the complexity.

You've moved the goalpost now that you have accepted my statement that nuclear is not sustainable, "I would agree that... breakdown is inevitable."
This was the original statement you wanted to argue about:

NUCLEAR POWER IS SO FUCKING DANGEROUS THAT IT REQUIRES THE MOST SOPHISTICATED MONITORING AND SAFETY SYSTEMS USED ON THIS PLANET. ON TOP OF THAT IT REQUIRES REDUNDANT SAFETY SYSTEMS FOR THE BACKUP SAFETY SYSTEMS FOR THE SAFETY SYSTEMS.

The issue of waste being dangerous isn't a fucking MYTH created to put nuclear power out of business - it is a product of the fact that the waste MUST be dealt with in a way that NO OTHER WASTE BYPRODUCT has to be treated.

Continually pointing to the screw ups associated with a bad system (fossil fuels) DOES NOT negate the EXTREME danger associated with nuclear energy and its byproducts. THE FACT THAT THE DANGERS WERE RECOGNIZED EARLY ON DEFINITELY DOES NOT PROVE THAT NUCLEAR IS *SAFER* THAN ANYTHING. THE COMPLEXITY OF THE SYSTEMS AND THE LONG TERM DANGER FLOWING FROM THE PRODUCTION OF NUCLEAR POWER MEANS THAT THE PRESENT SAFETY RECORD OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IS UNSUSTAINABLE; SOONER OR LATER IT IS BOUND TO FAIL.

Do you know how Honda achieved its reputation for high quality?

Purchasing standards.

The industry standard for most components is 1 failure per 1,000. Honda executives reasoned that since there are more than 10,000 parts in the average car, then that average automobile is built with 10 failed parts. They therefore embarked on a program to reassess the application of this standard and began to demand of their parts suppliers a zero failure standard. It worked in that it delivered to Honda a way of distinguishing themselves in a competitive marketplace. However, Honda's STILL experience breakdowns due to parts failure.

The same factors that are at work in that circumstance are also at work with nuclear energy. The real miracle of nuclear power is that we haven't had even more disasters than we have. But it is only a matter of time and *IF* we were to address the climate change issue globally with nuclear power the risk increases exponentially as we must take into account the potential of failures in all of the supply chains supplying all the components of all the reactors in all countries.

Now back to your thoughts on risk and opinion. You are STILL trying to obfuscate the meaning of fact and opinion. It really isn't complicated no matter how much you try to make it so.

An opinion is "a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty". While there is a range where evidence is accepted as a proof in ALL conclusions reached by inductive logic, there is a general agreement that high probability conclusions are regarded as "fact" and not "opinion".



Is it my opinion that the law of gravity will be in effect tonight? Would you regard such a statement as one just being "highly probable"?

This isn't a philosophical discussion we are having but a practical one focused on real world action based on incomplete knowledge and as such, you are playing a dishonest and rather despicable game of trying to mislead people. The problem with your presentation of your argument is that you are making an appeal to ignorance - you are claiming that unless something is provable with the certitude that exists in deductive reasoning, then it is just an opinion. The threshold for certainty in the real world is very, very rarely the 100% you are asserting the need for. We make decisions and take action every day on "facts" that have less than 100% certainty behind them. If we didn't we would quite simply die.

You claim that "this is where facts leave us and mere opinion takes over. Any conclusion that says "nuclear is worth the risk" or "nuclear is not worth the risk" is ultimately an arbitrary one because any such analysis will hinge on the values you attach to the various factors in the equations."

What you are describing is a preset conclusion trying to find support for itself. That isn't a logical analysis that bases the conclusion on the data. While we are human and as such subject to biases, there is a difference between the advocacy approach you are describing and a rigorous, objective, peer reviewed argument based on solid accurate data.

You are attempting to hide that distinction simply because you don't like the conclusion that the data points to.

[Nederland]

64. Excellent, we are making more progress

An opinion is "a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty". While there is a range where evidence is accepted as a proof in ALL conclusions reached by inductive logic, there is a general agreement that high probability conclusions are regarded as "fact" and not "opinion".

