Thermal vs. Renewable electricity generation, 2004-2007

[GliderGuider]

The data in this graph is from the EIA. It compares the amount of electricity actually generated by thermal sources (read that as COAL) with the amount generated by non-hydro renewables (read that as WIND) from 2004 to 2007, with projections out to 2015.



Between 2004 and the end of 2007, coal added over 500 gigawatt-hours of electricity every year.
During 2007 coal added 777 gigawatt-hours of output, while renewables added just 60.

Just for grins I added a couple of trend projections to the data. The one for coal is linear, to put coal at the greatest disadvantage possible. The one for wind is a second-order polynomial to give it every possible advantage. It appears that the gap between the two generation sources will widen from 12 Terawatt-hours in 2007 to 16 Terawatt-hours in 2015.

The difference in the slopes of the two lines is obvious. There is a serious Law of Receding Horizons at work here.

This is one of the main reasons I've come down in favour of nuclear power. We need to do everything we can to close that gap, because if we don't it will kill us. Because of this widening gap I no longer believe that renewables like wind and solar can do the job. They sure as hell can't do it alone.

[kristopher]

1. This has been looked at by people far more qualified than you

(edited for copyright purposes proud patriot Moderator Democratic Underground)

Where is the negative trend line that would represent world nuclear?

You're starting to use the same type of cherry picked nonsense framing that people like Rush Limbaugh favor. You can't win the point honestly so you resort to schemes designed to deceive.

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/Image/GA/B809990C

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.

.

[NickB79]

3. So the gap between wind and coal wasn't widening, then?

Or was that glaringly obvious conclusion from the graph lost on you?

[kristopher]

5. The argument being made isn't supported by the information in the graphs

It is another red herring on the lines of "nuclear generates more than wind so nuclear is the best choice going forward"." It is a logical fallacy on the lines of "man has never flown therefore man can never fly."

There are a lot of factors that go into what technologies are superior at meeting our climate change needs, and the one being cited in the verbal argument of the OP is that nuclear deploys more rapidly than renewables. Jacobson's analysis (and many others) demonstrate that conclusion is false.

Public discussions of nuclear power, and a surprising number of articles in peer-reviewed journals, are increasingly based on four notions unfounded in fact or logic:

1. variable renewable sources of electricity (windpower and photovoltaics) can provide little or no reliable electricity because they are not “baseload”—able to run all the time;

2. those renewable sources require such enormous amounts of land, hundreds of times more than nuclear power does, that they’re environmentally unacceptable;

3. all options, including nuclear power, are needed to combat climate change; and

4. nuclear power’s economics matter little because governments must use it anyway to protect the climate.
...

This review relies chiefly on five papers... They document why expanding nuclear power is uneconomic, is unnecessary, is not undergoing the claimed renaissance in the global marketplace (because it fails the basic test of cost-effectiveness ever more robustly), and, most importantly, will reduce and retard climate protection. That’s because—the empirical cost and installation data show—new nuclear power is so costly and slow that, based on empirical U.S. market data, it will save about 2–20 times less carbon per dollar, and about 20–40 times less carbon per year, than investing instead in the market winners—efficient use of electricity and what The Economist calls “micropower,”...

Four Nuclear Myths: A Commentary on Stewart Brand’s Whole Earth Discipline and on Similar Writings
Amory Lovins
Available for download: http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-09_FourNuclearMyths

[GliderGuider]

7. This OP doesn't in fact make the argument you claim it does.

This post just says that Coal is pulling ahead of Wind in the electricity sweepstakes. From that simple fact I draw a personal conclusion that we shouldn't take any low-carbon options off the table, because if we do, coal will win and neither we nor the rest of life on the planet want that to happen.

If you think that wind and efficiency can close a generation gap that is currently widening by 500 GW-h every year, and do it within the next 20 years or so, I'd love to see some numbers. Jacobson is not on point with this issue.

[kristopher]

8. It makes *exactly* the argument I said it does...

Your words: "This is one of the main reasons I've come down in favour of nuclear power. We need to do everything we can to close that gap, because if we don't it will kill us. Because of this widening gap I no longer believe that renewables like wind and solar can do the job. They sure as hell can't do it alone."

Since the "gap" is solely a function of the rate of deployment of your selected alternative, it is dishonest in the extreme for you to try to repackage your intent now.

As you are often guilty of doing, you are trying to hide the message you are actually making. That "gap" is the product of the rate of deployment of one of the non-carbon alternatives. That is "evidence" to support the argument is a questionable graph by a diehard nuclear supporter.

It is another red herring on the lines of "nuclear generates more than wind so nuclear is the best choice going forward"." It is a logical fallacy on the lines of "man has never flown therefore man can never fly."

There are a lot of factors that go into what technologies are superior at meeting our climate change needs, and the one being cited in the verbal argument of the OP is that nuclear deploys more rapidly than renewables. Jacobson's analysis (and many others) demonstrate that conclusion is false.

Public discussions of nuclear power, and a surprising number of articles in peer-reviewed journals, are increasingly based on four notions unfounded in fact or logic:

1. variable renewable sources of electricity (windpower and photovoltaics) can provide little or no reliable electricity because they are not “baseload”—able to run all the time;

2. those renewable sources require such enormous amounts of land, hundreds of times more than nuclear power does, that they’re environmentally unacceptable;

3. all options, including nuclear power, are needed to combat climate change; and

4. nuclear power’s economics matter little because governments must use it anyway to protect the climate.
...

This review relies chiefly on five papers... They document why expanding nuclear power is uneconomic, is unnecessary, is not undergoing the claimed renaissance in the global marketplace (because it fails the basic test of cost-effectiveness ever more robustly), and, most importantly, will reduce and retard climate protection. That’s because—the empirical cost and installation data show—new nuclear power is so costly and slow that, based on empirical U.S. market data, it will save about 2–20 times less carbon per dollar, and about 20–40 times less carbon per year, than investing instead in the market winners—efficient use of electricity and what The Economist calls “micropower,”...

Four Nuclear Myths: A Commentary on Stewart Brand’s Whole Earth Discipline and on Similar Writings
Amory Lovins
Available for download: http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-09_FourNuclearMyths

[NickB79]

10. Dismissing the gap as simply a product of the rate of deployment

Does nothing to actually close the gap. What are we going to do, realistically, to dramatically increase the rate of deployment of wind and other renewables in the next decade before it becomes too late to stop catastrophic climate change? Because we sure as hell aren't doing it fast enough now.

[GliderGuider]

15. So convince me that renewables can close that gap.

Because right now I'm not seeing any evidence of that.

[kristopher]

16. I don't have to convince the nuclear indsutry of anything.

[GliderGuider]

21. You do if you want me to stop yapping about nuclear power...

[bananas]

26. It's a stupid analysis

I can't believe you even posted it, or are defending it.

[GliderGuider]

29. I'm glad you didn't waste your time trying to rebut it then. nt

[bananas]

39. Me too, I waste too much time here as it is. nt

[joshcryer]

69. I thought it was pretty novel, to be honest.

It's fine time people on this E&E forum recognize that we aren't doing shit about the global warming problem. Instead weeks were wasted arguing about trivialities while missing the bigger picture.

We aren't doing anything about the problem!

[NickB79]

9. And over here in the real world, coal is kicking wind's ass

I've gone around with you about this before: I'm not a big nuclear supporter. At best I'm nuclear-agnostic. This isn't about nuclear power (even though you seem to see nuclear boogymen behind every post on this forum that disagrees with you). This is about coal beating wind year after year, and how that trend appears to be worsening.

Unless wind build-out can increase by an order of magnitude in the next few years, all the research papers and studies won't make a scrap of difference to future generations, unless they can burn them for heat after civilization collapses.

[kristopher]

17. You are arguing a completely bogus position.

There is no legitimate reasoning at all behind your perspective. Why are you not applying the same standard to nuclear that you are applying to wind? The "gap" between nuclear and coal is widening at a faster pace than that of wind/coal; and the slope of closing the gap is better for renewables and efficiency than it is for nuclear.

So where do you find any basis for criticizing renewables based on the OP?

You don't. All you have is a red herring, just as I initially described.

If you want to change the slope to improve the pace then policy support is required and any carbon pricing policy will have ALWAYS have a greater effect on the slope of renewables than it would on nuclear because of the basic nature of the two choices.

There is no valid reason to support nuclear - none.

