Image:
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Winds of Change
I found it surprising that in “A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030,” Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi do not mention the effects of the suggested energy sources on climate. The authors propose to absorb about six terawatts of energy from about 60 terawatts available in the wind, or about 10 percent of its total energy. Because the winds, at least near the U.S., usually flow around highs or lows, where the speed and related Coriolis force tend to maintain the pressure difference, I can easily envision that absorbing the energy will change the rate at which the pressure centers collapse. How this would change the weather, I do not know, but it must make a change to give us some of the energy. Possibly, the weather change would be an improvement, but as a believer in Murphy’s Law, I would be surprised. About 100 years ago dumping garbage into the ocean was justified because the oceans were infinite compared to the effect, so no one calculated how much was allowable. Let’s be smarter this time! Why not do the calculations before we cause more problems?
Paul Roetling
Grand Island, N.Y.
Jacobson and Delucchi have a bold vision and a generally balanced account of the opportunities and difficulties. Three matters of concern should be explored further, however. First, vast solar arrays in deserts would suffer from serious loss of efficiency in sandstorms. Second, extensive studies were published in the 1970s on the design of liquid-hydrogen-powered aircraft, the massive energy systems needed at major airports and the difficulties of servicing aircraft whose systems are at three kelvins. Although these problems might eventually be solved, it is very optimistic to think this could be done by 2030. Third, and probably the biggest worry of all, is the rate of construction of these new energy systems that the plan would require. All new global energy systems have grown over a century or so at an average of 1 to 2 percent a year; the article implies a rate of 5 percent a year. Admittedly, the authors compare previous novel construction rates to their proposals, but these were not on the global scale. New technologies that do not reach about 2 to 3 percent of the market lose momentum, fall into the “snake pit” and are forgotten.
John E. Allen
Kingston University
London
THE AUTHORS REPLY: Sandstorms are limited primarily to the Sahara, Persian Gulf states and Gobi Desert but hardly contribute to reduced solar radiation in North or South America or Australia in comparison. During severe events, solar power is reduced in sandstorm regions, but the solar radiation reaching the ground in the annual average in such regions is still large because the events occur periodically. With respect to the second point, we propose that most transportation modes use electricity. Only in cases where electricity cannot be used do we propose hydrogen or hydrogen-electric hybrid vehicles. Air transport is probably the most difficult sector to address; however, a recent European Commission report suggests that there are “no critical barriers to implementation” of a liquid-hydrogen aircraft fleet (http://ec.europa.eu/research/transport/news/article_786_en.html). Although liquid hydrogen requires more than four times the volume of jet fuel, it is about one-third the weight of jet fuel for the same energy, which more than makes up for the additional weight of the fuel tank. As a result, a fully fueled liquid-hydrogen plane will produce more drag but weigh less than a jet-fueled plane. With respect to the third point, our plan is for governments to mobilize infrastructure changes at a rapid pace. The examples given in the letter are based on typical market penetrations, not on aggressive efforts.
See what we're tweeting about
39 Comments
Add CommentNuclear is dismissed because of the carbon required to produce the plants, transport and refine the fuel. One could dismiss all systems for that reason, but when all industries run on renewable energy, the industries that produce and transport nuclear fuel will be carbon free as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a little-studied path to sustainable energy. Remove carbon from crude oil or natural gas BEFORE burning it. Then burn the remaining non-polluting hydrogen and bury the solid carbon in local land-fill sites. The science to do this exists, but it is a virtually undevelopped field. The outcome is to allow fossil fuels except coal to continue to supply society until alternative energies are developped, such as laser fusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImagine that we had seriously pursued energy independence after the 1973 oil crisis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe could have been free (or almost free) from dependence on middle eastern oil, like from Saudi Arabia. We probably would not have had two economy wrecking wars - and the World Trade Center would still be standing,
The excuse NOT to do this was the same shortsighted excuse that was used to not strengthen the levee's around New Orleans -- it was too expensive.
Of course the alternatives turned out to be many times as expensive as the actions that were not pursued.
When will we stop being so stupid?
awesome article
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi know right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first response was excellent and I notice that the authors of the original article didn't reply to that. Environmental impacts of these grand schemes are never done or are limited in scope. Whilst renewable energy should be expected to have a lower environmental impact than non-renewable, that doesn't make it sustainable. I think we need to consider very carefully, whether we actually need the amounts of energy we believe we do. At the very least, we have to stop growing our consumption of resources and the aquiring of larger and larger portions of the Net Primary Production of the earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's interesting is that some commenters find problems with "getting the world off oil".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWake up people. Oil is a finite resource and 7 billion people depend on it for food.
When oil production inevitably peaks and declines then we better have some replacement in place or swathes people are going to die.
That there will be unintended consequences in moving off oil I have no doubt. That we have no choice I doubt not at all.
candid...well put.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisxxdb...ditto...we need to conserve the finite resources for things we haven't found alternatives for...yet...
In response to Paul Roetling, we have addressed that issue in the published paper, "Investigating the effect of large wind farms on energy in the atmosphere," available at
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/816/pdf
The authors
authors...thanks for the link...it seems that that the lower atmospheric disturbance is similar to trees...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article has been completely debunked here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/
The second people stop grousing about nuclear power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA published paper examining the small effect of wind turbines powering the world on the global atmosphere is located at http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/816/pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelow are technical details supporting the conclusion in the original Scientific American Article that nuclear energy is both more polluting and dangerous than are renewable energy systems. Additional backup for remaining issues can be found at the sites at the end of this letter.
1. CO2 emissions from nuclear. These consist of four components.
A. Lifecycle: Range 9-70 g-CO2/kWh (Source for low number: nuclear industry estimate; source for high number, slightly higher than the average from the review paper by Sovacool (Energy Policy 36, 2940-2953, 2008) who considered 103 scientific studies on the issue. The nuclear industry estimate is included in this range. Also, the high number here is close to the mean number from the review study, not the high number from that study, so the lifecycle range is fair.
B. Opportunity-cost emissions: Range 68-180 g-CO2/kWh based on the 10-19 year planning-to-operation time for nuclear power plants relative to wind farms (2-5 years on average). This time includes a site permitting time (3.5 to 6 years), a construction permit approval and issue time (2.5 to 4 years), and construction time (4 to 9 years). The justification for this is given in Jacobson (Energy and Environmental Science, 2, 148-173, 2009, http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm).
