You wrote "Four points"
For accuracy's sake, that should be:
"Four inaccurate and poorly crafted attempts to create talking points to benefit the interests of the nuclear industry"
1) So what? 5 years ago you'd have claimed the present global capacity would be impossible.
2) You continue to try and smear Jacobson with falsehoods because he wrote a (correct and valid) analysis that found nuclear power was not a desirable part of the energy mix we should pursue. I mean, really, he doesn't know fluid dynamics???
B.S. Civil Engineering, B.A. Economics, and M.S. Environmental Engineering (1988) Stanford University
M.S. (1991) and Ph.D. (1994) Atmospheric Science, University of California at Los Angeles
Scientific Background
The main goal of Jacobson’s research is to understand better severe atmospheric problems, such as air pollution and global warming, and develop and analyze large-scale clean-renewable energy solutions to them. To address this goal, he has developed and applied numerical solvers and models to simulate air pollution, weather, and climate. In 1993-4, he developed the world’s first air pollution model to treat mutual feedback to weather and climate of gases and size- and composition-resolved aerosols, and in 2001, the first coupled air-pollution-weather-climate model to telescope from the global to urban scale. Some later versions of the model simulated the evolution of the mixing state of aerosols and clouds and the sub-grid exhaust plumes of all aircraft worldwide. Individual solvers he has developed include those for cloud and aerosol coagulation, breakup, condensation/evaporation, freezing, dissolution, chemical equilibrium, and lightning; air-sea exchange; ocean chemistry; greenhouse gas absorption; and surface processes. In 1993, he developed the fastest ordinary differential equation solver for a given level of accuracy at the time and applied it to atmospheric chemistry problems. In 2000, he discovered that black carbon, the main component of soot aerosol particles, might be the second-leading cause of global warming in terms of radiative forcing, after carbon dioxide. This result and five subsequent papers provided the original scientific basis for European Parliament Resolution B7-0474/2011 calling for black carbon emission controls on climate grounds (Sep. 14, 2011), the 21-country Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (2012), and five proposed U.S. laws from 2008-2010. His findings that carbon dioxide domes over cities and carbon dioxide buildup since preindustrial times have enhanced air pollution mortality through its feedback to particles and ozone served as a scientific basis for the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 approval of the first U.S. regulation of carbon dioxide (the California waiver). In 2005, his group developed the first world wind map based on data alone. He also coauthored a plan, featured on the cover of Scientific American, to power the world for all purposes with wind, water, and sunlight (WWS). To date, he has published two textbooks of two editions each and over 135 peer-reviewed journal articles. He has testified three times for the U.S. Congress. Nearly a thousand researchers have used computer models he has developed. In 2005, he received the American Meteorological Society Henry G. Houghton Award for "significant contributions to modeling aerosol chemistry and to understanding the role of soot and other carbon particles on climate.” In 2013, he received an American Geophysical Union Ascent Award for “his dominating role in the development of models to identify the role of black carbon in climate change” and the Global Green Policy Design Award for the "design of analysis and policy framework to envision a future powered by renewable energy." He has also served on the Energy Efficiency and Renewables advisory committee to the U.S. Secretary of Energy.
3) You continue to reveal exactly how shallow you actually are when putting together these attempts at crafting nuclear industry talking points.
You see, it is obvious you didn't even attempt to read the actual study. On your #2 and modeling within an array:
Reducing turbine size from 7.58 MW (Simulation E) to 5 MW (Simulation G) for Sandy (Table 1) reduced nameplate capacity by 33% but peak output by only 24%. The reason is that the smaller turbines extracted less energy, thus back-row turbines received faster winds. For the same reasons, storm surge reduction was greater with larger turbines (Table 1). - p. 197
And now about your talking "point" #3 from the same page 197:
...Wind turbines were exposed first to the outer hurricane’s rotational winds, which were slower than eye-wall winds, and the reduction in outer winds decreased wave heights there, decreasing surface friction. The angle at which cyclonic surface winds converge to the eye wall of a hurricane is governed by the balance among the pressure-gradient, Coriolis, apparent centrifugal and friction forces. The decrease in the friction force decreased convergence (winds become more circular, cyclonically), decreasing convection in the eye wall and divergence aloft above the eye wall, increasing central pressure. As turbine arrays first experienced and dissipated slower winds near them, thereby weakening the overall hurricane by increasing central pressure, the turbines themselves prevented nearby winds from reaching their maximum certified wind speed of 50ms−1 (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Figs 8 and 9). The potential for turbine damage is an issue, but less so along the East Coast than the southern or Gulf coasts, even without turbine energy extraction, because hurricane intensity is weaker along the East Coast10 (Supplementary Table 2).
As for number 4, screw it, you aren't worth the effort.
Those interested in the study can find it at the link in post 2.
= new reply since forum marked as read