[Nederland]

24. You are missing the point

This is not about nuclear. It doesn't matter if you assume nuclear is going to be flat, decrease, or magically disappear tomorrow. The fact is that COAL is kicking WIND's ass and there is nothing in the real data that indicates that is going to change.

[kristopher]

25. No I'm not missing the point - you are whitewashing the OP

This thread is extremely clear.

[NickB79]

36. Poor kris, still arguing with his boogymen

Maybe I have to repeat myself.

I've gone around with you about this before: I'm not a big nuclear supporter. At best I'm nuclear-agnostic. This isn't about nuclear power (even though you seem to see nuclear boogymen behind every post on this forum that disagrees with you). This is about coal beating wind year after year, and how that trend appears to be worsening.

Unless wind build-out can increase by an order of magnitude in the next few years, all the research papers and studies won't make a scrap of difference to future generations, unless they can burn them for heat after civilization collapses.

[kristopher]

37. The OP explicitly argues for nuclear power - it is the entire point of the post.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem; otherwise why would you deny what is clearly written?


From the OP: "This is one of the main reasons I've come down in favour of nuclear power. We need to do everything we can to close that gap, because if we don't it will kill us. Because of this widening gap I no longer believe that renewables like wind and solar can do the job. They sure as hell can't do it alone.

The argument is false. Spending on nuclear power produces much less carbon reduction per dollar and unit of time than the renewable/efficiency alternative.

It really isn't complicated.

[GliderGuider]

41. Gee, you say that like it's a bad thing...

My actual position (unlike the one you're trying to project onto me) is that until we get that thermal generation line declining, we need to pursue every possible low-carbon option. That includes efficiency and conservation (which are not linked to any particular generation technology), along with nuclear and renewables electrical capacity. My point is that renewables aren't ready for prime time yet, so its vastly premature to be taking nuclear off the table -- especially since the cost of nuclear power is about the same as the cost of wind, and the risks of modern nuclear power are so lo relative to the threat of CO2.

It really isn't complicated.

[kristopher]

43. Your premises are proven false.

Your position has no merit.

[Nederland]

70. You need to understand Kristopher's position

Given a choice between coal and nuclear, he prefers coal.

Actually, come to think of it, I think you understand Kristopher's position better than he does....

[kristopher]

71. Another "nuclear environmentalist"

Yes, it is an oxymoron, but they are real...

Here is a post I wrote elsewhere today to demonstrate their ... what shall we say, view(?).

Nuclear environmentalist
(Originally posted 10/13/10 at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=261024&mesg_id=261386 )

It is amazing how many nukies come on this board pretending to be "open minded" about all energy sources; they initially embrace renewables but always do it in the context of the false construct of "renewables can't do it alone so we need nuclear too".

In fact (as has been shown here on EE time after time after time) the actual position they are trying to promote is "WE NEED NUCLEAR". It always becomes obvious soon after these nuclear envirnmentalists begin posting on energy that the lip service they give to renewable energy is nothing more than greenwashing for their actual agenda - the attempt to persuade people that nuclear *must* be used.

Take this case in point. I posted above that both past performance AND current analysis based on expected market conditions predict that new merchant nuclear power plants have a very high chance defaulting on payback of their capital investment. The historic record shows a terrible pattern of default and a Congressional Budget Office forecast in 2003 that there was a better than 50% chance of default based on prices that were 1/6 - 1/4 the prices that exist in 2010.

What was the response? Maybe this will remind you.

It was as if the CBO and Citigroup analysis I'd included didn't exist. The total sarcastic response was:

And as we all know, what happened in the past is 100% guaranteed to happen again.
That sounds familiar. Oh yeah, I heard it on BSG.
The main reason for cancellations and closures of nuclear power plants were the constantly shifting legislation and regulations along with countless lawsuits (nuisance and frivolous included) that pushed the timelines so far out in the future that the backers either decided to cut their losses or simply ran out of money.
Those conditions do not exist today so you cannot simply extrapolate from past conditions when times have changed. Sorry, the nuclear power industry is not dead. Booga-de-booga! Scares ya, don't it...

So the assertion is that we cannot look to the past to predict future performance.

To an extent that is true; the past is only one area of information we need to examine when we try to understand our path forward. In the case of nuclear plants what it tells us (see graphs) is that claims made based on uncritical acceptance of the data provided by the nuclear industry consistently underestimate the costs of nuclear power in all areas.




Is that a surprise or controversial to any rational, open-minded person that an industry would try to promote a picture of themselves that favors their economic well being? Of course it isn't. But we get absolutely bizarre responses from the nuclear environmentalists that are unfounded in fact or reason; their only purpose of such bizarre replies seems to be to insulate the nuclear industry from any criticism at all by any means necessary.

Another favorite meme of the nuclear environmentalist is that "if you oppose nuclear power, then you are a de facto promoter of coal and fossil fuels". Let's look at how the supporting logic for that claim is laid out:

Look at history and you will clearly see that for every nuclear power plant that was stopped (by whatever means), another one or two coal power plants have been built. The demand for electricity has never stopped going up. The utility companies know that if they do not supply enough power to exactly match demand there will be disastrous results like brown outs and black outs. That is the nature of electricity. It isn't a series of tubes.

The energy users in America, residential, corporate and industrial, are not going to wait 30 years for the amount of renewables we need to be built. A total switch of our energy sources is going to take decades. We need to have as much solar power as we can get, it does not matter if that is on your roof or a huge field of solar panels or solar thermal power. We also need as much wind energy production as we can possibly implement as well. The same goes for geothermal power plants, wave and tidal power and biofuels. Even landfill gas should be tapped as a source of energy. As a side note, it makes me sick to my stomach to see the landfill in my area burning off the methane produced by the landfill. They are in the process now of installing a generator there and I can't wait till it comes online.

But to deny that nuclear power has a very important role to play in helping America to finally end our addiction to fossil fuels is pure insanity.

To answer the question of which environmental groups supports nuclear power, look at the former leader of Greenpeace. He has come to realize that the coal industry is the main beneficiary of Greenpeace's opposition to nuclear power.

Look at the fiasco of the California Air Resource Board decision to end the electric car mandate for California (which effectively killed off the electric car, or at least helped). I see the same effect happening in the environmental groups.

This poster is well aware of the FACT that it takes much, much, much longer to bring nuclear power online than it does to bring renewable energy online. Nuclear power is also far more expensive than the renewable/energy efficiency alternative. So, any money that is spent on nuclear is, IN FACT, slowing the transition away from carbon based fuels.

However, that knowledge doesn't stop our nuclear environmentalist, no. That mindset sees PROOF in the cherry picked slice of the historical record used here, whereas before such a slice (and it was in the proper context) was rejected as being only worthy of derision. Yes, instead of the earlier ridicule, we now have, "Look at history and you will clearly see that for every nuclear power plant that was stopped (by whatever means), another one or two coal power plants have been built"

That is true, but when we think about how it comes on the heels of the first statement criticizing the use of history as a means of determining future performance it really is more informative at a deeper level related to the perspective of the nuclear environmentalist. We can at least find some consistency in the position however, when we note that in both cases contextual analysis is ignored in order to promote a false position that is favorable to the nuclear industry's efforts to improve public opinion of their product.

A comprehensive analysis of renewable energy resources and technologies was accomplished by the UN for the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. This analysis demonstrated that we could, in fact, operate a modern culture on renewable energy sources alone with existing and very near term technologies. Those "near term" technologies are now being deployed at an incredible rate. There is no dispute in any academic literature focused on design of energy and environmental systems about the ability of renewable energy to deliver what we need. It is a settled issue and has been for nearly 20 years.

The nuclear environmentalist would have you believe that coal interests are opposed to nuclear power - and a few of them are. However, a comparison of the range of economic stakeholders for coal is almost identical to the range of economic stakeholders for coal. Again, this is a demonstrable fact. The minerals mining industries, huge project developers like Halliburton and Bechtel, the utilities, boilermakers, even the grid operators are all financially dependent on the existing centralized energy system and they have opposed the deployment of renewable energy since it started being an issue in he 70s.

They know that the type of distributed grid that supports renewable energy will reduce their role in supplying power to a role that is better described as peripheral rather than central. We will need them to move wind energy and large scale solar around but that will ultimately be less than perhaps 40% of the electricity consumed. In other words, if push comes to shove, consumers will be able to get along without them.

The new big players will be companies like Sharp or BYD, large electronic manufacturers that will make money selling devices at the costs of manufacturing instead of charging for the energy itself.