Commentators distort the information by referring only to construction time and ignoring site permitting time and construction permit and approval and issue time. They erroneously claim that nuclear plant construction starts the day that someone wants to build one. Construction times of some plants of 5 years fall within the construction time estimate given in that study of 4-9 years. However, 4 years is optimistic and not average. For example, a Finland plant has no estimated completion time despite the "4 year estimate" and the Flamanville, France plant "is also behind schedule and overbudget" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html)
Further Koomey and Hultman (Energy Policy, 35, 5630-5642, 2007) showed that the nuclear industry "projections of capital costs, construction duration, and total operations and maintenance costs are quite low - far enough from the historical medians that additional scrutiny may be required to justify using such estimates in current policy discussions and planning." This is a nice way of saying that the industry is known to low-ball estimates of costs and construction times in order to gain financial benefits, such as loan guarantees, and there is no reason to think things have changed.
C. Loss of carbon stored in land due to covering land with nuclear facilities and from uranium mining: Range: 0.5-0.75 g-CO2/kWh. This is a new calculation, not published, but not large either.
D. Risk of carbon emissions from one nuclear explosion over 30 years attributable to nuclear weapons proliferation. Range: 0-4.1 g-CO2/kWh. This is referenced and discussed in detail in Jacobson (Energy and Environmental Science, 2, 148-173, 2009), discussed earlier. The range also includes the estimate of 0 g-CO2/kWh. It is not credible to deny the risk, as India, Pakistan, and Iran all secretly developed or are developing weapons under the cover of nuclear energy facilities.
Total Range from A-D: 68.5 - 181 g-CO2/kWh.
This range is 9-17 times larger on average (and up to 25 times larger) than a wind turbines operating in mean annual wind speeds of 7-8.5 m/s (7.5 - 10.8 g-CO2/kWh), where 7 m/s is the lowest wind speed that we recommend wind turbines to go into.
2. With regard to land, nuclear advocates against renewable energy are confused by the difference between spacing and footprint. Footprint is the land touching the ground, spacing is empty space between wind turbines or the buffer zone around nuclear power plants. Spacing between wind turbines is used for farmland, ranchland, open space, and open ocean (where zero land is taken up). The TED slides at
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/renew_vs_nuclear.html
show photographs of wind versus nuclear and for a map of the spacing versus footprint area. Wind turbines take up 1000 times less land footprint than does nuclear. In fact, powering the U.S. vehicle fleet with wind would require a footprint of 1-2.8 square kilometers of land for the turbines and concrete base; powering it with nuclear would require a footprint 1000-2100 square kilometers for the facilities, uranium mining areas, and waste areas (but not including the nuclear buffer zone).
An estimate of a nuclear spacing plus footprint area for nuclear facility plus mining and storage is about 20.5 km^2, with footprint of 4.9-7.9 km^2 based on data from Spitzley and Keoleian (http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS04-05R.pdf). The land required for uranium mining and nuclear facility with a buffer zone is 0.06 ha yr / GWh and 0.26 ha yr/GWh, respectively. That required for waste storage is 0.08 km^2. The total land required is 0.6 ha-yr/GWh from the above citation.
Remaining arguments made by commentators are easily refuted in the published studies and tables at the following sites
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/susenergy2030.html
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/renew_vs_nuclear.html
In sum, nuclear energy represents a more polluting and dangerous opportunity cost over real renewable energy systems. Because of the sufficient abundance of renewable energy to power the entire world multiple times over and because this can be done with slightly more than one percent of the worlds land, and because it is possible to combine renewables to match nearly all hourly power demand before even considering demand-side management, vehicle-to-grid, storage, or other methods of matching, there is no need for nuclear energy.
Well after working in the nuclear power industry for 20 years I wouldn't go quite so far as to say completely debunked. There are three reasons we aren't doing more nuclear right now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. No one [or a majority of people] don't want one in their backyard.
2. Building nuclear plants takes a long time relatively speaking and;
3. No utilities can afford to build one or should I say the rate payers don't seem willing to finance one.
We can solve # 2 & 3 with government subsidies and of course those subsidies will come from you and me the taxpayer. I just don't see us solving # 1. anytime in the near future. When we see picketers in the streets asking for a nuclear plant in their backyard or neighborhood - maybe then things will change.
But until that happens [to partially quote an old saying] we are just doing it into the winds and not being very realistic. Don't take my post wrong - nuclear has some really good aspects especially the new Mod IV molten salt thorium reactor designs. Solve # 1 and we will build them.
I'm alway's pleased when the Bete Noir of Climate "science" rears terrifying head. Apparently he is noted for running and hiding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2010/02/mark-z-jacobson-is-not-credible-as.html
Nuclear is somewhat less than wind and much less than solar in CO2 emissions when excluding load balancing according to real experts.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/comparativeco2.html
Wind and solar are in reality similar to coal and NG in CO2 us because of the need for vast quantities of radioactive toxic gas spewing NG plants to load balance the suckers. In fact an Australia study shows its better to skip the wind and built the CCGT plant instead.
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/lang-wind-power-co2-emissions.pdf
Jacobsen's delay carbon cost argument works much more against the unworkable wind/solar options that by delaying solution indefinitely kills millions of people every year worldwide from toxic coal emissions and eventually drags us over that civilization ending climate/peak oil precipice.
I still think he is joking when he claims nuclear power will be responsible for nuclear weapons release. He just does it to stir people up.
Today's first of a kind nukes are being build now in four years in China, and with factory production after the first dozen of so are built that construction time will drop to three years and costs drop from todays to $1.5 or so a watt to less than $1 compared to todays real cost of wind power at $12 to $20.
Our problems in building our own designed nukes on US soil shames our country. While our labour costs are higher than Asian, its our incredible private power finance rates, and the double the time frame delays caused by the NRC, that kill us.
How the NRC puts the shaft to US nukes and jeopordizes safety is found in a paper by well known respected nuclear power expert Bernard L. Cohen, DSc,Pittsbug Professor Emeritus of Physics.
