Which of the following is more important to you?

[XemaSab]

Poll question: Which of the following is more important to you?

:shrug:

[doc03]

1. Neither n/t

[kristopher]

2. Since nuclear slows the response to climate change the premise of the poll is false.

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.

[Nederland]

10. You are just upset that your preferred answer was not listed

Obviously what is most important to you is cutting and pasting the same shit over and over and over....

[bananas]

11. This reminds me of my poll on the Simmons-Tierney bet

Two and a half months to go ... could so many DUers be wrong about this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x251383

Poll result (21 votes)
I'm a peak oiler - Simmons will win (16 votes, 76%)
I'm a cornucopian - Tierney will win (5 votes, 24%)

[joshcryer]

20. Jacobson's paper DOES NOT support the title of your post.

"Since nuclear slows the response to climate change the premise of the poll is false." <- Jacobson's own research says outright that we need to spend $100 trillion to move away from fossil fuels quickly.

[XemaSab]

30. Do we need to bust an intervention up in your ass?

DU is a DISCUSSION forum.

It's not a copy-and-paste the same crap in every single thread forum.

DISCUSSION.

It's a good thing.

To wit, DISCUSSING nuclear with NNadir led me to the realization that climate change really is an all-hands-on-deck crisis, and we really do need to keep all our options on the table. Even if I don't personally care for nuclear, nuclear is a better solution than paving over all the wildlands in the state to put up solar panels, and it's better than putting an industrial wind farm on every ridge in the state.

I've worked in the energy sector for about 5 years, and I've worked in environmental consulting for 8 years. I'm informed about our energy problems in the state, and I enjoy DISCUSSING energy problems and solutions with other informed individuals on this forum.

Maybe if you embraced DISCUSSION instead of copy-and-paste followed shortly by calling those people who disagree with your posted paper shills and morons, you might educate someone or change someone's mind.

My mind is certainly open, and if I saw ANYTHING AT ALL that indicated that 1) we can solve the climate crisis with renewables, AND 2) we're at all likely to transition to renewables anytime in the next two decades or so, then I would be the first to give it the big K&R.

But right now, almost 100% of what you post is EXACTLY THE SAME PRO-INDUSTRY CRAP YOU ACCUSE OTHER PEOPLE OF POSTING.

It's not conducive to DISCUSSION, and it serves only to turn half the threads in this forum into pissy little flamewars between you and virtually every other member of the E/E forum.

In the battle between you and the world, bet on the world.

[joshcryer]

31. Copy pasting is actually trolling.

And it's a damn shame the moderators have done nothing about this behavior on these forums.

[TheWraith]

33. Once again, you post a wall of text that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

A mishmash of buzzwords and cooked figures that you think somehow makes nuclear power not greenhouse-free.

[Dead_Parrot]

3. You missed an option: Tinned meat. nt

[XemaSab]

7. .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

[Confusious]

17. I don't want any more SPAM!.

[Nihil]

8. She might have done but someone else certainly didn't. (n/t)

[Dead_Parrot]

9. I remember an advert for a Canadian lager....

"Malcolm the Mountie Always Gets his Can"

Somehow, this seem relevant.

[GliderGuider]

4. Choices, choices.

I don't have any "anti-nuclear beliefs", so I can't vote for 2. I don't think stopping climate change is possible, so voting for 1 is problematic.

My solution is to pretend for the moment that I believe stopping climate change is possible. If it were possible, stopping it would be infinitely preferable to clinging to any particular belief.

1 it is! :evilgrin:

[XemaSab]

6. .

;)

[bananas]

5. Al Gore: "We have more than enough solutions for three or four climate crises."

We don't need the problems of nuclear energy - at all.

http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/12/lkl.01.html

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Interview with Al Gore

Aired November 12, 2009 - 21:00 ET

<snip>

We have more than enough solutions for three or four climate crises.

<snip>

[joshcryer]

21. Al Gore also said, "Copenhagen next month will be a real turning point."

:rofl:

[caraher]

12. This thread sums up everything that bugs me about the E/E forum

First we have the poll question whose sole purpose is to tweak the anti-nuclear folks...