So it is pretty clear where the economic interests supporting nuclear power are. It is also clear that the misinformation being distributed by nuclear environmentalists is designed to tackle the biggest obstacle faced by the nuclear industry - lack of public support.

Detailed analysis of public beliefs and values tells us that concern for climate change DOES NOT predict whether a person supports nuclear power. What DOES predict whether they support nuclear power is if they trust the nuclear industry. The broader research further tells us that such trust in the nuclear industry is a result of the same values that predict support for coal and petroleum. Again, this is information that is well known on this board, but still the nuclear environmentalists try to portray support for renewables as indicating secret support for coal.

And finally one last point. Note the use of Patrick Moore as greenwashing for the nuclear environmentalist. That is in spite of the FACT that Moore is paid by the nuclear industry specifically to perform that function. He is paid to go around the world and support nuclear energy, trading on his early involvement in Greenpeace. That is his sole function - to be a recognizable "green voice" that supports the nuclear industry. He doesn't work to make nuclear power better, he is simply a paid shill.

As do all other major environmental organizations that I am aware of. Greenpeace itself totally rejects nuclear power as a viable path to a noncarbon, clean and sustainable energy system.

[NickB79]

44. I'm not the OP, in case you missed that

I simply drew the conclusion from the graph the OP posted that compared just coal to wind, and drew the conclusion that wind is getting it's ass kicked by coal. I then asked how we're going to rectify that before it destroys human civilization, with no appeal for more nuclear power construction.

I never said anywhere in this thread that I supported the OP's position on nuclear power; in fact I have stated that I am at best lukewarm on the prospect of expanded nuclear power. I don't appear to be the one with the reading comprehension problem here.

[kristopher]

46. You have clearly been arguing in support of the OP - which is an argument for nukes.

[NickB79]

48. Prove it. NT

[joshcryer]

68. The OP is an argument for more money being spent on clean energy.

Nukes are not the primary focus of the OP and you know it.

[GliderGuider]

4. From 2005 to 2009 global nuclear electricity generation declined by 74 GW-h

In two years it increased, in two years it decreased. The average decrease was 14 GW-h per year, but the trend is very noisy. Nuclear appears to be approximately holding even at the moment. Meanwhile, Big Coal is laughing all the way to the bank and whistling past our graveyard, if you'll pardon a mixed metaphor.

The gap between coal and renewable generation is currently widening by about 500 GW-h per year every year. If we refuse to let nuclear power help, then wind power and efficiency are going to have to close that gap. I don't believe in the tooth fairy.

[kristopher]

6. How does it "help" to get less product for each dollar and year of effort?

It is another red herring on the lines of "nuclear generates more than wind so nuclear is the best choice going forward"." It is a logical fallacy on the lines of "man has never flown therefore man can never fly."

There are a lot of factors that go into what technologies are superior at meeting our climate change needs, and the one being cited in the verbal argument of the OP is that nuclear deploys more rapidly than renewables. Jacobson's analysis (and many others) demonstrate that conclusion is false.

Public discussions of nuclear power, and a surprising number of articles in peer-reviewed journals, are increasingly based on four notions unfounded in fact or logic:

1. variable renewable sources of electricity (windpower and photovoltaics) can provide little or no reliable electricity because they are not “baseload”—able to run all the time;
2. those renewable sources require such enormous amounts of land, hundreds of times more than nuclear power does, that they’re environmentally unacceptable;
3. all options, including nuclear power, are needed to combat climate change; and
4. nuclear power’s economics matter little because governments must use it anyway to protect the climate.
...

This review relies chiefly on five papers... They document why expanding nuclear power is uneconomic, is unnecessary, is not undergoing the claimed renaissance in the global marketplace (because it fails the basic test of cost-effectiveness ever more robustly), and, most importantly, will reduce and retard climate protection. That’s because—the empirical cost and installation data show—new nuclear power is so costly and slow that, based on empirical U.S. market data, it will save about 2–20 times less carbon per dollar, and about 20–40 times less carbon per year, than investing instead in the market winners—efficient use of electricity and what The Economist calls “micropower,”...

Four Nuclear Myths: A Commentary on Stewart Brand’s Whole Earth Discipline and on Similar Writings
Amory Lovins
Available for download: http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-09_FourNuclearMyths


ETA graph on nuclear 2008-2056

[Dead_Parrot]

32. Some updated figures for that graph...

...since 2007 was a while ago.

Changes of NPP status during 2008:
* Final shutdowns:
- Bohunice 2, 408 MW(e), PWR-VVER, Slovakia, (31 December)
* Construction initiation:
- Ningde 1, 1000 MW(e), PWR, China, (18 February)
- Hongyanhe 2, 1000 MW(e), PWR, China, (28 March)
- Novovoronezh 2-1, 1085 MW(e), PWR-VVER, Russia, (24 June)
- Shin-Wolsong 2, 960 MW(e), PWR, S. Korea, (23 September)
- Leningrad 2-1, 1085 MW(e), PWR-VVER, Russia, (25 October)
- Shin-Kori 3, 1340 MW(e), PWR-APR 1400, S. Korea, (31 October)
- Ningde 2, 1000 MW(e), PWR, China, (12 November)
- Fuqing 1, 1000 MW(e), PWR, China, (21 November)
- Yangjiang 1, 1000 MW(e), PWR, China, (16 December)
- Fangjiashan 1, 1000 MW(e), PWR, China, (26 December)

2008 net: +10.062 GW

Changes of NPP status during 2009:
* New connection to the grid:
- Tomari 3, 866 MW(e), PWR, Japan, (20 March)
- Rajasthan 5, 202 MW(e), PHWR, India, (22 December)
* Final shutdowns:
- Hamaoka 1&2, 515/806 MW(e), BWR, Japan, (31 January)
- Ignalina 2, 1185 MW(e), RBMK, Lithuania, (31 December)
* Construction initiation:
- Hongyanhe 3, 1000 MW(e), PWR, China, (7 March)
- Sanmen 1, 1000 MW(e), PWR AP-1000, China, (19 April)
- Yangjiang 2, 1000 MW(e), PWR, China, (4 June)
- Fuqing 2, 1000 MW(e), PWR, China, (17 June)
- Novovoronezh 2-2, 1085 MW(e), PWR-VVER, Russia, (12 July)
- Fangjiashan 2, 1000 MW(e), PWR, China, (17 July)
- Hongyanhe 4, 1000 MW(e), PWR, China, (15 August)
- Rostov 3, 1011 MW(e), PWR-VVER, Russia, (15 September) - announced in June 2010
- Shin-Kori 4, 1340 MW(e), PWR-APR 1400, S. Korea, (15 September)
- Haiyang 1, 1000 MW(e), PWR, China, (24 September)
- Taishan 1, 1700 MW(e), PWR-EPR, China, (18 November)
- Sanmen 2, 1000 MW(e), PWR AP-1000, China, (17 December)
* Construction reactivation:
- Akademik Lomonosov 1&2, 2x30 MW(e), floating PWR-KLT40, Russia, relocated close to Vilyuchinsk
- Mochovce 3&4, 2x405 MW(e), PWR-VVER, Slovakia, (11 June)


2009 net: +11.5 GW

2010 Highlights:

* New connection to the grid:
- Rostov 2 (950 MW(e), PWR-VVER, Russia) - first grid connection on 18 March
Note: Rostov is a new official name of Volgodonsk reactor units.
- Rajasthan 6 (202 MW(e), PHWR, India) - first grid connection on 28 March
- Lingao 3 (1000 MW(e), PWR, China) - first grid connection on 15 July
- Qinshan 2-3 (610 MW(e), PWR, China) - first grid connection on 1 August
- Shin Kori 1 (960 MW(e), PWR, S. Korea) - first grid connection on 4 August
* Final shutdowns:
- Phenix (130 MW(e), FBR, France) was officially closed on 1 February
* Construction initiation:
- Ningde 3 (1000 MW(e), PWR, China) - construction officially started on 8 January
- Taishan 2 (1700 MW(e), PWR-EPR, China) - construction officially started on 15 April
- Leningrad 2-2 (1085 MW(e), PWR-VVER, Russia) - construction officially started on 15 April
- Changjiang 1 (1000 MW(e), PWR, China) - construction officially started on 25 April
- Ohma (1325 MW(e), ABWR, Japan) - construction officially started on 7 May
- Angra 3 (1245 MW(e), PWR, Brazil) - construction officially started on 1 June
- Rostov 4 (1011 MW(e), PWR-VVER, Russia) - construction officially started on 16 June
- Haiyang 2 (1000 MW(e), PWR-AP1000, China) - construction officially started on 21 June
- Fangchenggang 1 (1000 MW(e), PWR, China) - construction officially started on 30 July

2010 net: +10.236 GW


Figures from http://www.iaea.or.at/programmes/a2/">here. Now look at these figures, then look at the graph, and tell me what's wrong.