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
Pre NRC nukes used to be build routinely for less than $1 a watt.
http://depletedcranium.com/hey-hey-ho-ho-the-nrc-has-got-to-go/#comments
Obama could fix all that with a federal agency similar to Bonneville armed with nationwide site licences for any coal plant in the US it wanted to convert to nuclear.
It is getting difficult now to build wind projects. Cape Wind if it ever gets going will likely be longer on the books than Vogtle.
It is interesting how Jacobsen loves to refer to his own old debunked spew as proof for his new waiting to be debunked version.
Jacobson says: "….Range 9-70 g-CO2/kWh (Source for low number: nuclear industry estimate…"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Truth: CERI - the Independent non-profit Canadian Energy Research Institute found a complete life-cycle analysis of Nuclear Power in Ontario to be 1.8 gms CO2 per kwh. Far below Jacobson's 9 gms, which he falsely claims is from Nuclear Industry sources. CERI is not a Nuclear Industry "estimate".
http://www.ceri.ca/Institute/institute=index.asp
The European Commission (not Nuclear Industry) report on full life-cycle emissions puts Nuclear at 15 gms per kwh vs Jacobson's NG at 420 gms per kwh. Jacobson has lost all credibility making that ridiculous statement.
http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/electricity-costs-and-carbon-emissions-by-technology/
Jacobson says: "….Range 68-180 g-CO2/kWh based on the 10-19 year planning-to-operation time for nuclear power plants…"
The Truth: Denmark is the Wind Energy capital of the World - 25 yrs of All-Out effort. Let's see the results of that Supreme Effort:
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/DKTPES.pdf
The tiny little red line on top is Wind Energy ( most of which must be exported, only 1/4 to 1/2 is actually consumed in Denmark). See the huge purple, blue and green lines - that's dirty, filthy, GHG spewing Coal, Oil and Gas. The brown line is garbage and biomass (raped from the soil - where it should have been returned) burnt in smoke belching Thermal Power plants.
Compare with France:
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/FRTPES.pdf
See the big fat yellow line - that’s Nuclear. The filthiest Coal line is mighty thin compared to Denmark's isn't it?
Opportunity cost indeed!
Wind farm delayed and overbudget $6k per pk kw and $20k per avg kw:
http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2009/08/first-german-off-shore-wind-farm-now.html
Compare with Finland's First-Of-A-Kind (way over-engineered EPR to unsuccessfully placate NG Cronie, anti-Nuclear Fanatics) Olkiluoto 1720 Mw, with cost overruns = $6.3B and 90% CF = $3.3k per avg kw. 1/6th the cost of power from Jacobson's German Super Wind Farm. And lasts 60-80 yrs vs 15-10 yrs and produces reliable 24/7, rain or shine, summer or winter power that DOESN'T require a fossil fuel CO2 & Smog belching, Mirror power supply, which will supply 70% of the total system energy.
Jacobson says: "….Loss of carbon stored in land due to covering land …"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Truth: Wind has a footprint of 70X that of Nuclear. And that doesn't include the vast stretches of Transmission lines required for Wind Energy and the INESCAPABLE Shadowing Fossil Fuel power supply. Jacobson IGNORES the rape of land for the 10 to 100X the raw materials required for the Wind Energy, and he IGNORES the access roads, clear cutting of Mountain top forests and soil erosion caused by the above. See:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/18/tcase4/
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/en_pwr_area.jpg
http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html
Jacobson says: "…Risk of carbon emissions from one nuclear explosion over 30 years attributable to nuclear weapons proliferation…"
The Truth: Jacobson obviously has zero knowledge of Nuclear Weapons proliferation or International Affairs. In fact the exact opposite is true. Any nation state that wants Nuclear Weapons can achieve that, without any use of commercial Nuclear Power. The major issue is what Jacobson's plan will mean to the future World. This is the future Jacobson's plan will entail: a world with obscenely expensive energy, resulting in Energy Wars, Water wars, mass migrations of Poverty Stricken refugees, starving populations who will be vulnerable to extremist politics – with nothing to lose, and widespread Genocide. In Jacobson's dangerous, unstable World, small nations will develop and use Nuclear weapons, using the el-cheapo Graphite Pile reactor or numerous other methods, no need for Nuclear Power reactors.
http://depletedcranium.com/why-you-cant-build-a-bomb-from-spent-fuel/
Jacobson's links either don’t work, refer to collections of his own debunked documents or available-for-a-fee crapola. This guy can’t even post a decent link. Internet 101 study is recommended for Jacobson.
Bill Hannahan destroys Jacobson's interconnected-Wind-Turbines-as-baseload flushable study:
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2010/01/review-comment-on-stanford-wind.html
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/search/label/Bill%20Hannahan
Comments by dwbd that wind has a footprint 70x that of nuclear is a based on inaccurate information from nonscientific web site blogs that do not distinguish the difference between footprint and spacing and exaggerate the wind spacing relative to the nuclear footprint. It also indicates that dwdb himself does not understand the distinction between spacing and footprint and ignores the spacing of nuclear power buffer zones, ignores uranium mining, and ignores waste storage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth wind and nuclear require raw materials for the construction of the farms/plants. New regulations in the U.S. require nuclear plants to be reinforced more than before to reduce aircraft impact effects, enhancing raw material use more than any studies have indicated to date. Further, nuclear requires continuous uranium mining, transport, and processing throughout the life of the power plant. Wind requires no continuous fuel supply. In the U.S., two coal fired power plants are dedicated solely to providing energy for uranium processing. The space required for these coal plants and coal mining/transport have not even been accounted for in our numbers nor have we accounted for the space for construction machine manufacturing facilities required for the machines used in uranium mining and transport. Further, we have not accounted for the space required for the security services of nuclear power plants. FAs such, our numbers are likely conservative.
