Comments on: Stanford study, Part 1: Wind, solar baseload easily beat nuclear and they all crush “clean coal” http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:04:01 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Hot Copper http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/#comment-56475 Hot Copper Wed, 20 May 2009 21:12:18 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/#comment-56475 Having read the negative sentiment toward commercial scale Insitu-Leach mines for uranium, there seems to remain the misconception surrounding the process. I read from the detractors that acids are being used to disolve the uranium. Al I have found on ISR/ISL processes is this: "Since 1970, all commercial-scale ISL mines in the US have used carbonate solutions." A recent petition I found seemed to gloss over this fact and erroneously focussed, in a dramatic manner, on the use of acids. It seems the truth doesn't apply when "fighting for a cause". Having read the negative sentiment toward commercial scale Insitu-Leach mines for uranium, there seems to remain the misconception surrounding the process.

I read from the detractors that acids are being used to disolve the uranium.

Al I have found on ISR/ISL processes is this: “Since 1970, all commercial-scale ISL mines in the US have used carbonate solutions.”

A recent petition I found seemed to gloss over this fact and erroneously focussed, in a dramatic manner, on the use of acids.

It seems the truth doesn’t apply when “fighting for a cause”.

]]> By: Wilmot McCutchen http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/#comment-28615 Wilmot McCutchen Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:42:11 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/#comment-28615 Joe Romm is probably right that concentrating solar, or solar baseload, is the only renewable form that can substitute for fossil fuels, hydro, and nuclear. The key is the 8 hour thermal storage feature in his definition. With storage, the power is not intermittent, and therefore it is reliable. Photovoltaic solar and wind do not have this storage feature, and they are intermittent, so they are not reliable. As we know from Joe's excellent book, The Hype about Hydrogen, using hydrogen for renewable energy storage is a big challenge. Joe Romm is probably right that concentrating solar, or solar baseload, is the only renewable form that can substitute for fossil fuels, hydro, and nuclear. The key is the 8 hour thermal storage feature in his definition. With storage, the power is not intermittent, and therefore it is reliable. Photovoltaic solar and wind do not have this storage feature, and they are intermittent, so they are not reliable. As we know from Joe’s excellent book, The Hype about Hydrogen, using hydrogen for renewable energy storage is a big challenge.

]]> By: Paul Wuebben http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/#comment-27275 Paul Wuebben Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:07:13 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/#comment-27275 Mark makes a freshman air pollution mistake. He asserts that an isopleth model is an appropriate means of judging whether or not a 30% reduction in NOx emissions reduces or increases ozone. The facts on the ground in the South Coast Air Basin demonstrate conclusively that his simplistic model is erroneous. Combined reductions of NOx and HC emissions have consistently been demonstrated by actual ambient measurements to REDUCE ozone. That is why ozone levels in the SCAB have declined despite increases in VMT, population, and fuel consumption. Emission standards adopted by CARB and the SCAQMD on both NOx and HC have proven very advantageous, not deteterious. Similar assertions to Mark’s were made by California utilities in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. Had we followed their advise then, the public would have suffered far greater ozone air pollution effects than they have. Fortunately, such advise was ignored then. It should be rejected now for the same reason. His assertion that a further 30% reduction in NOx would exacerbate ozone is fundamentally flawed. Ambient data over the last 4 decades in Southern California demonstrate the error of his assertion. His analysis also lacks crucial nuances regarding strategic optimization of certain E85 pathways. He categorically recommends against ethanol pathways without assessing the impact of vehicle efficiency improvements which can be applied uniquely to E85 to take advantage of its 3 x higher latent heat of vaporization. This allows for higher compression ratios, and other modifications reported in recent SAE papers by Lotus (SAE# 2007010056; 2007010034; and 2007013618). These papers demonstrate mile per gallon parity with gasoline on a per gallon (unadjusted for BTU basis). Optimized FFVs, combined with plug-in capability, offer the opportunity for strategic agility in the face of diverse risks including slower than anticipated battery evolution and / or conventional liquid fuel supply depletion, while offering the efficient means of reducing GHG emissions. His pathways therefore do not provide sufficient policy judgment in the face of real world atmospheric, security, resource depletion and climatic system convergences. It is disappointing, given the depth of his knowledge with respect to climate science per se. Mark makes a freshman air pollution mistake. He asserts that an isopleth model is an appropriate means of judging whether or not a 30% reduction in NOx emissions reduces or increases ozone. The facts on the ground in the South Coast Air Basin demonstrate conclusively that his simplistic model is erroneous. Combined reductions of NOx and HC emissions have consistently been demonstrated by actual ambient measurements to REDUCE ozone. That is why ozone levels in the SCAB have declined despite increases in VMT, population, and fuel consumption. Emission standards adopted by CARB and the SCAQMD on both NOx and HC have proven very advantageous, not deteterious. Similar assertions to Mark’s were made by California utilities in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. Had we followed their advise then, the public would have suffered far greater ozone air pollution effects than they have. Fortunately, such advise was ignored then. It should be rejected now for the same reason.