[Dead_Parrot]

82. Another update...

Construction initiation:
Ningde 4 (1000 MW(e), PWR, China) - construction officially started on 29 September

Added to the list since my previous.

[GliderGuider]

38. The costs of nuclear and wind are about the same. As a result,

We should be building out every source of low-carbon energy available to us, as fast as we can. As Dead_Parrot points out, there is nuclear construction under way around the world. That's a very good sign.

One potential problem we still have not yet grappled with is that without strong policies to restrict coal use the new low-carbon capacity coming on line - whether nuclear or wind - will simply add to the increasing coal capacity rather than displacing it, as is required if we want to reduce GHG production. It's all well and good to have low-carbon generating capacity, but unless we also reverse the build-out of coal we're still screwed. I haven't seen any real appetite for such restrictive measures like carbon taxes anywhere around the world. To draw an analogy, carbon taxes are the energy equivalent of one-child population policies. They are a third-rail issue. Unless that changes, I don't foresee the shape of the graphs in this thread changing much.

So ultimately all that the nuclear and wind advocates can do is to support the construction of the technologies they champion, in order to have low-carbon capacity available if the politicians ever decide to act in favour of the planet by shutting down coal-fired electrical production.

[kristopher]

45. The costs of wind are dropping the costs of nuclear are rising

Wind and solar are both technologies in the process of birthing as industries and their costs curves have a steep downward slope. Nuclear is on an ever more expensive trajectory.

Your argument is predicated on society having a magical purse with unlimited funds. It doesn't exist. When we spend a money on nuclear energy it is crowding out spending on renewable energy and efficiency. This isn't speculation, it is fact.

Given those are the PROVEN realities do you still have enough vestigial integrity to admit that spending money on nuclear power slows the move to transition away from fossil energy?

[GliderGuider]

49. At the moment the costs are approximately similar.

Global GDP is $65 trillion per year. Spending a trillion over the next 10 years on low-carbon sources of any kind would be trivial. Money isn't the issue. Finding the political will to deal with the realities of the situation is the issue.

Wind and nuclear don't need to be an either/or, zero-sum proposition. We can do both and get further than we could by doing either alone.

[kristopher]

50. "Money isn't the issue" = nukie bullshit.

And even if such magic hand waving were true there is still the inescapable FACT that every dollar spent on nuclear produces less benefit per dollar and time than money spent on renewable/efficiency alternative.


You cannot spin the consequences of that away. It doesn't matter what the total amount is, the fact remains that whatever portion is spent on nuclear could be more effective if we spend it on energy efficiency and renewables.

[joshcryer]

67. The fact remains that enough money isn't being spent, period.

[joshcryer]

66. MZJ is only moderately more qualified than GG, fyi.

And GG wasn't saying that renewables cannot get the job done, full stop, but rather that there exist no projections suggesting that renewables will be able to get the job done in our current political environment.

[GliderGuider]

72. Yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying.

I think the political climate for renewables sucks, and I think the political climate for nuclear sucks. The only political climate I see that's actively moving forward is for coal. And that sucks big time!

Ultimately I think our species would be much better off if we generated all our energy from renewable sources. But as always the perfect is the enemy of the good, and we don't have the luxury of waiting for ultimate solutions. Mother Nature is giving us an ultimatum, right fucking now.

So the longer we dither over ideology, the greater the guarantee of a coal-fired future.

[kristopher]

73. Then stop supporting nuclear, it is a thrid rate solution guaranteed to slow the response.

Any way you slice it, support for nuclear is slowing the response to climate change. The real question then becomes WHY THE FUCK DO YOU KEEP PUSHING IT?

Here is my explanation of the observed actions of nuclear environmentalists (that's you) here on EE.

It is amazing how many nukies come on this board pretending to be "open minded" about all energy sources; they initially embrace renewables but always do it in the context of the false construct of "renewables can't do it alone so we need nuclear too".

In fact (as has been shown here on EE time after time after time) the actual position they are trying to promote is "WE NEED NUCLEAR". It always becomes obvious soon after these nuclear envirnmentalists begin posting on energy that the lip service they give to renewable energy is nothing more than greenwashing for their actual agenda - the attempt to persuade people that nuclear *must* be used.

Take this case in point. I posted above that both past performance AND current analysis based on expected market conditions predict that new merchant nuclear power plants have a very high chance defaulting on payback of their capital investment. The historic record shows a terrible pattern of default and a Congressional Budget Office forecast in 2003 that there was a better than 50% chance of default based on prices that were 1/6 - 1/4 the prices that exist in 2010.

What was the response? Maybe this will remind you.

It was as if the CBO and Citigroup analysis I'd included didn't exist. The total sarcastic response was:

And as we all know, what happened in the past is 100% guaranteed to happen again.
That sounds familiar. Oh yeah, I heard it on BSG.
The main reason for cancellations and closures of nuclear power plants were the constantly shifting legislation and regulations along with countless lawsuits (nuisance and frivolous included) that pushed the timelines so far out in the future that the backers either decided to cut their losses or simply ran out of money.
Those conditions do not exist today so you cannot simply extrapolate from past conditions when times have changed. Sorry, the nuclear power industry is not dead. Booga-de-booga! Scares ya, don't it...

So the assertion is that we cannot look to the past to predict future performance.

To an extent that is true; the past is only one area of information we need to examine when we try to understand our path forward. In the case of nuclear plants what it tells us (see graphs) is that claims made based on uncritical acceptance of the data provided by the nuclear industry consistently underestimate the costs of nuclear power in all areas.




Is that a surprise or controversial to any rational, open-minded person that an industry would try to promote a picture of themselves that favors their economic well being? Of course it isn't. But we get absolutely bizarre responses from the nuclear environmentalists that are unfounded in fact or reason; their only purpose of such bizarre replies seems to be to insulate the nuclear industry from any criticism at all by any means necessary.

Another favorite meme of the nuclear environmentalist is that "if you oppose nuclear power, then you are a de facto promoter of coal and fossil fuels". Let's look at how the supporting logic for that claim is laid out:

Look at history and you will clearly see that for every nuclear power plant that was stopped (by whatever means), another one or two coal power plants have been built. The demand for electricity has never stopped going up. The utility companies know that if they do not supply enough power to exactly match demand there will be disastrous results like brown outs and black outs. That is the nature of electricity. It isn't a series of tubes.

The energy users in America, residential, corporate and industrial, are not going to wait 30 years for the amount of renewables we need to be built. A total switch of our energy sources is going to take decades. We need to have as much solar power as we can get, it does not matter if that is on your roof or a huge field of solar panels or solar thermal power. We also need as much wind energy production as we can possibly implement as well. The same goes for geothermal power plants, wave and tidal power and biofuels. Even landfill gas should be tapped as a source of energy. As a side note, it makes me sick to my stomach to see the landfill in my area burning off the methane produced by the landfill. They are in the process now of installing a generator there and I can't wait till it comes online.

But to deny that nuclear power has a very important role to play in helping America to finally end our addiction to fossil fuels is pure insanity.

To answer the question of which environmental groups supports nuclear power, look at the former leader of Greenpeace. He has come to realize that the coal industry is the main beneficiary of Greenpeace's opposition to nuclear power.

Look at the fiasco of the California Air Resource Board decision to end the electric car mandate for California (which effectively killed off the electric car, or at least helped). I see the same effect happening in the environmental groups.

This poster is well aware of the FACT that it takes much, much, much longer to bring nuclear power online than it does to bring renewable energy online. Nuclear power is also far more expensive than the renewable/energy efficiency alternative. So, any money that is spent on nuclear is, IN FACT, slowing the transition away from carbon based fuels.