Access roads occur for both nuclear (plants, buffer zones, uranium mining) and wind. They count as footprint only if they are not temporary or paved. For wind over water, no access roads are necessary obviously, which dwbd fails to point out. For wind over agricultural land, access roads are effectively the same roads used for the agricultural fields, as evidenced in many photographs. For wind over the Great Plains, only temporary unpaved roads are needed. Very little wind on a large scale will go into Mountain tops.
dwbd's apologist attitude toward nations developing nuclear weapons secretly under cover of nuclear power plants suggests only that he thinks it is okay for countries to do this. He naively thinks that the spread of nuclear energy to most countries of the world will not increase the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. Every terrorist in the world would love this plan come to fruition and would support the spread of nuclear power.
dwbd refers to Bill Hannahan's comments on interconnected wind farms but fails to mention that Hannahan submitted comments to the journal following publication of the article, the authors of the paper then responded, then Hannahan tried to rewrite his comments and resubmit them since the comments were addressed by the authors and he did not like the fact that the responses were addressed. The editor of the journal then gave Hannahan the option of sticking with the original comments or withdrawing the comments, which is journal policy, and he chose to withdraw the comments. This is evidence only that Hannhan himself did not even have confidence in his own comments and was not interested in a dialogue, only to smear the authors. What is worse, Hannahan then sent comments around, pretending as if his original comments were not responded to. This speaks only to dishonesty by Hannahan. Nucleargreen and dwbd blindly latched onto that smear without questioning whether the comments were responded to.
Finally, dwbd points to individual studies for nuclear CO2 emissions, but fails to counter the fact that a review among many studies gives a mean value near 70 g-CO2/kWh. This means only that dwbd is cherry picking the best numbers he can find and ignoring the scientific consensus. dwbd further misinforms readers with spurious claims of wind turbines lasting only 10-15 years. That is high comedy, as many of the same turbines in California's Altamont Pass have been there since the 1970s.
Instead of relying on facts and scientific results, SethDayal relies first and foremost to a smear campaign by nuclear advocate Charles Barton to try to reduce the credibility of our work. Charles Barton's inaccuracies are addressed in the documents
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/susenergy2030.html
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/renew_vs_nuclear.html
as well as in the responses at this web site. It is not a productive use of anyone's time to respond to such people dedicated to smearing others. It is also not our responsibility to teach him how to read carefully scientific papers. Regardless of whether we respond or not, his inaccuracies, smears, misinformation, and failure to read papers carefully will continue in one form or another.
Actually Jacobsen unlike you I use facts in my arguments, you seem use circular quotation usually to yourself as a source of "facts".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo better example are the links you just posted which are simply a bunch more links to massive pile of unrelated data and your usual unsupported conjectures. I think its rather obvious to anybody reading Barton's work who is being misleading.
Sethdayal, in his new response, now lies by stating he uses "facts in my argument" when his original response stated, "I'm alway's pleased when the Bete Noir of Climate "science" rears terrifying head. Apparently he is noted for running and hiding." Sethdayal is nothing more than a smear artist full of hate who cannot even spell the author's name of the article he is criticizing correctly, indicating how carefully he checks his facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe refers to peer reviewed papers (reviewed by multiple scientists in the field) that contain underlying tables and data that served as the basis for the Scientific American article as "a bunch more links to massive pile of unrelated data," yet he calls his numbers, which are not peer reviewed by any journal "facts." His inability to distinguish between peer-reviewed literature and internet postings speaks further to his credibility. He is not different than climate contrarians who, because they do not want to spend the time going through the peer-review process, manufacture their own data, put it on a web site, and refer to it in their blogs as referencable material.
Wow Jacobsen two entire posts consisting almost solely of Ad Homs. No wonder you didn't want Hannahan to post comments on your paper.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are many factual errors in your works most pointed out in.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/
In that you Nuclear Deniers have much in common with Climate counterparts.
I notice you have not so far included any defence of my thrashing of your anti nuclear arguments. Do you actually have something to say?
SethDayal lost his credibility with smears and a lie to cover up his smears along with a failure or inability to read scientific papers and continuous reliance on non-peer reviewed information posted by advocates rather than disinterested scientists. Claims he has made and referred to at nuclear advocate's web sites have been addressed. It is not the authors' job to teach him how to read scientific papers to find information. His continuation of spelling an author's name incorrectly after he has been informed of this speaks volumes about his intent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJacobson says: "….that do not distinguish the difference between footprint and spacing and exaggerate the wind spacing relative to the nuclear footprint…."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong. The footprint of a typical 1.5 MW Wind Turbine is 42 ft X 42 ft or .016 ha. The footprint of the AP1000 NPP is 0.4 ha. Thus the AP1000, produces 1.8 million GWh/ha over its lifetime vs 74 GWh/ha for the 1.5 MW wind turbine. Using the basic cleared access area of the Wind Turbine and the total building site of the AP1000 complex we get 71,000 GWh/ha for the Nuclear and 37 GWh/ha for the Wind Turbine. Using total fenced off Nuclear Site area (mostly wilderness preserve) vs Wind Farm Site area (may be farmland or deforested wilderness but damn ugly, noisy and lot's of dead birds & bats), we get 5,000 GWh/ha for Nuclear vs 2.7 GWh/ha for the Wind Farm. Access roads must be maintained for Wind Farms as they require servicing and a giant crane must be brought in for blade or gearbox changes (every 5-10yrs). Transmission lines & Access Roads for Nuclear are short vs vast stretches of cleared wilderness for the hazardous high voltage Wind Transmission lines.
Some pictures of Jacobson's Wind Farms:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/index.htm#photos
Does this look like a small area of wilderness destruction?
http://www.magicalliance.org/Maps/WindFarms/mountaineer3b.jpg
Jacobson says: "…Further, nuclear requires continuous uranium mining, transport, and processing throughout the life of the power plant. Wind requires no continuous fuel supply…"
But uranium mining is trivial, while Wind requires huge amounts of mined as well as petroleum derived materials for their construction. As-a-matter-of-fact, if an average American's Lifetime Electricity consumption, came from standard GenII LWR Nuclear, he would require 38 kg of Natural Uranium mined. For energy from Wind, he would require 4.7 MILLION kg of Steel and 8.9 MILLION kg of Concrete. If the person's Electricity comes from a High Burn reactor like a LIFTR or IFR they would require only 0.15 kg of Thorium or Uranium! The current USA stock of Depleted Uranium would supply the entire USA current electricity production for 1160 yrs, burned in an IFR or Traveling Wave Reactor.
