Why people support nuclear power? The answer research provides is...

[kristopher]

This is drawn from published, peer reviewed research on the beliefs of the public and how those beliefs flow from normative values held.

1) Attitudes toward nuclear power are a result of perceived risk

2) Attitudes and risk perceptions are determined by previously held values and beliefs that serve to determine the level of trust in the nuclear industry.

3) Increased trust in the nuclear industry reduces perceived risk of nuclear power

4) Therefore, higher trust in the nuclear industry and the consequent lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power.

5) Traditional values are defined here as assigning priority to family, patriotism, and stability

6) Altruism is defined as a concern with the welfare of other humans and other species.

7) Neither trust in environmental institutions nor perceived risks from global environmental problems predict a person’s attitudes toward nuclear power.

8) Those with traditional values tend to embrace nuclear power; while those with altruistic values more often reject nuclear power.

9) Altruism is recognized as a dependable predictor of various categories of environmental concern.

10) Traditional values are associated with less concern for the environment and are unlikely to lead to pro-environmental behavioral intentions.



Here is the abstract and full list of references for the paper:
Abstract and references are intended for public use and distribution

The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception
Stephen C. Whitfield,1 Eugene A. Rosa,2 Amy Dan,3 and Thomas Dietz3;

Abstract
Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity. Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades? We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy.

Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power. Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power. Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power. Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.

Evidence of this set of values would be supposedly "Dem" groups like The 3rd Way:
Their site: http://www.thirdway.org/ where other positions are able to be examined.
Position on nuclear:
http://www.thirdway.org/publications/369


Another is the deep-well for Obama's policy perspective:
http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/

http://bipartisanpolicy.org/search/node/nuclear%20energy

[BeFree]

1. Why do people support nuclear power?

Because they are idiots?

[kristopher]

27. It is tempting to think that, but no, they are not idiots.

The study shows a general outlook that places more emphasis on threats perceived to have a more immediate impact on the things they hold dear in life. The polling sample shown (it is typical of many poll results) show that the threat most important in this instance is a secure energy supply.

The entire study can be accessed here;
http://brc.gov/pdfFiles/February2011_Meeting/Feb1-2mtg/Whitfield%20et%20alPublished.pdf

[iemitsu]

2. in other words,

the selfish support nuclear power and those concerned with the future of their communities and the world do not.
it makes sense to me.

[tabasco]

3. Why do people support coal-fired energy?

Utopians screech about awful nuclear power but use as much electricity as everyone else.

[kristopher]

4. Glad you ask - the base of support for coal and nuclear are essentially the same.

Note that the study in the OP determined that, "Neither trust in environmental institutions nor perceived risks from global environmental problems predict a person’s attitudes toward nuclear power."

This indicates that the either/or appeal to coal/nuclear, which falsely dismisses the viable alternative of renewables, is little more than an attempt to expand the base of support with green-washing.

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

[AndyTiedye]

7. I Think Support for Nuclear Power May Have Dropped Off a Bit in the Last Few Weeks

That survey is from 2009. I think nuclear power may have lost some support recently for some reason.

[bread_and_roses]

5. Lots of people don't. Institutions do. You are attacking the wrong target

If by "utopians" you mean those of us opposed to nuclear energy, most of us are also opposed to coal, and most certainly to mountaintop removal. We're also opposed to deep-water drilling, the extraction of oil from tar sands, drilling in the arctic preserves, etc. But we, too, live in this world. We cannot as individuals change the energy usage patterns in this country: we cannot by our individual decisions move jobs closer to homes, provide adequate public transportation, retrofit public buildings for conservation and efficiency - hell, many, if not most of us, cannot even afford as individuals to retrofit our own homes. We can't afford to put in our own windmills and solar panels.

These issues have to be addressed on the institutional/societal level - funny, we thought when we elected Obama that we were making a start in that direction. More fools us.

[bloom]

6. I think rationing would be a good idea

Everyone gets so much - so people would build knowing how much they could expect to use. Huge stores would get much less than they do now - stores would be built with lower ceilings - people could wear layered clothes.

There are other solutions besides ripping up mountains and creating nuclear waste. I think it's way past time to implement them.

[kristopher]

17. That would be hard to administer, wouldn't it?

How do you decide who gets how much?

If a market is *properly* regulated it actually is the most effective way to get the right amount of goods to the right people. What you don't want to do is try to design the goals of social justice into the wrong place - which rationing would, IMO, do.

The need for rationing presumes an unequal distribution of the wealth needed to buy energy. I'd rather see policies (an aggressive and progressive tax on wealth and income) that caps the ratio between lowest wage earners and top wage earners at about 1:30.

If that were done even low income families would have the ability to meet their needs in our hypothetical properly regulated market.