However, that knowledge doesn't stop our nuclear environmentalist, no. That mindset sees PROOF in the cherry picked slice of the historical record used here, whereas before such a slice (and it was in the proper context) was rejected as being only worthy of derision. Yes, instead of the earlier ridicule, we now have, "Look at history and you will clearly see that for every nuclear power plant that was stopped (by whatever means), another one or two coal power plants have been built"

That is true, but when we think about how it comes on the heels of the first statement criticizing the use of history as a means of determining future performance it really is more informative at a deeper level related to the perspective of the nuclear environmentalist. We can at least find some consistency in the position however, when we note that in both cases contextual analysis is ignored in order to promote a false position that is favorable to the nuclear industry's efforts to improve public opinion of their product.

A comprehensive analysis of renewable energy resources and technologies was accomplished by the UN for the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. This analysis demonstrated that we could, in fact, operate a modern culture on renewable energy sources alone with existing and very near term technologies. Those "near term" technologies are now being deployed at an incredible rate. There is no dispute in any academic literature focused on design of energy and environmental systems about the ability of renewable energy to deliver what we need. It is a settled issue and has been for nearly 20 years.

The nuclear environmentalist would have you believe that coal interests are opposed to nuclear power - and a few of them are. However, a comparison of the range of economic stakeholders for coal is almost identical to the range of economic stakeholders for coal. Again, this is a demonstrable fact. The minerals mining industries, huge project developers like Halliburton and Bechtel, the utilities, boilermakers, even the grid operators are all financially dependent on the existing centralized energy system and they have opposed the deployment of renewable energy since it started being an issue in he 70s.

They know that the type of distributed grid that supports renewable energy will reduce their role in supplying power to a role that is better described as peripheral rather than central. We will need them to move wind energy and large scale solar around but that will ultimately be less than perhaps 40% of the electricity consumed. In other words, if push comes to shove, consumers will be able to get along without them.

The new big players will be companies like Sharp or BYD, large electronic manufacturers that will make money selling devices at the costs of manufacturing instead of charging for the energy itself.

So it is pretty clear where the economic interests supporting nuclear power are. It is also clear that the misinformation being distributed by nuclear environmentalists is designed to tackle the biggest obstacle faced by the nuclear industry - lack of public support.

Detailed analysis of public beliefs and values tells us that concern for climate change DOES NOT predict whether a person supports nuclear power. What DOES predict whether they support nuclear power is if they trust the nuclear industry. The broader research further tells us that such trust in the nuclear industry is a result of the same values that predict support for coal and petroleum. Again, this is information that is well known on this board, but still the nuclear environmentalists try to portray support for renewables as indicating secret support for coal.

And finally one last point. Note the use of Patrick Moore as greenwashing for the nuclear environmentalist. That is in spite of the FACT that Moore is paid by the nuclear industry specifically to perform that function. He is paid to go around the world and support nuclear energy, trading on his early involvement in Greenpeace. That is his sole function - to be a recognizable "green voice" that supports the nuclear industry. He doesn't work to make nuclear power better, he is simply a paid shill.

As do all other major environmental organizations that I am aware of. Greenpeace itself totally rejects nuclear power as a viable path to a noncarbon, clean and sustainable energy system.

[GliderGuider]

74. Another C&P bludgeon? No thanks. /nt

[kristopher]

76. That is all original text.

[GliderGuider]

77. Even if it were, the response is still no thanks.

The fight is with coal. Every weapon at our disposal, both technical and policy, must be used in that fight.

I reject the notion that nuclear is a "third rate solution" because I see it as an effective tool to supply the low-carbon electricity that we must have if we want to have any hope of cutting the growing adoption of coal.

Renewables are not doing the job at this point. I believe that in this political climate they can not do the job alone. As you point out, the constituencies for wind and nuclear tend to have different bases, so the political efforts on both sides should be additive rather than zero-sum. If that's true then we might win against coal. If it's not true then we will surely lose.

[Nihil]

88. "Original" = "Only a cut & paste bludgeon from your own opinion posts"

The fact that you wrote far more of it than your previous pet paste buffers
doesn't alter the fact that is it a redundant paste buffer full of anti-nuclear
blather that has only two purposes:

1) To shut down (as in "shout down") any opposing voice;

2) To smear anyone who *dares* to doubt your word is gospel (for whatever reason)
as "nukies", "false", "greenwashing" and all the rest.

I have read the same screed three times (so far) this morning and each time it
has been purely to rant at your opposition (whoever it happens to be) rather than
to inform.

You are more than capable of "informing" and I really appreciate it when you do so.

Mass "cut & paste" replies and facile "links to previous reply" posts are a very
poor substitute for genuinely relevent information.

[kristopher]

94. a very poor substitute for genuinely relevent information.

That is an apt description of ALL of the content of your posts.

[Nihil]

96. OK, so that's another argument that you admit that you've lost., (n/t)

:shrug:

[GliderGuider]

78. There's something I don't understand, maybe you can clarify it

I'm well aware that we have different positions on this, and I understand pretty well by now what yours is, even though I don't share it. I also understand that our positions seem irreconcilable.

What I don't understand is why it's so important that I personally acquiesce to your world view. Even if yours was correct and mine wasn't, why does it matter so much? You seem to get quite worked up over my intransigence, to the point of becoming personally insulting. If I was in a position to influence policy I might understand your intensity, but this is just the internet and I'm just one guy. I'm just not worth getting that wound up over. Why all the sturm und drang?

[bananas]

79. Wow - I just looked at that thread.

:puke:

[kristopher]

75. In a long list of meaningless posts you've made this one is at the top..

You want to let me know that Jacobson is only "moderately more qualified than GG"?

GG, you didn't dispute that, in fact you seemed to agree. Would you mind posting your CV for comparison? I mean, you could be but all I've ever seen is work like the OP that wouldn't pass muster in a college junior level economics class.

Here is Jacobson's CV for the record. My apologies to those on dialup for the time it might take this to load.

Mark Z. Jacobson
Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Professor by Courtesy of Energy Resources Engineering
Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Mailcode 4020
473 Via Ortega, Room 397
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-4020, USA


Degrees and Employment

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

Scientific Background

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

Awards, Scholarships, and Fellowships

Yale Book award, 1982

Distinguished Scholar Award, Palo Alto Unified School District, 1983

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

National Merit scholarship, 1983

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

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

Division I NCAA-ITCA Academic All-American, 1987

Stanford University Tennis scholarship, Stanford University, 1986-7

Department of Civil Engineering academic fellowship, Stanford University, 1987

Second place, ASCE hazardous waste essay writing competition, 1987

Chancellor's fellowship, UCLA, 1989

Neiburger teaching award, UCLA, 1992

Dissertation Year fellowship, UCLA, 1993-4

NSF Career Early Development Award, 1995-1998

Powell Foundation Award, Stanford University, 1995-1996

Frederick Terman Fellowship, Stanford University, 1997-2000

Presidential Research Grant for Junior Faculty, Stanford University, 1998

NASA New Investigator Award, 1999-2002

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grants

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

Unique Features of GATOR-GCMOM (Click here)

Ph. D. Thesis

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

Books

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


Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles as First Author

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles (Alphabetical)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

67. Fridlind, A. M., and M. Z. Jacobson, Point and column aerosol radiative closure during ACE 1: Effects of particle shape and size, J. Geophys. Res., 108 (D3) doi:10.1029/2001JD001553, 2003.
68. Ginnebaugh, D.L., J. Liang, and M.Z. Jacobson, Examining the Temperature Dependence of Ethanol (E85) versus Gasoline Emissions on Air Pollution with a Largely-Explicit Chemical Mechanism, Atmos. Environ., 44, 1192-1199, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.12.024, 2010.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

82. Sta. Maria, M.R.V., and M.Z. Jacobson, Investigating the effect of large wind farms on energy in the atmosphere, Energies, 2, 816-836, doi:10.3390/en20400816, 2009.

83. Stoutenburg, E.D., N. Jenkins, and M.Z. jacobson, Power output variations of co-located offshore wind turbines and wave energy converters in California, Renewable Energy, 35, 2781-2791, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2010.04.033, 2010.

84. Streets, D. G., K. Jiang, X. Hu, J. E. Sinton, X.-Q. Zhang, D. Xu, M. Z. Jacobson, and J. E. Hansen, Recent reductions in China's greenhouse gas emissions, Science, 294, 1835-1836, 2001.

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

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

87. Stuart, A.L., and M.Z. Jacobson, A numerical model of the partitioning of trace chemical solutes during drop freezing, J. Atmos. Chem..53, 13-42, 2006.

