tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post6513742537742475909..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: The Jacobson-Delucchi plan revealedCharles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-86430121566369311182012-03-19T17:13:13.086-05:002012-03-19T17:13:13.086-05:00Vasilis, I repeatedly find renewable energy advoca...Vasilis, I repeatedly find renewable energy advocaters offering conceptual and logical errors, withholding important information if it shows renewable energyin a bad light. At the same time many renewable advocates exagerate yje dsfryu ptoblems of nuclear power, and complain about nuclear costs. even though 24 houre a day renewable energy would be far more expensive. You appear to belong to the renewable camp that is determine to commit all of these sins. You begs for imunity from criticism as well as the right to attak nuclear advocates.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-65793775101432691982012-02-26T17:56:35.931-06:002012-02-26T17:56:35.931-06:00A bloger wrote that the Grand Solar Plan, publishe...A bloger wrote that the Grand Solar Plan, published by Sc Am in Jan 2008 and its sequel with all the technical details, published in Energy Policy were not available on line and so on.."Technical, Geographical, and Economic Feasibility for Solar Energy to Supply the Energy Needs of the U.S. by V. Fthenakis, J. E. Mason, and K. Zweibel has just been made available on line. The Fthenakis, Mason, and. Zweibel paper has not been the subject of open reviews on the internet."<br />Obviously both papers were peer-reviewed by experts to be published in these high impact journals. If you have doubts of how accurate the technical estimates of these papers are, check the estimates on the forecasted in 2007-published in 2008 reduction of the production cost of PV; three and a half years later we were shown to be very accurate in our forecasts. Another paper of mine (Fthenakis), also published in Energy Policy that compared PV and nuclear life cycles in terms of GHG emissions was presented and accepted as valid in the California Energy Commission Nucleat Issues Workshop.<br />Stop winning about solar and wind, accept the facts and spend your energies in trying to make the technology that you like safer and less expensive.<br />cheers<br />Vasilis FthenakisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-81056663085517089502009-11-08T09:57:10.355-06:002009-11-08T09:57:10.355-06:00Engineer-Poet, an editor would be nice, but you ar...Engineer-Poet, an editor would be nice, but you are going to have to learn the virtue of patience.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-39073976692287803682009-11-08T09:50:04.357-06:002009-11-08T09:50:04.357-06:00Charles, pardon me for saying this, BUT...
you re...Charles, pardon me for saying this, BUT...<br /><br />you <b>really</b> need a copy editor!Engineer-Poethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06420685176098522332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-48977386378379676782009-11-04T16:35:16.913-06:002009-11-04T16:35:16.913-06:00Alexis, Sample size? Now you are being down right...Alexis, Sample size? Now you are being down right silly. My argument is as follows:<br />1. Contrary to Jacobson, nuclear powers acquired nuclear weapons technology prior to acquiring civilian nuclear power technology.<br />2. Nations that have acquired civilian nuclear power technology before possessing nuclear weapons, did not go on to acquire nuclear weapons technology. <br /><br />One could further argue that there is no easy route from Civilian nuclear power technology, to military technology, while there is a route from military technology to civilian technology. However, almost with out exception the route from military technology to civilian technology has been rejected as posing safety hazards, or for being costly, or for posing other technical problems. Hence, Jacobson's contentions is contradicted by all evidence.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-83590500247404151612009-11-04T15:40:49.706-06:002009-11-04T15:40:49.706-06:00@Charles: The answer to your argument is, basicall...@Charles: The answer to your argument is, basically, small sample size. In countries, reactors, and years. <br /><br />I don't think that it's possible to say definitively what the impacts of 1000s of nuclear reactors all over the world are. There can't be a "reality" to ignore for a future that doesn't exist yet. We're all projecting, which is why we we're all making assumptions. Trans-science, not science.<br /><br />I think making the assumption that more plutonium and enriched uranium in circulation makes the chances of a nuclear incident more likely is not nuts. You disagree.<br /><br />So far, I hear: the effect is nil from you, Kirk says it would reduce the chances of nuclear exchange, and I say it would increase them. <br /><br />These are questions where reasonable people can disagree. And I don't think any position is crazy. We're all just trying to figure it out with little evidence and a lot of possible scenarios.<br /><br />Here's Weinberg's take, since we both respect him:<br /><br />"A nuclear world such as we envisage will long have had to come to terms with plutonium. Ten tons of plutonium per day is mind-boggling. It is hard to conceive of the enterprise being conducted except in well-defined, permanent sites, and under the supervision of a special cadres, perhaps a kind of nuclear United Nations." — from "Can the Sun Replace Uranium?"Alexis Madrigalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16144869980358579398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-89946604868073476992009-11-04T13:57:40.865-06:002009-11-04T13:57:40.865-06:00Alexis, as kirk indicates Jacobson does not make a...Alexis, as kirk indicates Jacobson does not make a credible case that increasing the number of reactors would increase the possibility of a nuclear exchange. In fact if you will look and my analysis of Jaconson's argument you should not that Jacobson makes false assumptions about the relationship between civilian nuclear power and the the development of nuclear weapons technology. There is simply no empirical evidence that possession of civilian nuclear power technology leads nations to develop, nuclear weapons. You have simply ignored my argument. You have ignored the same realities that Jacobson ignores.