Lot of "ifs" in that, but there would be a lot in a rationing system also.

[bloom]

29. Rationing

I think it's the only thing that makes sense once people accept that there are limited quantities of things that everyone needs/wants.

It's been implemented in Japan with the current crisis. I think that that what with mountaintop removal and the problems of Nuclear that we should recognize that we are in a crisis. Instead of destroying everything - the answer is to limit how much people can use.

Most people use way more than necessary - the only way to stop it is to have limits. People would adjust.

[kristopher]

30. How do you enforce it?

"Rationing" implies total control over the supply. I would not endorse such centralized control if it were possible because of the social consequences (further concentration of wealth and power) even if it were possible as a long term solution, which it isn't.

It is a poorly conceived idea that does nothing to address the underlying problems we have with energy.

But it is great that you are thinking outside the box; that is a necessary part of finding the answer.

[mindwalker_i]

8. Fossil fuels kill more people than nuclear

The smoke and dust cause a lot of problems, and more people die from them. But the connection isn't as clear - people don't know that coal or oil are what's killing them or their neighbors.

While I can really understand railing against nuclear - nuclear accidents suck - it's logically inconsistent to limit protests to nuclear. It's stupid to protest nuclear and argue to stay with fossil fuels.

[kristopher]

9. Your argument is itself a logical fallacy

Fossil is bad.
Nuclear is not fossil.
Therefore nuclear is good.

No, nuclear is ALSO bad.
Renewables/energy efficiency are good.


6 Standard lies of the nuclear industry

1. nuclear power is cheap;
2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;
3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;
4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;
5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;
6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.


Take the cure:
!
V

[mindwalker_i]

24. I did not claim that nuclear is good

I did claim that fossil fuels are bad, possibly worse than nuclear and worse in that people don't see the problems with fossil fuels as clearly.

[kristopher]

25. Let's look at what you did write...

"It's stupid to protest nuclear and argue to stay with fossil fuels."

Since no one had made such an argument this strawman you adopted from the post you responded to became your very own.

Additionally, given that the only purpose for using that particular straw man would have been to falsely characterize opponents of nuclear as being somehow in favor of coal; you will have to forgive the reader for assuming that your motive was to protect the dainty reputation of the nuclear industry.

[mindwalker_i]

26. You're right, that was not crystal clear

Let me try to make it clearer:

If someone vocally protests one thing only, to some extent it supports the alternatives - if I were to loudly protest nuclear without saying anything against fossil fuel plants, in a relative sense I'm supporting the other main source of energy, fossil. So the original statement was kind of a strawman and kind of not. Look at it this way: is a million people yell about nuclear energy, nuclear plants will not be built (as much). Instead, fossil fuel plants will probably be built - coal. So in essence, protesting one ends up supporting the other, relatively.

Hopefully having cleared that up, the key argument I'm making is that fossil fuel use will make this world uninhabitable to humans. Nuclear may make parts of it uninhabitable, but I doubt it will have a great an effect. It might, depending on how much nuclear is built and how badly it breaks, but fossil fuel usage WILL. There are better designs for nuclear plants that could reduce the risks as well.

If electric cars get to the point where they can replace gas cars, it would be better to power them from nuclear than more coal plants, and also start installing solar to reduce the need for those plants over time.

[kristopher]

28. Why are you trying to hide your support for nuclear?

You are clearly following the nuclear industry playbook with your attempt to portray opposition to nuclear as de facto support for coal - a position that has no merit at all since renewable energy is a SUPERIOR method of addressing our dependence on fossil fuels.

Only a dyed-in-the-wool proponent of nuclear power makes the false claims you are making.

All of the following statements are true:

1. nuclear power is the most expensive option;

2. learning and new standardized designs do not solve all past problems with nuclear power;

3. the waste problem is a real problem, even if we were to follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;

4. climate change does not make a renaissance inevitable - in fact it argues against more dependence on nuclear also;

5. a renewable energy grid that enables greater efficiency is a superior technical non-carbon alternative to nuclear and coal;

6. there’s every reason to believe that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.

[mindwalker_i]

31. I'm not hiding my support for nuclear at all

I'm simply pointing out that nuclear is better than fossils in terms of the amount of death it causes. The only point of yours above that I would dispute is that nuclear is more expensive than all - it depends on how and what you measure. Renewables would be great if they supply enough power (I've alluded to that many times in this thread), but I get the sense they do not, yet. They have not been deployed to the extent necessary to replace fossil and nuclear power.

There's a lot of hysteria surrounding nuclear power and I can understand why (and have explained that several times). Unfortunately that leads people to make judgements based more on emotional reactions than on facts. That's what concerns me the most, that people protest nuclear power no matter what, even though renewables aren't capable of providing enough power, meaning that coal will be used instead, and this is worse for us and the planet in the long run.