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

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

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

91. Wilkerson, J.T., M.Z. Jacobson, A. Malwitz, S. Balasubramanian, R. Wayson, G. Fleming, A.D. Naiman, and S.K. Lele (2010) Analysis of emission data from global commercial aviation: 2004 and 2006, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 6391-6408.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Invited Keynote Talks at Conferences / Workshops and Distinguished Lectures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Invited Talks at Conferences / Workshops Since 1994

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

66. A plan for a sustainable future using wind, water, and sun, 7th California Wind Energy Collaborative Forum, Davis, California, June 7, 2010.

67. The enhancement of local air pollution by urban CO2 domes, National Association of Clean Air Agencies, Internet conference, May 12, 2010.

68. High-altitude wind conference, Stanford University, September 28, 2010.

69. EPA STAR Meeting, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, October 4, 2010.

70. FAA/PARTNER Meeting, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, October 19-21, 2010.

71. ACCRI Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, November 15-17, 2010.

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

Invited Seminar Talks Outside of Stanford University Since 1994

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

64. The enhancement of local air pollution by CO2 domes and the effects of black carbon, the second-leading cause of global warming, Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, San Franci

[GliderGuider]

80. How could I possibly be as qualified as a demi-god like Mark Jacobson?

Compared to the real heavy hitters of the world, though, I suspect that we both fall well short of the mark.

I'm content to let my ideas speak for themselves.

[joshcryer]

83. MZJ isn't making any projections that debunk GGs OP.

Simple.

[kristopher]

85. The fundamental conclusion of the Review paper completely disproves the OP's conclusions

The OP concludes we need nuclear because we are not responding fast enough. Jacobson shows that the more we divert resources from renewables to nuclear, the slower the response becomes.

Are you under the impression that you are good at thinking?

[GliderGuider]

86. Well, let's see...

Jacobson says that a "large wind farm" can be completed in 1-2 years. He doesn't specify how big "large" is, but a note on the AWEA web site says that a 50 MW farm can be completed in 18 months to two years, so that seems like a reasonable estimate for a "large" wind farm. To be even more generous we'll say that a wind farm of 100 MW capacity can be completed in 2 years. Given a capacity factor of 0.25, that works out to an installation rate of 12.5 MW of actual electrical generation per year.

Jacobson also says that a nuclear plant takes 10-19 years to build. We'll say for this assessment that it takes 20 years. Now nuclear plants are generally around 1 GW. Let's say it has a capacity factor of 0.80. Even with very conservative assumptions that works out to an installation rate of 40 MW per year - a build-out rate 3 times as fast as wind.

How does Jacobson show that nuclear construction slows down the installation of wind? I didn't see that in the article.

[kristopher]

87. Why don't you write him and ask?

I'm not going to take time tracking down another piece of your sophistry - it will suffice to quote the clear conclusion in the abstract:

"Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent a opportunity cost loss."

The "opportunity cost loss" means it slows the response down.

[GliderGuider]

89. Opportunity cost is only a consideration when the technologies are equally accessible.

Horses for courses. There are lots of populated areas in northern continental interiors that aren't suitable for wind, solar, hydro, geothermal or tidal power. If they wish to build local generating capacity, their choices are limited to coal and nuclear. What would we prefer them to build? I'd much rather they built nuclear than coal.

Again, I'm not talking about building nuclear instead of wind wherever wind makes more sense. I'm saying we ought not to take nuclear power off the table as an option when low-carbon sources of electricity are so desperately needed. If we (the global "we") make it more difficult to build nuclear capacity, the market is going to respond by building more coal...

[NickB79]

92. Really? You can't quote MZJ word and verse?

After the zillions of times you've copied and pasted his abstracts, I'd expect you'd have his entire collection of work dedicated to memory by now.

[kristopher]

93. Your analysis was so obviously flawed I didn't think more was required.

Coupled to the obviously poor construction of your example, the conclusion is all that was required.

Since you responded as you did, you still don't see it.

We dedicate $10B to each project technology.

In two years we build 10B worth of wind, most of which started producing and selling electricity during the construction period. Project completion does not mark the beginning of operations. But that aside let's say that the wind plant starts generating at the end of the construction period.

Nuclear is producing nothing.

Wind continues to produce electricity for the entire time nuclear is being built while nuclear has continued to produce nothing.

By the time the nuclear plant comes online, it is far far behind the renewable resource in actual generation.

IIRC Jacobson ran out the process for 100 years and included refurbishing and replacing the various technologies as appropriate.

The overall results when ALL consequences and benefits are tabulated are not even close:

http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.Service.FreeContent.ImageService.svc/ImageService/image/GA?id=B809990C

This view by Cooper is also informative:

[NickB79]

95. Again, you're confusing me with the OP

I didn't make any analysis or offer and constructions.

But apparently I'm the one with reading comprehension problems here :rofl:

[NickB79]

2. I wonder what that graph will look like when 2008-2009 data is included? nt

[NNadir]

11. Solar PV Power and Wind will be shown to produce so much energy that we will be exporting energy

to Venus, Mars and Jupiter.

[GliderGuider]

12. Your wish is my command

Courtesy of the fine folks that brought you the Macondo oil spill, I have taken the data from the BP 2010 Statistical Review of Energy to construct the following picture:



Notice that all the lines are rising except for nuclear. That should make kristopher a happy man. The parts of the graph that matter may not make the rest of us so happy, though.

My conclusions stand. Unless we get something that alters the playing field dramatically in the next 10 years, we're hooped.

ETA: In case it needs to be said again, I think that declining line for nuclear power is a luxury we can ill afford right now...

[NickB79]

13. At least coal growth seems to have leveled off

The cynic in me thinks it's probably a temporary blip, though.

[GliderGuider]

14. It's the global recession. nt

[kristopher]

18. No it isn't. Coal was already stagnating before the recession hit.

The sector where merchant plants (vs places where government guarantees exist) has been having a great deal of trouble getting financing because of the expectation that carbon management policies are inevitable. There is also the project size that is working against new merchant coal - they are nearly as big a financing problem as nuclear just because of project size.


Historic Capacity Additions by Years

• Actual plant capacity, commissioned since 2000, has been far less than new capacity announced; the year 2002 report of announcements reflected a schedule of over 36,000 MW to be installed by 2007, whereas ≈ 4,500 MW (12%) were achieved

• The trend over several years has reflected the bulk of power plant developments shifting out in time due to project delays

• Delays and cancelations have been attributed to regulatory uncertainty (regarding climate change) or strained project economics due to escalating costs in the industry

• Cancellations become more prevalent as prospects of fulfilling all projects in the queue become impractical

Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants
January 8, 2010
National Energy Technology Laboratory
Office of Systems Analyses and Planning
Erik Shuster

[GliderGuider]

20. The coal graph was linear from 2002 till 2008. It only inflected at the start of the recession.

That's actual power generated, not plant construction etc. Actual power generated is the best estimate of greenhouse gas production.

[kristopher]

19. It depends on what the circumstances of the declining line for nuclear are.

*IF* we are extending the life of the plants to the maximum consistent with safe, cost-effective operation before closing them and the line is declining then that is acceptable since it would require investment in new plants to change the slope. Itt is the investment in new plants that has the preventable negative effect on carbon emissions.

New nuclear is a problem as far as bang-for-your-buck carbon reductions go.

Old nuclear's problem is potentially unsafe operation under pressure to produce profits. If a plant is problematic (such as Vermont Yankee) then it should be shut down. If they are operating safely then they should be allowed to continue operations until such time as they are unsafe to operate.

[GliderGuider]

22. When considering the operational safety of power plants it's good to keep in mind

That the operation of every coal power plant in the world is inherently unsafe. They were designed to be unsafe. There is no way to make them safe.

[NNadir]

23. Problem with bang for the buck? How come so many European nations are cutting their massive

so called renewable subsidies.

As for the "nuclear decline," China and India have brought enough reactors on line in the last two years so as to eqwal world solar PV production.

Game's up. China will build as more reactors in the next ten years than France and Germany have combined, specifically 80.

[DrGregory]

27. With good maintenance...

If they are operating safely then they should be allowed to continue operations until such time as they are unsafe to operate.

------------------------------------------------

There's no reason that the plants should ever approach
being unsafe. With good maintenance, the plants will
last long beyond their licensed lifetime.

Dr. Greg

[Dogmudgeon]

28. Doesn't anyone FIX stuff when it's broken anymore?

Such a throw-away state of mind we have!

--d!

[joshcryer]

63. 500 new coal plants in the next 5-10 years.

It's a goddamn travesty.