Jacobson says: "…In the U.S., two coal fired power plants are dedicated solely to providing energy for uranium processing…"
Duh. The idea is to replace all Fossil Fuel power plants with Nuclear and that includes Uranium Processing or Wind Turbine materials mining & processing. An idiotic argument.
Jacobson says: "…nations developing nuclear weapons secretly under cover of nuclear power plants…"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNonsense. If that is a problem, why is staunchly anti-Nuclear Germany a strong proponent of the plan to offer Iran all the Light Water Nuclear Power reactors and Nuclear fuel they want, if they suspend enrichment and allow inspections of their facilities? Curious how Germany didn't offer sunny Iran all the Solar & Wind power they want, instead. I guess, even Germany realized Iranians aren't that gullible.
Jacobson says: "…spread of nuclear energy to most countries of the world will not increase the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation…"
Wrong. Iran is the number one Nuclear Proliferation risk at the moment. That problem began with the coup engineered by British Petroleum - your puppet masters. The best way to control Iran is with an Oil/NG boycott or blockade. Oh wait, we can't due that because their Oil/NG is too valuable to the West. Why, because we have failed to develop the only substitute for Oil/Coal/NG - Nuclear energy. Thus Nuclear Proliferation is CAUSED by Jacobson’s anti-Nuclear effort. And inflated Oil price funds Iran's weapons programs and terrorist financing. Thanks-a-lot Jacobson.
Jacobson says: "…Every terrorist in the world would love … and would support the spread of nuclear power.."
Wrong. Intelligence has already learned that Bin Laden studied the possibility of attacking NPP's, but concluded it to be infeasible and of minor consequence. Jacobson's NG & LNG on the other hand is an easy terrorist target. If one gasfitter with a valve can destroy a $1B NG power plant and kill 6 people (last month in Connecticut), just think what they can do with Jacobson's NG power plants located inside of high population density cities.
Jacobson says: "…individual studies for nuclear CO2 emissions, gives a mean value near 70 g-CO2/kWh.."
Wrong. Udiv analyzed Jacobson's sources for nuclear CO2 emissions. His conclusion:
"…Is false. The paper cited gets the figure from citation #50, which points to this paper by the kook Sovacool. It "reviews" 103 papers, but it discards most of them, using a subset of 19 studies for the published average. (c.f. table #6). And as a measure of how likely those numbers actually are, simply note that e.g. three of them are by Storm van Leeuwen [ Club of Rome Elitist Genocidal Fanatic]…"
Dwd falsely states that The footprint of a typical 1.5 MW Wind Turbine is 42 ft x 42 ft (164 square meters) when a simple measurement and any photograph indicates that the tower itself with a concrete based above ground is between 4-5 m in diameter, or 12.6 to 19.6 square meters, a factor of 10 lower than he claims. Here are some photographs of wind turbine footprints.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.fotothing.com/photos/201/201f315869251242d8a28ba202bb3527_c99.jpg
http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/mediablob/en/310986/data/48507/blob.jpg
http://www.kentishflats.co.uk/multimedia/Aerial_Views_5.jpg
These footprints are nothing close to 164 square meters.
He tries further to claim, without citation, that a nuclear plant has a mere footprint of 63 m x 63 m. That is laughable. As referenced previously with citation, the footprint on the ground for a facility, uranium mining, and waste storage without buffer is 4.9-7.9 square kilometers (2.2 km x 2.2 km to 2.8 km x 2.8 km), 35 times larger than he claims. In other words, he has exaggerated the ratio of the nuclear to wind footprint by a factor of 350 (35 times 10).
He then claims that wind transmission lines take up footprint, when in fact, a transmission line covers virtually no soil as the base of a transmission tower is four supporting posts in the ground. In fact, in some cases, more vegetation grows under the transmission tower than in the surrounding area, as evidence by the photograph at
http://product-image.tradeindia.com/00231544/b/0/Transmission-Towers.jpg
so the footprint can almost be argued to be negative in that case. As transmission towers do not constitute more than trivial footprint on the ground, wildlife can still travel and live under them.
He further claims that access roads for wind are significant, but again fails to acknowledge that offshore wind, which can theoretically power the entire U.S., requires zero access roads, and other access roads are unpaved and mostly temporary (during turbine construction) and often indistinguishable from the background, as shown at
http://www.fotothing.com/photos/201/201f315869251242d8a28ba202bb3527_c99.jpg
Even if one counted unpaved access roads as footprint, one square kilometer of land would hold 200 linear kilometers of 5-m wide access road, still a trivial number considering how little distance is needed for access to a single turbine in a wind farm. In fact, though, paved access roads are not needed.
Dwbd further acts as an apologist for his support of the spread of nuclear energy facilities in a manner that endangers world security. He claims that only Iran is an issue, when in fact the nuclear industry is already responsible for India and Pakistans weapons by providing these countries with energy facilities when the industry was clearly aware of the ability of countries to produce weapons grade material under the cover of energy facilities. He ignores the fact that Syria and Venezuela now want nuclear facilities to secretly hide weapons production as will many other countries. He also ignores the fact that many other countries will attempt to produce weapons once they obtain nuclear energy facilities if nuclear is done on a large scale.
Dwbds namecalling of someone he disagrees with as a kook and another person as a Club of Rome Elitist Gencidal Fanatic is nothing more than additional smears of people he disagrees with. All Dwbds smearing tells me is that he doesnt have an argument against the publications, so he degenerates into namecalling.
There is nothing credible in the information provided by Dwbd. Dwbd (who hides behind anonymity) has done nothing but strengthen the conclusions in the original Scientific American Article. After several months of efforts to find a hole in the article, Dwbd and other nuclear advocates who have tried to smear the article have just made themselves look foolish and unfamiliar with basic concepts. Stating that a single wind turbine has a 164 square meter footprint takes the cake though. That makes me thing Dwbd is just fabricating numbers out of thin air.
Just a thought here, but wouldn't building 3.8 million wind turbines use up most of the worlds supply of steel?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read a particular windmill near to me weighed about 205 metric tonnes (2.2 tons). Most of this weight is from the steel construction of the tower and hub. Add to that the steel reinforcement needed for the foundation, and I'd be surprised if the total steel used is less than 150 tons.