It's unfortunate that making these arguments based on the facts that I know makes be a shill for the nuclear industry. I'll have to reevaluate other people labeled as shills based on this.

[kristopher]

32. True-to-form support for nuclear.

The largest body of discussion about "hysteria" is coming from nuclear supporters who insist on trying to label anyone and everyone that questions nuclear power as "hysterical".


They are also fond of lables like "antiscience" and "coal supporters" etc.

So far, you have followed their playbook 100%. You aren't coming across as "reasonable" my good friend, and your statements are fr from "well founded and well reasoned", you are coming across as just another pronuke voice using innuendo and false conclusions in an attempt to play down the events at Fukushima in order to preserve the nuclear industry.

It's a free country and you have every right to your point of view; but we don't have to accept it nor even like it.

[mindwalker_i]

33. Geeze, all you have to do now

is call me Hitler. I've acknowledged a lot of your points and tried to make reasoned arguments to the ones I disagreed with, but the response I get is, "100% pro-nuke playbook."

[abqmufc]

39. See this report and this article.

The report by Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), third printing 2010 (web version) entitled "Carbon-Free and nuClear-Free a Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy" by Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D.
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/CarbonFreeNuclearFree.pd...

Here is a great article on fluoride in toothpaste and the a-bomb entitled "Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb."
http://www.fluoridation.com/atomicbomb.htm

An excerpt from the article....
"Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide "evidence useful in litigation" against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents show.

Human studies were required. Bomb program researchers played a leading role in the design and implementation of the most extensive U.S. study of the health effects of fluoridating public drinking water--conducted in Newburgh, New York from 1945 to 1956. Then, in a classified operation code-named "Program F," they secretly gathered and analyzed blood and tissue samples from Newburgh citizens, with the cooperation of State Health Department personnel.

The original secret version--obtained by these reporters--of a 1948 study published by Program F scientists in the Journal of the American Dental Association shows that evidence of adverse health effects from fluoride was censored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) – considered the most powerful of Cold War agencies – for reasons of national security.

The bomb program's fluoride safety studies were conducted at the University of Rochester, site of one of the most notorious human radiation experiments of the Cold War, in which unsuspecting hospital patients were injected with toxic doses of radioactive plutonium. The fluoride studies were conducted with the same ethical mind-set, in which "national security" was paramount.

The U.S. government's conflict of interest--and its motive to prove fluoride "safe" – has not until now been made clear to the general public in the furious debate over water fluoridation since the 1950's, nor to civilian researchers and health professionals, or journalists.

The declassified documents resonate with growing body of scientific evidence, and a chorus of questions, about the health effects of fluoride in the environment." {snip}

For this reason I will never trust the nuclear industry (along with many other related declassified documents relating to releases at Hanford Nuclear facility in WA state). However, I do not see fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas as the only other option. It does not have to be one or the other, that is what the IEER report shows us.

thanks.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[kristopher]

11. The only thing to wonder about is your insistence on falsely framing the issue.

The data provided is very clear; it isn't ambiguous at all. It supports the idea that you're engaged in a baseless attempt to smear those who are actually focused on the goal of addressing AGW with your own failings;

Nuclear power is the flip side of coal.

PS, have I ever told you how very much your writings resemble those of Rod Adams? His favorite tactic is also based on slimy insinuations and unfounded personal attacks. Reading what he writes always leaves me feeling the need for a hot shower.

In any case, see the nuclear industry funded study in the op and the example of typical polling that follows for evidence that directly contradicts your .... perspective, shall we say.

[txlibdem]

14. Who got caught copy-and-pasting garbage and coal lobby talking points?

The only way nuclear is related to coal is that whenever a nuclear power plant is stopped or shut down two or three coal power plants get built.

Nuclear is the anti-coal. And it is coal and oil that are killing our planet as we speak.

[kristopher]

15. if nuclear is the "anti-coal" then why...

Is there about a 90% overlap of economic interests and a virtual 100% alignment of values based support?

Sorry, but your claim doesn't stand scrutiny. Perhaps if you could show some actual evidence based on research? Oh, wait, we already have that don't we...

[txlibdem]

21. Sorry but your claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny

History and facts are on my side. You have a poll put out by who-knows-who with a political or economic agenda. I give it zero credence, especially when it says that more people want oil than want either nuclear or coal. Exactly who did they poll, oil industry employees and execs? Zero credibility.

[XemaSab]

18. Word

n/t

[Kablooie]

23. You don't know that. Nuclear waste has 10,000 years remaining to kill people.

In 1000 years no one will remember what these huge ancient cement blocks are.

But they will still be sitting around waiting to crack open and start killing people.