[GliderGuider]

30. Lest we forget what this bun-fight is all about

The fossil fuel consumption given is the sum of all oil, natural gas and coal produced. In order to ensure a level playing field, each fuel has been converted into its nominal carbon content and the total mass of carbon shown is the sum of the carbon produced from all three fuels.

We can clearly see the impact of the 1990-1993 recession. The one hopeful sign in this graph is that carbon production has actually declined in the last two years. Of course, it took a destabilization of the global economy to accomplish that. Still, it points out that one sure path to CO2 reduction is a global economic crash. It's not the only path, of course, but the others look harder to accomplish at this point, while that one may be a pretty sure bet.

[kristopher]

31. How about a response?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x260790#260801

Perhaps even one that isn't pure BS for a change?

[Dead_Parrot]

33. Now that you've got a response,

will you bother to read it? Or will you jam your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalala"?

[kristopher]

34. How does it "help" to get less product for each dollar and year of effort?

The question was very clear and your contributions to updating the graph do not address that question at all. Now, why don't you stop trying to divert the topic and explain how your trust in the nuclear industry is going to magically make their product more cost/time effective?

Again: "How does it "help" to get less product for each dollar and year of effort?"

It is another red herring on the lines of "nuclear generates more than wind so nuclear is the best choice going forward"." It is a logical fallacy on the lines of "man has never flown therefore man can never fly."

There are a lot of factors that go into what technologies are superior at meeting our climate change needs, and the one being cited in the verbal argument of the OP is that nuclear deploys more rapidly than renewables. Jacobson's analysis (and many others) demonstrate that conclusion is false.

Public discussions of nuclear power, and a surprising number of articles in peer-reviewed journals, are increasingly based on four notions unfounded in fact or logic:

1. variable renewable sources of electricity (windpower and photovoltaics) can provide little or no reliable electricity because they are not “baseload”—able to run all the time;

2. those renewable sources require such enormous amounts of land, hundreds of times more than nuclear power does, that they’re environmentally unacceptable;

3. all options, including nuclear power, are needed to combat climate change; and

4. nuclear power’s economics matter little because governments must use it anyway to protect the climate.

...

This review relies chiefly on five papers... They document why expanding nuclear power is uneconomic, is unnecessary, is not undergoing the claimed renaissance in the global marketplace (because it fails the basic test of cost-effectiveness ever more robustly), and, most importantly, will reduce and retard climate protection. That’s because—the empirical cost and installation data show—new nuclear power is so costly and slow that, based on empirical U.S. market data, it will save about 2–20 times less carbon per dollar, and about 20–40 times less carbon per year, than investing instead in the market winners—efficient use of electricity and what The Economist calls “micropower,”...

Four Nuclear Myths: A Commentary on Stewart Brand’s Whole Earth Discipline and on Similar Writings
Amory Lovins
Available for download: http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-09_FourNuclearMyths

[Dead_Parrot]

35. You do understand that if you have more of something, it's not less?

You're right, it doesn't help to get less product for each dollar and year of effort. But since that's not happing, it's largely irrelevant.

Incidentally, if you rummage down through Lovins' references and find his micropower spreadsheet, you see he draws this data from the http://www.localpower.org/pdf/report_worldsurvey05.pdf">2005 Wade report which includes coal fired plants.

Personally, I am not in the least bit suprised to find Lovins pimping for coal: They pay his bills, after all. What puzzles me is why you think more of the same is going to help.

[kristopher]

42. You've made another stunningly off-target presentation of information

Dead_Parrot wrote

You do understand that if you have more of something, it's not less?
You're right, it doesn't help to get less product for each dollar and year of effort. But since that's not happing, it's largely irrelevant.
Incidentally, if you rummage down through Lovins' references and find his micropower spreadsheet, you see he draws this data from the 2005 Wade report which includes coal fired plants.
Personally, I am not in the least bit suprised to find Lovins pimping for coal: They pay his bills, after all. What puzzles me is why you think more of the same is going to help.

2008 Edition: The purpose of the micropower database is to present a clear, rigorous, and independent assessment of the global capacity and electrical output of micropower (all renewables, except large hydro, and cogeneration), showing its development over time and documenting all data and assumptions. With minor exceptions, this information is based on bottom-up, transaction-by-transaction equipment counts reported by the relevant suppliers and operators, cross-checked against assessments by reputable governmental and intergovernmental technical agencies. For most technologies, historic data from 1990 through 2005 or 2006 is available, as well as forecasts through 2010. Available information includes global annual capacity additions and output, global cumulative capacity, and capacity factor. The Micropower Database Methodology is also included here. The 2010 Micropower Database (September) (RMI ID 2010-14) contains the most recent data.

So your claim is that:

Lovins compiled and made available to the public a database that lists ALL of the EXISTING global micropower projects;

some of the existing micropower projects in the database use coal as fuel;

therefore your conclusion is that in spite of all of Lovins' writings that are designed to promote carbon reduction and move the country away from fossil fuels, this is proof that Lovins is "pimping for coal" and wishes to perpetuate business as usual.



You do this in response to a question asking why should we support nuclear power when a diverse set of analysts have shown that it delivers less carbon reductions in terms of both time to deploy and money than the renewable/efficiency alternative that Lovins actually DOES argue for. But buried in your sickening attempt to misinform is this kernel of truth: you wrote, "You're right, it doesn't help to get less product for each dollar and year of effort."



Nuclear power is a third rate solution to climate change and energy security needs that is being promoted not by qualified independent energy analysts, but by the nuclear industry. All major environmental organizations reject nuclear power as a valid contributor to the effort because it slows down the transition to a noncarbon infrastructure and wastes money that can produce greater carbon reduction measured on a dollar for dollar basis.

[Dead_Parrot]

53. Let's see...

So your claim is that:

Lovins compiled and made available to the public a database that lists ALL of the EXISTING global micropower projects;

No, they were compiled by WADE, Lovins just used the figures. This would be obvious even to you if you looked at Lovins' references.

some of the existing micropower projects in the database use coal as fuel;

"the great proportion of this consisting of high efficiency cogeneration systems in the industrial and district heating sectors, fuelled
by coal and gas and, to a lesser extent, biomass-based fuels." - There, I saved you the bother of having to read the report.

therefore your conclusion is that in spite of all of Lovins' writings that are designed to promote carbon reduction and move the country away from fossil fuels, this is proof that Lovins is "pimping for coal" and wishes to perpetuate business as usual.

Here, I am referring only to this block of text, and I admit the possibility that the error is down to Lovins' negligence rather than deliberate duplicity. I'm assuming your reason for pasting it is just your usual habit of slapping anything up if you like the look of it without bothering to check any of the facts, but feel free to offer an alternate explanation.

You do this in response to a question asking why should we support nuclear power when a diverse set of analysts have shown that it delivers less carbon reductions in terms of both time to deploy and money than the renewable/efficiency alternative that Lovins actually DOES argue for. But buried in your sickening attempt to misinform is this kernel of truth: you wrote, "You're right, it doesn't help to get less product for each dollar and year of effort."

Nuclear power is a third rate solution to climate change and energy security needs that is being promoted not by qualified independent energy analysts, but by the nuclear industry. All major environmental organizations reject nuclear power as a valid contributor to the effort because it slows down the transition to a noncarbon infrastructure and wastes money that can produce greater carbon reduction measured on a dollar for dollar basis.

Well, feel free to find something to back you up. Lovins' comparison of nuclear to "micropower" is only valid if you think the solution is to build more fossil fuel plants: It says nothing about renewable energy, other than it is apparently something best avoided if you want the figures to look good. All the Mycle Schneider graph shows, is that they are crap at predictions.

Collectively, all they show is show is that you don't fact-check your sources. Yet you seem perfectly content with your conclusions, which is... interesting.

You're right about the major environmental groups of course, but since we seem to heading for the biggest catastrophe since the PT event I have to wonder if that's actually the right position. Because let's face it, it's not working out terribly well so far.

[kristopher]

54. You are an endless font of crap...

Microgeneration is the small-scale generation of heat and power by individuals, small businesses and communities to meet their own needs, as alternatives to traditional centralized grid-connected power. Although this may be motivated by practical considerations, such as unreliable grid power or long distance from the grid, the term is mainly used currently for environmentally-conscious approaches that aspire to zero or low-carbon footprints.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microgeneration

Nuclear power is a third rate solution to climate change and your unceasing efforts to spread the propaganda of the nuclear industry to try and make them seem something they are not are duly noted.