Then we get the umpteenth tiresome cut-n-paste regurgitation of the Mark Z. Jacobson paper, a great and true answer to global warming revealed in the Journal of Energy and Environmental Science which was dictated by the angel Gabriel to the final prophet Mark Z. Jacobson, Blessing and Peace be upon him.

Mission accomplished!

[kristopher]

13. Objecting to the Jacobson paper because it is repeatedly required to...

...debunk the endless attempts by nuclear supporters to misrepresent the truth is the response of someone looking in the wrong end of the telescope.

Why are you NOT criticizing those posting the misinformation instead?

It is like being critical of someone having to repeatedly point out to people claiming we can solve our environmental and population problems by emigrating to other star systems that E=MC^2 is pretty strong evidence that their claim lacks a basis in reality no matter how often they make it.

[NNadir]

18. If one is familiar with the scientific literature, one understands that many claims within it are

wrong. There are many debates within the literature, and many ideas that are published are shown to be false.

What many people seem to find amusing and telling is the conversion of a single paper, by a single author, not one who seems to be particularly credible, into a sacred gospel.

Only someone who is completely unfamiliar with how science works would repeatedly cite one article from the many many hundreds of thousands of papers published in the last several years into the Gospel of St. Mark, not subject to refutation.

Got it?

Um, I guess not.

Stan Laurel ain't got nothing on you.

[kristopher]

19. That is false.

Jacobson's paper is a valid, peer reviewed analysis by an outstanding scholar of both climate and energy systems.

You, on the other hand, shamelessly and quite deliberately misinform with every post you make.

Vestas calls itself in its company reports, the Vestas OIL, GAS and WIND company.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=261737&mesg_id=262014

...a load of complete bollocks about 'oil and gas'.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x261737#262053

Your claim is incorrect, wrong and misleading. You have the gall to accuse others of dishonesty in the same post. You have no shame.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x261737#262052

[joshcryer]

23. Jacobsons "paper" is a *review* which historically does *not* get as much scrutiny as an acedemic...

...paper. You've been called on this several times before, and you continue to avoid it. The paper itself was published in a third rate journal that chose to spam Wikipedia, and Jacobson's review was one of the first things published in it.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[joshcryer]

26. Eh, I'm not in the mood to go in to circles with the errors in Jacobson's *review.*

I'm sure you're aware that a "review" is different from a "paper" in academia.

[NNadir]

28. Dean Martin, Oliver Hardy, George Burns, and Bud Abbott ain't got nothing on you.

QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED. QED...

(I wonder if the QED's remotely equal the number of times that we've had a cut and paste from the Jacobson paper, which in some very, very, very, very, very provincial universe qualifies as "valid." I, um, doubt it.)

My personal opinion is that guys like Jacobsen and Sovacool are cranks.

Basically in countries that are going to survive the dangerous fossil fuel era without falling into dire poverty, they couldn't fucking care less what these cranks say.

The United States Secretary of Energy - a Nobel Laureate, like George Olah, like Eugene Wigner, like Enrico Fermi, like Glenn Seaborg - a, um, respected scientist, couldn't care less what the crank, Jacobsen says.

Quoth the science Nobel Laureate, who serves as the Secretary of Energy of the United States,

"Nuclear energy provides clean, safe, reliable power and has an important role to play as we build a low-carbon future. The Administration is committed to promoting nuclear power in the United States and developing a safe, long-term solution for the management of used nuclear fuel..."

http://www.energy.gov/news/8584.htm">Secretary Chu Announces Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future

I guess this means that we can expect the anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-nuke, science mangling flakes to run the very, very, very, very, very stupid Ralph Nader again in 2012.

Personally, I have never questioned for a second that these aforementioned flakes couldn't care less about who they kill. I noted that in 2002-2003, while the honorable among us were out protesting the war foisted on us by anti-nuke paranoia, fluoride and nuke fighting flake Ralph Nader was http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles/BacherNaderNBA.htm">Nader Blasts NBA For� Shoddy Officiating.

It's the same fucking deal with climate change. Plus ca change, c'est le meme chose.

Have a nice greenhouse gas fueled evening.