I would agree with this in principle. The question is, what level does something have to reach before it is considered a "high probability conclusion"? If I say that a "highly probable" means 99.999% of the time, and you say "highly probable" means 99.9999% of the time, which of us is right? Is there an objective way to determine the correct answer?

I maintain there is not, which is precisely why these types of judgements can never be a matter of fact, but will always be a matter of opinion.

[kristopher]

68. You are still operating with evil motives...

We are discussing public policy and the standard you use as an example is absurd in that context.

The Jacobson paper is composed of facts.
The facts in that paper support as fact a given conclusion IF we agree what the priorities are for our GOALs. What those goals are is the normative portion of the discussion. In this case I don't think there is any real debate on what the goals are, but let's check; they are embodied in the title and first paragraph of the abstract:

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

Solve problems of global warming, air pollution and energy security while considering the full range of impacts from the proposed solutions.

Is there anything in that goal you disagree with or that you would alter?

[Nederland]

71. Actually, my example is extremely relevant

The NRC performs probability risk assessments on nuclear reactors. The most recent calculations we have are from a 1992 report entitled "Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants". According to this report, the probability of an individual early fatality per reactor per year is 2 x 10-8 for the typical PWR and 5 x 10-11 for the typical BWR. Now, is this level of risk "acceptable"?

Like I have said numerous times, it's a matter of opinion.

FYI, the 1992 report is now considered obsolete because its assumptions have proven too conservative.

[kristopher]

72. Only if you didn't understand what I wrote...

While your post could be challenged on a number of obvious fronts, let's stick to the topic and use this: You are ignoring what was written in my previous post using the example of Jacobson; we can, however use your post as it works just as well.

You ask "Now, is this level of risk "acceptable"?

I don't know, I have no idea of what goal you are trying to meet when you say "acceptable".

Acceptable for what? Powering a normal, single, middle class home in the middle of the Bronx? No, it isn't acceptable because in light of the specific goal a variety of other factors (such as the obvious one of cost that this goal highlights) are much more relevant than the failure rate of the one reactor in the scenario. While one might be able to devise a scenario where building a commercial scale nuclear power plant makes sense, that would then be a different goal and would itself be a separate exercise in the process I'm describing.

The conclusion that it isn't acceptable for that goal isn't an opinion, it is a fact as the word fact is understood. It is an inevitable conclusion that is supported by factual data on cost, scale, risk, and alternatives.

Just like Jacobson:

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

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

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.

[Nederland]

73. I'll address Jacobson if you'd like

Yes, he has a bunch of facts in his reports, but the conclusions are not only based upon those facts, but also upon opinions as to how important the various factors are. For example, he analyzes impacts on "water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and under nutrition." The importance he places on each of these things completely determines the outcome of his report. For example, if you place an extremely high value on land use, solar loses to nuclear--especially if you don't include the required wildlife habit that surrounds uranium mines as part of your calculation (a totally ridiculous inclusion, In My Humble Opinion).

[madokie]

74. I'm thinking you two might need to get a room

where you can argue who is right and wrong or who is the smarter rather than just take up space here. Just a thought :-)

I keep coming back to the thread because its still growing but when I do its only you guys/gals, not sure, arguing about mostly irrelevant xchs. If you're not going to accept that one of you are the smarter of the two ever then use the goddamn ignore feature ;-)

Personally I like to read what the both of you write, up and until the arguing begins, that is, so I won't ignore either, k

Have a great day and keep up the good fight

[kristopher]

17. Solar is a good option

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

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

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.

[provis99]

2. this is on the level with cold fusion and perpetual motion machines.

[Greyskye]

10. un-Rec'ing the trolling OP

:eyes:

[no limit]

12. Trolling OP? Do you have any clue how long he has been here?

And I guess if you don't tow the bullshit DU line on solar energy you are a troll. Stay classy.

[Greyskye]

13. I indeed know how long he has been here.

And digging up a disgraced 26 year old paper in order to denigrate anything which is not nuclear is trollish behavior.

Please tell me in what way his OP is not trolling, is not simply attempting to poke a bee-hive with a stick. This is typical of the poster; and will likely end at some point with one of his narcissistic screeds about car-CULTure and how we're all idiots.