That means that building these windmills would require about 570 million tons.
That's nearly half of the worlds total production (about 37% of which is recycled) for a year.
That's an incredible commitment of a resource which is used in so many ways.
Here is a simple solution to climate change: DECARBONIZATION Pyrolyse hydrocarbons (including methane) to produce coke and hydrogen. Bury the coke in land-fill sites and burn the hydrogen to generate electricity. No CO2 is roduced just water. I am investing in this technology which will allow fossil fuels, (except coal) to be consumed until alternative energies are developed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee www.eprida .com for details of the current state of pyrolysis.
The large amount of wind a wind turbine must slow down and the ~0.3 availability of this wind does of course mean steel and other materials spent on this task go much less far than if used in capturing more concentrated energies. But wind turbines are funded out of fossil fuel tax revenues, and built in token numbers to protect those revenues. No-one is going to build wind turbine number 3800000, or even number 1000000.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome nice un-peer-reviewed exposition here: http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2010/03/uptime-downtime_07.html
(<em><a href="http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/">How fire can be domesticated</a></em>)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismzjacobson wrote& Hannahan submitted comments to the journal following publication of the article, the authors of the paper then responded
The authors first round responses were very simplistic.
For example; Comment& The location chosen for their distributed wind model is the best in the country, as indicated by their average capacity factor of 0.45 about a third higher than the national average, also partially explained by the large machines assumed. If wind is to be a major source of energy most arrays will be in locations where conditions are not as good. The study should use an average area.
Authors response& Mr. Hannahan suggests that the area we chose for our analysis was too good for winds and that we should have chosen an average area instead. This is obviously not a good idea. By comparison, one would not aim at building a uranium extraction site where the chances of finding the raw material are average.
(Note: I have not seen any analysis of future uranium supplies based on the very highest ore grade found in the country, and only one future windpower proposal (this paper) based on the very best wind resource in the country.)
Comment& The paper compares the reliability of one coal plant with the reliability of an array of 19 wind farms. To make it an apples to apples comparison, the same analytic technique should be applied to an array of 19 coal or nuclear plants, which is more like a real grid, and would have much higher reliability.
Authors response& A 19-site array of wind farms, 100 MW each, would produce at most 0.45 x 100 MW x 19 = 855 MW, less than a single 1-GW nuclear or coal-fired power plant.
(Note: The authors analyzed an area of 850 km by 850 km. If such a huge area could only support 855MW of windpower we would not be talking about windpower.
If the area was built out to the maximum capacity of windmills, the data plates would add up to several tens of GW. The authors made a diversionary comment to avoid responding to the point.)
Comment& The word reliability has been stretched so badly that it is almost meaningless. A better characterization is controllability and predictability .
Consider a hydroelectric reservoir with the same data plate rating as the proposed wind array, and enough water inflow to run the generators at a capacity factor of 45%. A grid manager heading into a summer heat wave would much rather have the hydro plant than the wind array, because the hydro plant can ramp up to 100% for a few hours on peak, and back to 20% the rest of the day. In California, wind on peak capacity dropped below 4% of data plate rating for seven days during the heat wave of 2006, (Dixon 2008).
Power output controllability and predictability are the key factors grid managers need to maintain proper voltage and frequency on the grid.
Authors response& We agree with Mr. Hannahan that a grid operator would prefer the simple turning of a dial to control the electricity output rather than the managing of a complex, modern, and flexible system with a large amount of clean and intermittent renewables.
Comment& For the papers conclusion to be valid the recommendation must be affordable.
Authors response& We disagree with Mr. Hannahan that a papers scientific conclusions should also be affordable.
mzjacobson wrote& Hannahan tried to rewrite his comments and resubmit them since the comments were addressed by the authors and he did not like the fact that the responses were addressed.
Actually I was simply following the journals published procedure which calls for two rounds of comment and author response followed by publication of the final round.
My final comment is here.
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2010/01/review-comment-on-stanford-wind.html
The subsequent events are described here.
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2010/01/bill-hannahans-on-his-difficulties.html
mzjacobson wrote& The editor of the journal then gave Hannahan the option of sticking with the original comments or withdrawing the comments, which is journal policy, and he chose to withdraw the comments.
JAMCs editor refused to follow published AMS policy which is to publish the final comment with or without the authors response. If I agreed to have my first round comment published then the editor would not be in violation of published AMS policy. Publication of the final comment was the only option I approved, and that option was not allowed. I never withdrew my comments.
mzjacobson wrote& This is evidence only that Hannhan himself did not even have confidence in his own comments and was not interested in a dialogue, only to smear the authors.
Publishing my final comment on Nuclear Green, where anyone can comment on it, even the author, without going through the hoops of JAMC, shows my confidence. The second link contains a dialogue about CO2 emissions with one of Jacobsons referenced authors, Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, which demonstrates how productive scientific dialogue can be.
Jacobson refused to engage in more than one round of dialogue. His refusal to provide a point by point response to the final comment shows his lack of confidence in his position and a lack of interest in learning the truth.
mzjacobson wrote& What is worse, Hannahan then sent comments around, pretending as if his original comments were not responded to. This speaks only to dishonesty by Hannahan.
This is a nonsensical fabrication. I asked several people to put pressure on JAMC to publish the final comment with or without Jacobsons response, as called for in the published AMS comment procedure. I also suggested that JAMC publish all three comments with a note that Jacobson refused to provide a response to the final comment.
mzjacobson wrote& Sethdayals&. inability to distinguish between peer-reviewed literature and internet postings speaks further to his credibility. He is not different than climate contrarians who, because they do not want to spend the time going through the peer-review process, manufacture their own data, put it on a web site, and refer to it in their blogs as referencable material.
JAMCs peer review of Jacobsons wind reliability paper failed to identify the errors highlighted in my review comment and in other peoples review comments.
None of the authors or reviewers of this paper are electrical engineers in the power industry. Authors are asked to suggest reviewers for their work. Are the students at Stanford allowed to suggest fellow students to grade their term papers? This is a sign of laziness. The editors should do the leg work to find independent reviewers. Any senior grid manager, of which there are hundreds, could have done an excellent job.