[DrGregory]

32. AMEN!!! Brother AMEN!!!

The United States Secretary of Energy - a Nobel Laureate, like George Olah, like Eugene Wigner, like Enrico Fermi, like Glenn Seaborg - a, um, respected scientist, couldn't care less what the crank, Jacobsen says.
-----------------------------------------

Why someone would "bottom fish" the pool of scientific talent
is beyond me. Why not look to what the first tier scientists
are saying?

Our Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu is a Nobel Laureate,
like the litany above of other top-notch scientists of the
20th century enumerated above.

Then we have the scientists in our DOE national laboratories,
which have been described as the "crown jewels" of the USA's
scientific enterprise. When these labs were asked about the
solution to the energy problem, the labs produced the following
report signed by the Lab Directors:

http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdffiles/rpt_sustainableenergyfuture_aug2008.pdf

Why "shop around" for a scientist whose opinion matches our own
preconceived notions? Is THAT really healthy scholarship?

If all one can find is a "bottom feeder", that should give
one pause. The bottom tier scientist publishing in the bottom
tier journals may be down there for a reason.

Dr. Greg

[joshcryer]

22. That paper is not an "answer to global warming," that paper is a review of solutions.

No where are those solutions being seriously regarded by the political of social communities globally.

[grahamhgreen]

14. Put the nukes in your backyard. They pollute for 30,000 years, are unsafe and not cost effective.

[TheWraith]

35. None of that is true.

Nuclear plants produce an average of less than 1% of the tonnage of waste produced by a coal plant. Unlike a coal plant, that waste isn't dumped straight into the air. Unlike a coal plant, that "waste" can be recycled into new fuel.

Civilian nuclear power has never killed anyone in the US, which you can't say for coal--its contribution to air pollution kills tens of thousands of Americans per year. And lastly, nuclear plants are less expensive than the same amount of wind power, if you don't allow the coal-funded NIMBY lobby to drag their heels and file frivolous challenges to try and bankrupt the projects. Haven't you ever wondered why nuclear is magically only expensive in the US, and not in Europe, China, Japan, or Canada? Could it have something to do with the money of the coal industry?

If given the choice between having a nuclear plant in my hometown, and a coal plant, I'd choose nuclear any day of any week.

[Codeine]

36. I'd slap on in backyard any damned day.

You can keep your coal plant, thanks.

[upi402]

15. not mutually exclusive

DER -distributed energy sources are untapped due to Republican big oil roadblocks.
There are many forms of alternative energy and sustainable engineering is an up & coming field - despite big oil.


Exxon-Mobil has teamed with Ventor (human genome guy) to develop algae as a biomass to replace dino oil. Why? Because they know oil isn't a sustainable energy supply and is fraught with problems already.

So why gamble with nuclear when a BP-type spill is DISASTER? It will happen, no matter how many times someone says it will never happen... (like oil spills).

[GliderGuider]

16. Good news

89% of DU feels the fact of global warming is more important than a belief system.

That's very encouraging.

[joshcryer]

24. Yeah, it was a cheeky poll, but I like the results.

Sadly I wish those other voters would post more here, as it's two or three very vocal anti-nuke people completely harassing the rest of us. I don't even think nuclear is viable yet I get harassed.

[GliderGuider]

27. I can understand their reticence.

It's daunting to imagine going up against that much mockery, not to mention the fastest cut-and-paste buffer in the West.

[joshcryer]

29. I used to do it, simply to give the forum some sense of moderation.

I mean, for every negative argument there has to be some positive arguments, and I learned a lot, like how nuclear power plants cost so much almost entirely because of the licensing process. Statistical explained it and actually spent a lot of time debunking the myths on this forum.

However, even if you take into account that Jacobson's numbers, if done using projections for the new licensing process (rather than projections based on a past licensing process), it is about as good if not better than hydro.

[Kaleva]

34. I don't think climate change can be stopped.

I believe it'd be best if we prepared to adapt.

[jpak]

37. What horseshit

:rofl:

[Nihil]

38. That's one of the most coherent replies that you've ever posted. Well done!

100% wrong mind you but at least you've got the "coherent" bit working now!