Stay classy yourself.

[no limit]

14. Do you know what trolling means? Just because he doesn't agree with you doesnt make him a troll

Look up the word if you really need to. Disagreeing with you is not trolling. In fact what you did is a lot closer to trolling behavior.

And I think he has a right to be frustrated when you keep hearing on this message board how wonderful solar cell energy is when in reality it is a huge waste of money.

But I guess calling someone a troll is much easier than showing how they are wrong (something you can't do in this case since you know as well as I do that he's right).

[Greyskye]

15. Look it up yourself - I'll give you a link:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling

I didn't say he was a troll, I said he was trolling. He gave a 26 year old discredited paper as an example, and held it up as a shining example in the hopes of getting the gullible to go "oh wow!" At that point he feels he is justified in his superiority over the uniformed. Yep, that's classic trolling behavior.

I'm not as anti-nuke as many of the people here, but the OP's behavior over the past 7 years has been consistent and predictable. And has probably turned more people against nuclear power with his vitriolic rants then he has ever converted.

But hey, knock yourself out defending the guy. He could certainly use some more proponents on his pet issue - especially if they didn't come across like ranting lunatics.

[MH1]

16. I do and I agree with Greyskye. And it's "toe" not "tow"

as long as we are being picky about words. (Do you know where "toe the line" comes from?)

as for the o.p. ... I don't post here much but I do lurk and I would say the op often displays trollish behavior. I mostly just find it amusing.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. It might help if you differentiate

between Photovoltaic and other forms of solar energy, such as the heliostat/concentrating systems that are online and working. Even though the technology is relatively new, it shows much more promise than direct PV solar power.

Barring some revolutionary breakthrough in PV technology, the efficiency is just too low.

It might help clarify the message if we separate PV, which is a pretty bad bet, and the other solar technologies.

I like a combination of wind/solar(Concentrating)/hydro, backstopped by Nuclear. But that's just me.

[kristopher]

20. Where do you get that evaluation?

You wrote, "Barring some revolutionary breakthrough in PV technology, the efficiency is just too low."

There are two ways to look at the issue, one based on energy and one based on money. In the area of energy, all that is required is for the PV to provide an energy surplus relative to what it took to build it. That energy return is ALREADY nearly triple the energy return provided by fossil fuels.

Your criticism is related more to money; and when that is being considered one way we can evaluate it is by how long it takes the PV to produce enough electricity to offset the installation price.

In that calculation efficiency is only one variable and the others are just as important. For example the most recent advances have come with a technology that actually resulted in a DECLINE in efficiency. What makes it work is that even though the efficiency declined perhaps 20-25%, the price declined 80-90% (I'm guessing since hard numbers aren't easily available) and the end product is extremely versatile - which results in the application of an entirely new range of installation strategies.

I agree that the combination will include all technologies you've mentioned, but technological advances have already elevated the role of PV far beyond where it was just a couple of years ago.

Two companies to check out that demonstrate what I've written are 'Nanosolar' and 'Solyndra'.

http://www.nanosolar.com/
http://www.solyndra.com/Products/Optimized-PV

[AtheistCrusader]

21. It's more the cost/lifetime issue.

To install enough solar cells to run my house, even if I took drastic conservation measures, it would take longer for the system to pay for itself, than the cells will physically last. Particularly if I go by how long the cells are warranteed to last, rather than what they are 'projected' to last.

Energy to produce is lower, sure, but there are other side effects, such as the byproducts, like SiH4, NH3, NF3, F2, H2, and HF, from the manufacturing process (some of which can be recycled). As with any power generating industry.

PV makes more sense in some parts of the country (I live near Seattle, so it's really not appropriate here anyway), but I wonder exactly how well it competes against just concentrating solar systems. From what I've seen, not well.

[kristopher]

23. Right,

It is. And the claim you made about efficiency is a very common perception that just happens to be incorrect. The economic payback is just as (if not more) strongly affected by price as by efficiency AND insolation. The fact that you live in a less than premium location becomes moot if the price is low enough, which is a point we are fast approaching. For example, if you could offset 60% of your electricity use over 30 years for $5000 the only other limiting factor would be do you have enough exposed surface area to do the job.