[abqmufc]

38. See this report and this article.

The report by Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), third printing 2010 (web version) entitled "Carbon-Free and nuClear-Free a Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy" by Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D.
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/CarbonFreeNuclearFree.pdf

Here is a great article on fluoride in toothpaste and the a-bomb entitled "Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb."
http://www.fluoridation.com/atomicbomb.htm

An excerpt from the article....
"Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide "evidence useful in litigation" against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents show.

Human studies were required. Bomb program researchers played a leading role in the design and implementation of the most extensive U.S. study of the health effects of fluoridating public drinking water--conducted in Newburgh, New York from 1945 to 1956. Then, in a classified operation code-named "Program F," they secretly gathered and analyzed blood and tissue samples from Newburgh citizens, with the cooperation of State Health Department personnel.

The original secret version--obtained by these reporters--of a 1948 study published by Program F scientists in the Journal of the American Dental Association shows that evidence of adverse health effects from fluoride was censored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) – considered the most powerful of Cold War agencies – for reasons of national security.

The bomb program's fluoride safety studies were conducted at the University of Rochester, site of one of the most notorious human radiation experiments of the Cold War, in which unsuspecting hospital patients were injected with toxic doses of radioactive plutonium. The fluoride studies were conducted with the same ethical mind-set, in which "national security" was paramount.

The U.S. government's conflict of interest--and its motive to prove fluoride "safe" – has not until now been made clear to the general public in the furious debate over water fluoridation since the 1950's, nor to civilian researchers and health professionals, or journalists.

The declassified documents resonate with growing body of scientific evidence, and a chorus of questions, about the health effects of fluoride in the environment." {snip}

For this reason I will never trust the nuclear industry (along with many other related declassified documents relating to releases at Hanford Nuclear facility in WA state). However, I do not see fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas as the only other option. It does not have to be one or the other, that is what the IEER report shows us.

thanks.

[FBaggins]

12. Unrec

How many times do you need to spam the identical thread?

[kristopher]

13. As often as needed to address the question

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=284964&mesg_id=284964

Is there something in the data you are ashamed of that gets your diaper in a such a bunch?

[FBaggins]

16. Regardless of the DU rules?

What a surprise.

Is there something in the data you are ashamed of

There isn't any "data" in the OP. Did you post this on the wrong thread?

[XemaSab]

19. Because I have the lights off during the day

but at night I turn them on?

[kristopher]

20. I got it...

You like reading by the friendly glow of multiple melted uranium cores...

Odd choice that.

[XemaSab]

22. That green glow is so flattering to my complexion

:)

[One_Life_To_Give]

34. Education/Training/Work Environment

In addition to what you linked. I would add from my own observations. Those trained in Engineering and particularly people in R&D environments. In my experience have a higher level of support for Nuclear Power.

Speculation: Are we as a group more likely to view the current crisis as a failure of Upper Management to Provide adequate resources as opposed to any weakness in the technical evaluation of risks?

[kristopher]

35. I believe the blame attaches to the complexity of the basic technology.

It would be a huge mistake to try to scapegoat the Japanese.

As for engineers etc, I think the more fundamental variable is the Traditionalist perspective. I suspect those engineers et al you know are of that bent. I can state with certainty that I've known a goodly number of tech oriented professionals (including a number of engineers in the electric industry) that reject nuclear for any or all of the cost, waste, safety or proliferation concerns that it brings with it.

[One_Life_To_Give]

36. Not scapegoating, Learning

It's said that Life gives the test first and the lesson second.

I wouldn't want to pay the price without also learning how these lessons might apply to other high risk ventures. Such as BioTechnology, Planetary Exploration, etc. Undoubtedly some of the contributing factors will have been common to previous engineering disasters as well.


p.s. My own thought on design engineers is that as a group. They are perhaps more likely to trust in their abilities and those of other engineers.

[kristopher]

37. Overall it sounds more like scapegoating

Not your remarks here specifically but the generalized point that nuclear proponents are pushing towards is similar to the narrative following every other accident: blame it on anything else but never look at the fundamental problem of using nuclear fission for this purpose.
That is the very definition of scapegoating.

[One_Life_To_Give]

40. Then we are doomed to repeat the mistakes

Just the consequences may increase orders of magnitude each century.

[kristopher]

41. That is nonsense. The lesson learned is that fission is a poor choice as an energy source.

There are better alternatives.

As originally published:
Abstract

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73 000–144 000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300 000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15 000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2009/EE/b809990c

Below is the same single paragraph broken apart to emphasis important points

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/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

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


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

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

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[One_Life_To_Give]

42. If you don't recognize commonality of Titanic, Mianus,

Chernobyle, Fukushima, Tacoma Narrows, Toyota Accelerators and countless others. Then we as a species are doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes and paying the price.