His assertion that a further 30% reduction in NOx would exacerbate ozone is fundamentally flawed. Ambient data over the last 4 decades in Southern California demonstrate the error of his assertion. His analysis also lacks crucial nuances regarding strategic optimization of certain E85 pathways. He categorically recommends against ethanol pathways without assessing the impact of vehicle efficiency improvements which can be applied uniquely to E85 to take advantage of its 3 x higher latent heat of vaporization. This allows for higher compression ratios, and other modifications reported in recent SAE papers by Lotus (SAE# 2007010056; 2007010034; and 2007013618). These papers demonstrate mile per gallon parity with gasoline on a per gallon (unadjusted for BTU basis). Optimized FFVs, combined with plug-in capability, offer the opportunity for strategic agility in the face of diverse risks including slower than anticipated battery evolution and / or conventional liquid fuel supply depletion, while offering the efficient means of reducing GHG emissions. His pathways therefore do not provide sufficient policy judgment in the face of real world atmospheric, security, resource depletion and climatic system convergences. It is disappointing, given the depth of his knowledge with respect to climate science per se.

]]> By: nelton http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/#comment-26063 nelton Sat, 03 Jan 2009 12:50:46 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/#comment-26063 Asteroid Miner had strong points , there wont be solar pwoer in nights, and wind power is un dependable as the wind always doesnt flows as same rate Asteroid Miner had strong points , there wont be solar pwoer in nights, and wind power is un dependable as the wind always doesnt flows as same rate

]]> By: Charlie http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/#comment-25771 Charlie Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:38:25 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/#comment-25771 I'm puzzled by all the support for calling solar thermal electric "CSP" here. Of the three key words that describe it, solar, thermal, and electric, CSP contains only one. Joe gets it right when he says, way at the top of this page: " “CSP” by itself tells you nothing. You have to know what the acronym stands for, then that it refers to electricity, and then that it is solar thermal electric." But that would seem a more sensible and achievable goal--calling it--as Joe does when he's actually trying to describe it--solar thermal electric. I’m puzzled by all the support for calling solar thermal electric “CSP” here. Of the three key words that describe it, solar, thermal, and electric, CSP contains only one. Joe gets it right when he says, way at the top of this page: ” “CSP” by itself tells you nothing. You have to know what the acronym stands for, then that it refers to electricity, and then that it is solar thermal electric.” But that would seem a more sensible and achievable goal–calling it–as Joe does when he’s actually trying to describe it–solar thermal electric.