[Dead_Parrot]

55. I'm quoting directly from Lovins' source, not wikipedia.

I take from this, that you think Lovins' source is crap: Could be.

Question is, do you think he used a crap source because he wanted to fudge the figures, or did he use a crap source because he's a moron?

edit: Also, do you have any alternate evidence that isn't based on a "font of crap" that we can look at?

[kristopher]

57. You're cherry picking to distort meaning - just like a good little nuke supporter always does.

So when wiki clears the fog you are trying your very hardest to create, you get a bit snippy.

I'll guarantee with 100% certainly that if Lovins never prevents another gram of CO2e from being emitted, he has done several orders of magnitude more good for the climate problem than you and one thousand others like you will ever accomplish.

If he is a moron, we should all be so stupid.

[Dead_Parrot]

58. That's nice.

Let me know if you find any answers, or data.

[GliderGuider]

40. "one that isn't pure BS"

You mean you want me to respond on your terms? Given the differences in our outlooks, I'd say that's highly unlikely. I have provided a response, though.

[kristopher]

47. My facts on behalf of climate vs your fantasies on behalf of nuclear power

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=260790&mesg_id=260933

[Dead_Parrot]

56. "My facts"?

Sorry Kris, you don't get to supply your own facts - only your own conclusions.

[joshcryer]

64. I've been asking this person for over a year to provide projections.

He.simply.won't.do.it.

[wtmusic]

51. Too late to Rec, not too late to Kick.

This is one of the main reasons I've come down in favour of nuclear power. We need to do everything we can to close that gap, because if we don't it will kill us. Because of this widening gap I no longer believe that renewables like wind and solar can do the job. They sure as hell can't do it alone.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[kristopher]

52. Sure they can. You just want to slow them down by diverting funds to nuclear.

From a presentation by John Holdren.

The renewable option: Is it real?

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


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


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

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

What does he say about nuclear?

The nuclear option: size of the challenges

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

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

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



• If these were light-water reactors on the once-through fuel cycle...

---–enrichment of their fuel will require ~250 million Separative Work Units (SWU);

---–diversion of 0.1% of this enrichment to production of HEU from natural uranium would make ~20 gun-type or ~80 implosion-type bombs.



• If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium...

---–the associated flow of separated, directly weapon - usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;

---–diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.



• Spent-fuel production in the once-through case would be...

---–34,000 tonnes/yr, a Yucca Mountain every two years.


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


Mitigation of Human-Caused Climate Change
John P. Holdren

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

John P. Holdren is advisor to President Barack Obama for Science and Technology,
Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology...

Holdren was previously the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University,
director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and
Director of the Woods Hole Research Center.<2>

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

[DrGregory]

59. ERROR ERROR ERROR!!!!

---–diversion of 0.1% of this enrichment to production of HEU from natural uranium would make ~20 gun-type or ~80 implosion-type bombs.
============================

100% WRONG!!!

Reactor fuel is only about 4% enriched. It doesn't matter how much
4% enriched fuel that you divert - you can't make ANY of it into a bomb.

The above statement is weasel worded to say that if you diverted
the 0.1% of the separative work units, one could take natural uranium
and turn it into HEU which is about 90% enriched.

This isn't "stealing" in the conventional sense of taking a physical object.
This means reconfiguring the production plant.

How is the diversion of separative work capacity at the enrichment
plant going to take place? The Government owns the plant.

It's not something the industry can do for itself.

Besides, in over a half-century of operation; NOBODY has done
the "diversion" you hypothesize.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

60. Thank the FSM we've babble on the intertubes to save us from the ignorance of Holdren...

John P. Holdren is advisor to President Barack Obama for Science and Technology,
Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology...

Holdren was previously the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University,
director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and
Director of the Woods Hole Research Center.<2>

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


From a presentation by John Holdren.

The renewable option: Is it real?

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


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


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

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

What does he say about nuclear?

The nuclear option: size of the challenges

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

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

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



• If these were light-water reactors on the once-through fuel cycle...

---–enrichment of their fuel will require ~250 million Separative Work Units (SWU);

---–diversion of 0.1% of this enrichment to production of HEU from natural uranium would make ~20 gun-type or ~80 implosion-type bombs.



• If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium...

---–the associated flow of separated, directly weapon - usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;

---–diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.



• Spent-fuel production in the once-through case would be...

---–34,000 tonnes/yr, a Yucca Mountain every two years.


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


Mitigation of Human-Caused Climate Change
John P. Holdren

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

[DrGregory]

61. I don't care who is he is...

I don't care who he is. If he's saying that you
can make nuclear weapons out of 4% enriched reactor
fuel, or that someone is going to co-opt the
capacity on the US Government owned enrichment
plant to make bomb fuel; then he's just plain WRONG.

There is ZERO way that production of 4% reactor
fuel is going to be co-opted to make nuclear weapons.

Besides, we're talking about the USA. There's ZERO
reason for the US to co-opt the US's commercial
nuclear fuel production in order to get special
nuclear material for weapons.

The USA has MORE than enough special nuclear material
for whatever weapons the USA wants to build.

So why would the USA forgo the use of nuclear energy
because of proliferation concerns. The USA isn't
going to be a proliferation concern.

Dr. Greg

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[joshcryer]

65. 1GW goes online every two weeks in China.

And India is running at similar rates. It's goddamn appalling.

[NNadir]

81. Indians and Chinese use less than 10% per capita energy than Americans.

What is really appalling is that Americans object to the Chinese and Indians trying to live like Americans.

Who declared Americans should live like Gods and also lecture other people on their inability to be Gods? God?

It is telling that with more than 4 times as many people as the United States has, China has just recently managed to reach the same level of dangerous fossil fuel waste dumping that the United States has been practicing for many decades.

I regret of course, that the Indians and Chinese have not agreed to remain impoverished to avoid lectures from smug Americans, but the fact is that they are building a vast number of nuclear reactors. They are training scientists and engineers.

China more honors science students than the United States has science students.

China recently announced an investment in nuclear power that is larger than their annual military budget. (They are not fighting any wars either.)

China will be able to phase out coal long before Americans because they at least know what needs to be done, and don't have their heads up superstitious asses.

[joshcryer]

84. No one should get a pass for building new coal plants, sorry.

[NNadir]

90. No one hates coal more than I do but the point remains that Americans have no right

to complain unless they start dismantling their own coal plants. They have no intention of doing so. They instead tell themselves convenient lies about "clean coal," and so called "renewable energy" none of which are remotely realistic. On top of that they offer fantasies about electric cars.

They have no intention of doing so. The Chinese rate of nuclear power plant construction over the next decade will be one plant every 45 days, and no doubt they will accelerate that pace.

The Americans have NO PLAN, none whatsoever, to do anything at all about their own piggishness.

China will be producing as much climate change gas free energy as the entire United States produces from coal, gas, and nuclear combined by 2050, since they have an announced plan to do so. They will build 400 plants in the time Americans might build 10 or 20? At least their coal burning is an investment. Our coal burning is about having a oblivious drunken party.

When you live at the same level of consumption as the average Chinese, you can complain.

No one hates coal more than I do. I am not for grandfathering it. I'm for phasing it out. I believe I am considered eccentric on this score, although I am quite satisfied with holding a far different opinion than most people.

I don't happen to live at the level of an average, and so I do not vilify the Chinese. I hope they stop building coal but...

[GliderGuider]

91. IMO, the real problem comes down to

How do we make low-carbon electricity a replacement for coal rather than an addition to it? Unless we can actually slow down the adoption of coal, none of our fulminations will make an iota of difference to the outcome. I don't see any mechanism other than global recession/depression that has made a difference in the last 50 years.

[GliderGuider]

97. WTF, you again?

Time to lighten up, yobbo.

I would advise everyone not to pay any attention to this clown, he'a a seriously self-absorbed jerk.

Go outside and play.

[Kolesar]

98. answering your own post?

:shrug:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=260790&mesg_id=260790

[GliderGuider]

99. Yep. Are there rules about that?

[GliderGuider]

100. It just gets tiresome taking all this shit so seriously.

I decided I need a break.

[kristopher]

101. Funny how that happens to coincide with you being completely discredited

Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

[GliderGuider]

102. Oh here, have a smile

There is a beautiful world out there, and life is way too short to worry about what some clowns on the Internet think. I was reminded about that this morning by the person I love more than anyone in the world.

Enjoy yourself.