Two civil engineers published a deeply flawed electrical engineering paper in a journal for meteorology and climatology. The paper is being used to mislead the public and political leaders. It has been referenced repeatedly on numerous blogs and publications.
Peer review does not guarantee quality or accuracy. Quality of work depends on the quality of the people doing the work.
A simple point about using hydrogen as an energy vector: Why is hydrogen so rare element in the atmosphere, despite its abundance in combined compounds? Hydrogen escapes from biosphere, produces very reactive free radicals in the stratosphere or eve escapes from the earth field. That means that a part of each mol of water decomposed in hydrogen and oxygen disappears: only a fraction produces water. So, most water is decomposed most water is completely eliminated from the water cycle!!! If hydrogen production for fuel will became an extensive industry, the total amount of water in the Earth will be in serious risk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegrettably, the Scientific American site replaces quotation marks with a & sign, does not enable editing and does not support hyperlinks. Sorry about the confusing appearance of the prior post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBill Hannahan, in his reply on 3/15 continues to be dishonest in his response. He claims,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"JAMCs editor refused to follow published AMS policy which is to publish the final comment with or without the authors response. "
No. Mr. Hannahan, violated JAMC policy by attempting to manipulate the editorial decision. The letter to Mr. Hannahan from the JAMC Chief Editor is very clear on this point:
Dear Mr. Hannahan,
It has come to the attention of the American Meteorological Society that, in an attempt to influence an editorial decision of the AMS, you distributed a mass email which included confidential reviews and correspondences associated with your comment on the paper "Supplying Baseload Power and Reducing Transmission Requirements by Interconnecting Wind Farms" and the reply by the authors.
The AMS views the widespread distribution of confidential material as a serious and unethical compromise of the peer review process.
On 3/12/2009, the AMS editorial process on the comment and reply concluded by offering to publish the original comment and reply, but not any subsequent modifications. The AMS publication commission stands by this decision. You were asked by the JAMC editor in charge of the manuscript to notify the AMS which of three options you wished to exercise regarding the disposition of the comment and reply. These were: 1) Give permission to publish your original Comment together with the Reply, 2) Withdraw your Comment, 3) Have the comment be rejected. You never responded, and the comment and reply were place on a hold.
We are giving you a second and final opportunity to make this decision. Please inform me no later than July 3, 2009 which of these options you wish to exercise. If you do not respond by July 3, we will assume that you wish to withdraw the comment.
Sincerely,
Chief Editor, JAMC
As he did not respond with one of the options, his comments were withdrawn, contrary to his claim.
If Mr. Hannahan were honest, he would show complete original comments, our complete original responses, his complete revised comments, and our complete revised responses instead of showing selective quotes. Further, he would not add commentary to the responses; just let readers decide on their own. Further, he would insist to post our responses on Barton's web site.
Mr. Hannahan has shown no errors in the conclusions of the papers. His comments have been responded to twice, and no further comments of his on that paper will be responded to. He lost his credibility when attempting to manipulate the review process.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismzjacobson wrote: Mr. Hannahan, violated JAMC policy by attempting to manipulate the editorial decision.
Hannahan: I thank mzjacobson for posting the editors note listing the three options I was given. Notice that the options did not include, 4, publication of the final review comment or, 5, publication of all comments.
The AMS authors guide refers to review comments with the word CORRESPONDENCE. On page 14 the guide states;
A copy of the correspondence or comments will be sent by the editor to the author of the
paper being commented on. The author of the original paper will then have two months to submit a reply to the correspondence. This time limit applies only if the author wishes the reply to appear in the same issue of the journal as the correspondence. If a reply is submitted by the original author after the two month deadline, it may, if found acceptable, appear in a later issue of the journal. In such cases, the author of the correspondence will be given the opportunity to publish a response along with the reply
The reply, once received, will be sent to the author of the correspondence, who may then
withdraw the correspondence (in which case neither the correspondence nor the reply would be
published), revise the correspondence (within one month of receiving the reply), or leave the
correspondence unchanged. If the correspondence is revised, it is sent to the original author of
the paper, who then has the opportunity to amend the reply.
The authors guide is here.
http://www.ametsoc.org/pubs/Authorsguide/pdf_vs/authguide.pdf
The guide does not require the author’s response to publish a comment, and gives the author the opportunity to respond at a later time. When the final comment was sent to the author, the author declined to exercise his opportunity to amend his reply. At that point JAMC violated the published procedure by sending both first round comments to AMS for publication without consulting me.
I did attempt to manipulate the editorial decision AFTER the editor refused to publish my final comment and twice submitted the less comprehensive first round comment for publication without my permission. I collected the names and email addresses of AMS members in positions of leadership and explained the issue to them, asking for their support to publish the BEST comment or ALL of the comments.
mzjacobson wrote; If Mr. Hannahan were honest, he would show complete original comments, our complete original responses, his complete revised comments, and our complete revised responses instead of showing selective quotes.
Hannahan: For the sake of brevity and clarity I try to separate the wheat from the chaff. The author is free to include complete documents if he thinks that is better. Neither the author nor I can present the authors complete revised response to my final comment because he refused to submit one. If he had it would have been published in response to my final comment.
mzjacobson wrote; Further, he would not add commentary to the responses; just let readers decide on their own.
Hannahan: The primary objective of scientific endeavor is to advance our understanding of how things work. To maximize progress in science there must be a level playing field where all ideas and points of view are given a full and fair evaluation.
The objective of my commentary is to shed light on the validity of the authors claim that some portion of windpower is as reliable as power from baseload power plants. Readers can decide for themselves whether my perspective is helpful or not.
If the author is interested in advancing scientific knowledge I would expect him to spend his time constructing a point by point rebuttal of my final comment, or to acknowledge their validity. Instead he seems focused on finding some technicality to justify his refusal to respond to the final comment.
mzjacobson wrote: he would insist to post our responses on Barton's web site.
Hannahan: I thank the author for permission to post his response on Charles Barton’s web site. I am confident that Charles will be willing to post any follow-up the author cares to make without editorial censorship.
mzjacobson wrote: Mr. Hannahan has shown no errors in the conclusions of the papers.
Hannahan: Are you attempting to manipulate the reader’s conclusion? Are you interested in knowing the truth about wind powers capacity to replace baseload power plants? Where is your point by point rebuttal of the final comment?