]]> By: Brad F http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/#comment-25342 Brad F Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:17:11 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/#comment-25342 @ Bob Wallace - Re your reference to Jacobson's earlier paper claiming wind as baseload. I have read it. And not all of the conclusions follow from the data. The problems result from a naive understanding of what it takes to operate an electrical system, and the meaning of the word baseload. To create a baseload number, Jacobson and Archer draw lines on a graph (Figure 3) and say "here is a number, and since we drew our lines in the same places as one would for a coal plant, it must be correct". Then they go on to inflate their numbers by referencing them to the average capacity rather than the peak capacity. Their naivete is demonstated by their failure to acknowledge what happens to the right of the 79%, 87.5% and 92% reliability levels. The curve still goes to zero. For a single coal plant, the curve goes to zero at 85-90% similar to the single wind turbine. But for a fleet of baseload plants the curve never goes to zero and is probably above 50% load at 100% duration. The shape of the generation duration curve is a good indication of baseload capability. The curves as presented in Figure 3 do NOT indicate baseload generation. Jacobson and Archer presented some good data and analysis, but the key point of their conclusions - that wind can be baseload - does not follow from the data. They only get to that conclusion by misinterpreting power system concepts. @ Bob Wallace – Re your reference to Jacobson’s earlier paper claiming wind as baseload. I have read it. And not all of the conclusions follow from the data. The problems result from a naive understanding of what it takes to operate an electrical system, and the meaning of the word baseload. To create a baseload number, Jacobson and Archer draw lines on a graph (Figure 3) and say “here is a number, and since we drew our lines in the same places as one would for a coal plant, it must be correct”. Then they go on to inflate their numbers by referencing them to the average capacity rather than the peak capacity. Their naivete is demonstated by their failure to acknowledge what happens to the right of the 79%, 87.5% and 92% reliability levels. The curve still goes to zero. For a single coal plant, the curve goes to zero at 85-90% similar to the single wind turbine. But for a fleet of baseload plants the curve never goes to zero and is probably above 50% load at 100% duration. The shape of the generation duration curve is a good indication of baseload capability. The curves as presented in Figure 3 do NOT indicate baseload generation.

Jacobson and Archer presented some good data and analysis, but the key point of their conclusions – that wind can be baseload – does not follow from the data. They only get to that conclusion by misinterpreting power system concepts.

]]> By: Patrick McCully http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/#comment-24868 Patrick McCully Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:30:41 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/#comment-24868 Jacobson has neglected to include the emissions (mainly methane) from hydropower reservoirs due to the decomposition of biomass. In the tropics these emissions can be very significant - hydro in the Brazilian Amazon averages well over 2000 gC02e/kWh. Measured emissions from Canadian reservoirs average 36 gC02e/kWh. A recent study from a small reservoir in Switzerland found methane emissions of 119 gC02e/kWh. The "life-cycle" numbers for hydro quoted by Jacobson of 17-22 gC02e/kWh cover only construction emissions. For more info see www.internationalrivers.org/en/node/383. Patrick - internationalrivers.org Jacobson has neglected to include the emissions (mainly methane) from hydropower reservoirs due to the decomposition of biomass. In the tropics these emissions can be very significant – hydro in the Brazilian Amazon averages well over 2000 gC02e/kWh. Measured emissions from Canadian reservoirs average 36 gC02e/kWh. A recent study from a small reservoir in Switzerland found methane emissions of 119 gC02e/kWh. The “life-cycle” numbers for hydro quoted by Jacobson of 17-22 gC02e/kWh cover only construction emissions. For more info see http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/node/383.

Patrick – internationalrivers.org

]]> By: Bob Wallace http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/#comment-24781 Bob Wallace Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:00:39 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/#comment-24781 Whoa! Speed is not your friend.... ;o) You read this? http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdf Wind as baseload. Seems as if some researchers think it can be done. For about the same price as new nuclear. Lots of nice numbers in there.... Whoa! Speed is not your friend…. ;o)

You read this?

http://www.stanford.edu/ group/ efmh/ winds/ aj07_jamc.pdf

Wind as baseload. Seems as if some researchers think it can be done. For about the same price as new nuclear.

Lots of nice numbers in there….