[no limit]

26. Absolutely. I pointed out that solar that generates steam is a great way to go.

But Photovoltaic will never be a real solution to our problems.

[kristopher]

28. And you were wrong both times

[no limit]

29. I know you are but what am I?

I guess this is what you think constitutes debate?

Hey, if you want to power a calculator with PV solar or light up some LED lights in your trailer then by all means, thats a great idea. For anything more complex than that PV solar isn't a viable solution, saying I'm wrong without backing it up won't change that. Asking a rhetorical question about offsetting 60% of your energy use with solar for $5,000 isn't backup for your argument. Once thats a real possibility let me know, but I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you.

In the mean time the only real way to cut back on our CO2 output is to go nuclear.

[kristopher]

35. You're wrong.

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

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

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.

[no limit]

37. Posting the same thing over and over when it has been discredited is not making a point

but points for trying...I know it must be very difficult to defend your position.

[Dead_Parrot]

53. You should have seen the "Nordell's magic heat" threads

The same block of text got copy & pasted about 50 times in one of them. Thankfully the mods put it out of it misery.

[kristopher]

54. Clearly have no response

All you can do is avoid engaging on the merits of arguments - that's why they keep getting put into your field of view.

Try this:

You write yet again, "the proven technology that can replace coal today is nuclear. And since nuclear is a hell of a lot cleaner than coal why would you resist replacing coal plants with nuclear plants? You would be replacing evil with a much lesser evil."

"The proven technology that can replace coal today is nuclear."

The "the" in that sentence implicitly states that renewable resources cannot replace coal. There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers saying that renewables CAN replace coal; it is something that has been KNOWN since the late 70s.

Since those alternatives are less expensive and also have far fewer external costs than nuclear, and since nuclear requires much more time to build up, the alternatives are preferable to nuclear.

Now let me address directly your attempt to draw a distinction between renewables and nuclear on the basis of a claim that nuclear is somehow more "proven" than renewables. Like all the other arguments thrown about on the internet regarding the strong points of nuclear, this one is also self serving hooey that doesn't stand up to examination.

The nation's nuclear fleet is a mish-mash of uniquely designed facilities that provide no PROVEN design template from which we can definitively conclude price/performance statistics with any greater degree of reliability than we can with wind, solar or any other established renewable energy technology. In fact, the simplicity of design for renewable energy technologies means that we are much more sure of the long term price and performance of wind and solar than we would be of *yet another* design competition to find an acceptable cookie cutter version of a monsterously complex nuclear power source.

What I believe you are doing is conflating the similarity of large scale thermal steam generation via heat produced by nuclear power with large scale thermal steam generation via heat produced by coal. You possess the FALSE belief that this similarity is a valid basis to conclude nuclear is a better choice.

Meeting the challenge of energy security and global warming is going to require a vast effort that we don't want to have to do again any time soon. The way we approach the search for a solution to these problems starts with that idea and leads to this question: "If we were designing from scratch a system to power our culture, what would it look like?

Hands down that system is build around sustainable energy sources that have the least known external costs. Let me repeat that, since we are designing and building largely from scratch, it is inconceivable that we WOULD NOT buid that system around sustainable energy sources that have the least known external costs.

That then leads to questions of how to best maximize the existing infrastructure and resources in accomplishing this transition - and frankly that is the discussion we need to be having, not this repeated diversion down the dead-end path of the Republican energy preference for nuclear.

[invader zim]

19. that's ok. I re-rec'd the thread.

NNadir makes alot of sense. common sense seems to be rare in the EE forum....

Zim

[Greyskye]

22. Shrug.

Free world. :shrug:

I'm simply glad it's back off of the greatest page. His self-indulgent trolling effort certainly doesn't deserve that.

His points often do make sense. It's really a shame that he feels the need to broad-brush denigrate anyone who doesn't see the world in the exact same way that he does: through 'nuclear can save us all and all other types of energy generation suck' colored glasses.

[no limit]

27. me too. welcome to du.