Re: footprint of Wind Turbines:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this&FPL (Florida Power & Light) Energy says, "a typical turbine site takes about a 42�42-foot-square graveled area&.
& &89-turbine Top of Iowa facility, the foundation of each 323-foot assembly is a 7-feet-deep 42-feet-diameter octagon filled with 25,713 pounds of reinforced steel and 181 cubic yards of concrete. &
So Jacobsons ridiculous claim that the footprint of a Wind Turbine is 12-20 sq.m. is laughable. This guy just pretends the noisy, dangerous 90m tower over your head, with a 35m blade, whose tip is commonly traveling at 150 to 350 mph, is just non-existent. Yep- huge shadows, loud noises, giant tower and blades you wont even notice pretend it isnt there. Really just a little patch of ground used where the tower meets the earth. I really wonder if this guy has even the slightest knowledge of BEAUTIFUL UNSPOILED WILDERNESS! Makes me wonder if he ever set foot anywhere outside the city.
Jacobson claims: &that a nuclear plant has a mere footprint of 63 m x 63 m. That is laughable&the footprint on the ground for a facility, uranium mining, and waste storage without buffer&
Wrong. Westinghouse puts the AP1000 at 0.4 ha (the actual Reactor complex building. Thats for the 1.8 million GWh/ha vs the Wind Turbine @ 74 GWh/ha on its .016 ha graveled bed. I added associated buildings, dry cask storage, cooling towers, maintenance sheds, paved roads, etc to 10 ha vs the Wind Turbine area, of 2 ha which must be cleared of trees and obstacles to Wind Flow. I linked pictures which clearly show this. I didnt include access road area. That gives the 71,000 GWh/ha vs 37 GWh/ha comparison, Nuclear to Wind. Total site area, both cases fenced in from public usage, but mostly unused land correctly gives the last values of 5,000 GWh/ha Nuclear vs 2.7 GWh/ha Wind. Example, latest Nuclear Site proposal for 527 ha, fenced in area, for 4.4 GW facility:
http://www.brucepower.com/uc/GetDocument.aspx?docid=2866
Wind areas:
http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html
There is nothing wrong with the article bearing in mind we are only in 2010 and global warming is taken as joke by some. Take the example of USA. From the time Obama has come on the throne he never has mentioned about this a he has his hands full with the domestic health and education added to the unemployment problems. He has yet to complete some time as we him flip the pan from the left to the right side without getting it burnt. Sarah Plain is right after him . I think 2030 is but a dream. I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt should be abundantly clear now that dwbd does not understand what footprint is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFootprint is defined as "An outline or indentation left by a foot on a surface." For example, if I step on the ground and leave a mark, that is a footprint.
Dwbd tries to claim that concrete areas underground count as footprint, when in fact turbine foundations are buried underground and as such, they are not footprint. Instead, foundations are covered by soil so that the soil can be used for multiple purposes, including farming, ranching, open space, or water. This is the purpose of having a low footprint. The footprint on the ground of wind is trivial, and dwbd's statements about wind's footprint are nonsense.
Dwbd's claims are contradicted simply by the photographs presented previously as well as the simple fact that the numbers he refers to are foundation areas UNDER THE GROUND, NOT FOOTPRINT.
Dwbd further claims that wind farms need to be cleared of trees. This is hardly true today (only a few locations) and certainly not for our plan to power much of the world with wind, where most wind will occur over the ocean or over the Great Plains, just as it is not true for Tehacchapi or Palm Desert or Altamont Pass.
Dwbd then claims that nuclear footprint is small. While it is smaller than many energy sources as we have stated, it is much larger than that of wind to provide the same energy, and no misinformation by dwbd will change this fact.
This is demonstrated not only by dwbd's severe error in calculating wind's footprint but also his failure to counter Spitzley and Keoleian, who account for the fact that nuclear waste needs to be stored over 10,000 years so accumulates in time requiring more and more land area with each generation of power plant, that nuclear plants require about 0.06 ha-yr/GWh for uranium mining, and require about 0.26 ha-yr/GWh for facility + buffer zone. Part of the "buffer zone" (in many cases) includes a reservoir or lake for cooling, which dwbd pretends doesn't count for anything. However, just as such areas count as footprint for hydroelectric and coal, they also count for nuclear, particularly since thermal pollution damages the lake and its wildlife and enhances evaporation. In some cases, the reservoir must be dammed to contain water for the nuclear plant. Dwbd's choices and number for power nuclear plant areas are selective. He claims he "added associated buildings, dry cask storage..." as if his own approximations are credible.
Here a response to Sohail Husain's letter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat Mohammad would have told his followers that they could earn paradise by educating their daughters is unlikely.
This is certainly not in in the Koran.
I know where to find that a woman is worth half a man in inheritage:
"4.11": Allah enjoins you concerning your children: The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females;
and as witness: 2:282
"..but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses,
but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses,.."
And I know how Islam regards women:
"2.223": Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like,
and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah,
and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers.
And of course where to find how non-believers should be slaugtered (one among many): 9:5
"9.5": So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them,
and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush,
then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate,
leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
What Husain says about her prophet is simply not in line with more reliable sources.
Blame the Taliban for whatever you like, but not for not knowing Islam.
Is there no reason for the editor to check the facts if it matter politically sensitive issues?
sofistek, you mention that the first reader's comment on the effect of these solutions on climate was important, but not answered by the authors. I want to point out that their comment was incorrect. As the authors say, "Energy from the wind, worldwide, is about 1,700 TW." The lower value of 40 to 85 TW for wind energy was the value after subtracting huge areas of the earth on which it would be difficult to place wind turbines. Therefore the reader's belief that the proposed wind turbines would absorb a large percentage of the total wind energy of the world is not correct. Likewise for solar. Your other point that we should reconsider how much energy we need is important. But perhaps we should rephrase this as how much energy we in North America and Europe actually need. The rest of the world, which consumes per capita something like 1/100th or less of the US usage, is almost certain to increase their consumption. We need to reduce our own consumption and energy use, ending our bad example and the global cultural and corporate propaganda that leads the rest of the world to wish for nothing less than current US levels of consumption.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this