]]> By: Asteroid Miner http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/#comment-24778 Asteroid Miner Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:41:25 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/#comment-24778 Factory built nuclear power plants. The following was downloaded from http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/why.html "Why Nuclear? Each location on the planet offers its own unique set of energy needs and challenges. No one type of technology can provide the most appropriate solution everywhere. That’s why in order to accommodate everyone on our planet, mankind must utilize a mix of clean energy technologies that includes wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear. None of the options available today are as perfect as we would like them to be. Geothermal has its obvious site limitations, but so do wind and solar. In addition to requiring large tracts of land for “wind farms” and solar panels, the drawback of these technologies is that neither can offer consistent, reliable baseload electricity. When the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow these types of plants do not deliver electricity. Regardless of the weather, nuclear-based power plants can produce base load electricity 24/7 with no greenhouse-gas emissions. And while researchers are constantly seeking ways to make nuclear even more safe and efficient than it is now, nuclear is not a “new” alternative to fossil fuel-based energy. It is the safest, most reliable, and least harmful way to generate electricity. The 104 nuclear power plants operating in the U.S. provide over 20% of the country’s electricity. For some nations, this percentage is much more; in France 78% of the country’s electricity comes from nuclear." [NO THEY ARE NOT SUBSIDIZED!] "Now with Hyperion, communities and their infrastructures, emergency operations, military bases and even industrial operations, that, because of land limitations or other concerns, could never hope for reliable nuclear power, can enjoy its benefits. Hyperion Power Modules (HPMs) are small enough to be transported by truck or ship, and are setup and operable quickly – in much less time than the 10+ years it takes to build a traditional nuclear power plant! Whether the location is a small island, a remote mining site, or a hospital campus that needs independent backup power, everyone can enjoy safe, clean, reliable, affordable power." ======================== Note that local construction people can dig the hole in the ground that a Hyperion reactor needs and do all of the hookup work and so on. The Hyperion factory makes a module and brings the module on a truck and places the module in the hole. Local people do the rest, including operating the reactor and guarding the site to keep anybody from digging up the module. There are jobs to be had at the factory and at the sites. The factory replaces the fuel module every 5 years or so, and recycles the fuel. Factory built nuclear power plants.

The following was downloaded from http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/why.html
“Why Nuclear?
Each location on the planet offers its own unique set of energy needs and challenges. No one type of technology can provide the most appropriate solution everywhere. That’s why in order to accommodate everyone on our planet, mankind must utilize a mix of clean energy technologies that includes wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear.

None of the options available today are as perfect as we would like them to be. Geothermal has its obvious site limitations, but so do wind and solar. In addition to requiring large tracts of land for “wind farms” and solar panels, the drawback of these technologies is that neither can offer consistent, reliable baseload electricity. When the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow these types of plants do not deliver electricity.

Regardless of the weather, nuclear-based power plants can produce base load electricity 24/7 with no greenhouse-gas emissions.

And while researchers are constantly seeking ways to make nuclear even more safe and efficient than it is now, nuclear is not a “new” alternative to fossil fuel-based energy. It is the safest, most reliable, and least harmful way to generate electricity. The 104 nuclear power plants operating in the U.S. provide over 20% of the country’s electricity. For some nations, this percentage is much more; in France 78% of the country’s electricity comes from nuclear.” [NO THEY ARE NOT SUBSIDIZED!]

“Now with Hyperion, communities and their infrastructures, emergency operations, military bases and even industrial operations, that, because of land limitations or other concerns, could never hope for reliable nuclear power, can enjoy its benefits. Hyperion Power Modules (HPMs) are small enough to be transported by truck or ship, and are setup and operable quickly – in much less time than the 10+ years it takes to build a traditional nuclear power plant! Whether the location is a small island, a remote mining site, or a hospital campus that needs independent backup power, everyone can enjoy safe, clean, reliable, affordable power.”

========================

Note that local construction people can dig the hole in the ground that a Hyperion reactor needs and do all of the hookup work and so on. The Hyperion factory makes a module and brings the module on a truck and places the module in the hole. Local people do the rest, including operating the reactor and guarding the site to keep anybody from digging up the module. There are jobs to be had at the factory and at the sites. The factory replaces the fuel module every 5 years or so, and recycles the fuel.

]]> By: Asteroid Miner http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/#comment-24777 Asteroid Miner Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:38:06 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/14/stanford-study-part-1-wind-solar-baseload-easily-beat-nuclear-and-they-all-best-clean-coal/#comment-24777 Jacobson hasn't told us how he is going to store energy for several days or transport energy all the way around the world as posted by climateprogress above. "BASE LOAD" means 24 hours per day 365 days per year. Solar never works at night and wind never works when the wind isn't blowing. Solar is therefore NOT base load power. Wind may blow steadily in some places, but they are few and mostly over oceans. The only 2 sources of energy that are PROVEN for base load are coal and nuclear. Jacobson hasn’t told us how he is going to store energy for several days or transport energy all the way around the world as posted by climateprogress above. “BASE LOAD” means 24 hours per day 365 days per year. Solar never works at night and wind never works when the wind isn’t blowing. Solar is therefore NOT base load power. Wind may blow steadily in some places, but they are few and mostly over oceans. The only 2 sources of energy that are PROVEN for base load are coal and nuclear.

]]>