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-83351258815779484352009-11-04T13:47:39.775-06:002009-11-04T13:47:39.775-06:00Alexis, I think the widespread use of nuclear powe...Alexis, I think the widespread use of nuclear power would make nuclear war far LESS likely because wars have traditionally been fought over access to resources. With thorium-powered nuclear energy, every country has enough thorium to power themselves indefinitely. Far less to fight over.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-54390930938714748122009-11-04T13:12:36.071-06:002009-11-04T13:12:36.071-06:00Jacobson's response (and I haven't talked ...Jacobson's response (and I haven't talked to him about this, but just guessing) is that the primary metric we are now using for power aside from $/kWh is CO2. As such, to make the real threat of nuclear exchange count on the new double bottom line, you have to try to calculate its CO2 impact. I agree that it's a messy way of trying to account for nuclear risks. <br /><br />For me, nuclear advocates are making the mistake they did in the past: not taking their success seriously enough. If nuclear power becomes the dominant power source across the world with the current technology — thousands more reactors displacing — it's hard to argue that the chances of some kind of nuclear exchange don't rise. How you account for that, quantify it, etc, are unclear, though. The numbers are probably unknowable but the possibility is certainly not unthinkable or irrational. <br /><br />A generation of anti-nuclear attitudes from the DOE? Short generation. <br /><br />There are plenty of working stiffs, scientists, engineers, and energy business operators involved in the Obama administration's decision making. There always have been. It's just not your crowd. And that's frustrating. <br /><br />I get it. It pissed off the green tech people that nuclear people were in charge for forty years, too. <br /><br />And I think the Administration needs to take y'all seriously. Coming up with ways to continue diversifying the energy supply away from coal is good. Thorium reactor, anyone?Alexis Madrigalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16144869980358579398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-13626136818330658312009-11-03T07:08:21.512-06:002009-11-03T07:08:21.512-06:00Alexis, I have been known to push my argument beyo...Alexis, I have been known to push my argument beyond my data, there is a difference between thinking beyond data, and arguing beyond reason. When Jacobson argues that we should include the CO2 produced by a nuclear exchange every 30 years as a liability of nuclear power, he goes beyond not just data, but beyond reason. This is unfortunately not the only point at which Jaconson is clearly being irrational. Foolishness might be fun on Saturday Night Live, but not on the pages of Scientific American. I have little patience with foolishness there. <br /><br />The sociology of the Issue is a different matter. i don't know about Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, but I do know something about ORNL and a generation of anti-nuclear attitudes from from the White House and the D0E has destroyed the capacity for bold and innovative thinking there. As for the Davos crowd, who knows and who cares. The SA commenters are working stiffs, scientists, engineers, and energy business operators. Current energy thinking in the Obama Administration has largely left people like that out of the energy decision mix. Our present national government seems only too happy to drink the Kool-Aid, and pass it on to the rest of us. I do not enjoy watching people I believe to be intelligent acting like fools ovr matters that involve the future of hundreds of millions of people.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-57605710834088585222009-11-02T23:39:11.202-06:002009-11-02T23:39:11.202-06:00I think you guys are taking this the wrong way. Th...I think you guys are taking this the wrong way. These plans are more in the mode of nuclear promoters of the 1960s a la Alvin Weinberg's plans for nuplexes to desalinate the ocean and terraform the arid West and Middle East. <br /><br />In my mind, Jacobson does useful technoutopian thinking, which is a mode with a very, very long history in the United States. <br /><br />Personally, I'm glad to see people trying to push beyond the limits of exacting data. That's a lesson that renewable energy advocates picked up from the nuclear crowd because it works. I just hope that they also learn the lesson that actual implementation is going to be more difficult and costly than they think. That is to say, I get presenting the vision, but you can't get drunk off the Kool-Aid you distribute. <br /><br />Sociologically, I wonder how much the comment sections on Scientific American stories matter to the Davos crowd or scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Labs, etc. Not saying they don't. I just wonder.Alexis Madrigalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16144869980358579398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-36709372048473289242009-11-02T22:06:51.586-06:002009-11-02T22:06:51.586-06:00Ken Zweibel, James Mason and Vasilis Fthenakis p...Ken Zweibel, James Mason and Vasilis Fthenakis produced the very shallow and deeply flawed Solar Grand Plan in the January 2008 Scientific American.<br /><br />http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan<br /><br />It was ripped apart in the comments section.<br /><br />Bill HannahanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-55795321209768844462009-11-02T09:38:44.934-06:002009-11-02T09:38:44.934-06:00Jacobson and Delucchi claim:
Intermittency problem...<i>Jacobson and Delucchi claim:<br />Intermittency problems can be mitigated by a smart balance of sources, . . . relying on wind at night when it is often plentiful, using solar by day and turning to a reliable source such as hydroelectric that can be turned on and off quickly to smooth out supply or meet peak demand. For example, interconnecting wind farms that are only 100 to 200 miles apart can compensate for hours of zero power at any one farm should the wind not be blowing there.</i><br /><br />Here in the Pacific Northwest, the BPA systems has wind farms connected to it which are 100 to 200 miles apart. Check for yourself how reliable the power is:<br />http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx<br />(look at the lower trace in blue)<br />In January this year, there was essentially no wind power generated for over a week.donbnoreply@blogger.com