Nemo’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  California's PUC might be a better model to look at regarding energy efficiency:

  http://www.californiaenergyefficiency.com/index.shtml

  "The Plan advances a solid framework that incorporates energy efficiency into the standard for operating in California—for utilities, businesses, and consumers. It includes four “Big Bold strategies” strategies for significant energy-savings: All new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2020: All new commercial construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030 The Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) industry will be reshaped to ensure optimal equipment performance; and All eligible low-income homes will be energy-efficient by 2020"

  On Coal-nundrum and Ex-gas-peration posted 4 months, 3 weeks ago 15 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2009/january7/power-010709.html

  �

  "Wind, water and sun beat other energy alternatives, study finds

  �

  BY LOUIS BERGERON

  LM Glasfiber

  Wind power is the most promising alternative source of energy, according to Mark Jacobson.

  The best ways to improve energy security, mitigate global warming and reduce the number of deaths caused by air pollution are blowing in the wind and rippling in the water, not growing on prairies or glowing inside nuclear power plants, says Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford.

  And "clean coal," which involves capturing carbon emissions and sequestering them in the earth, is not clean at all, he asserts.

  Jacobson has conducted the first quantitative, scientific evaluation of the proposed, major, energy-related solutions by assessing not only their potential for delivering energy for electricity and vehicles, but also their impacts on global warming, human health, energy security, water supply, space requirements, wildlife, water pollution, reliability and sustainability. His findings indicate that the options that are getting the most attention are between 25 to 1,000 times more polluting than the best available options. The paper with his findings will be published in the next issue of�Energy and Environmental Science�but is available online now. Jacobson is also director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford."

  On Nuclear + cap-and-trade = bipartisan climate bill? posted 4 months, 3 weeks ago 16 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid601.php

  "Spent LWR fuel “burned” in IFRs, it’s claimed, could meet all humanity’s energy needs for centuries. But renewables and efficiency can do that forever at far lower cost, with no proliferation, nuclear wastes, or major risks.10 Moreover, any new type of reactor would probably cost even more than today’s models: even if the nuclear part of a new plant were free, the rest—two-thirds of its capital cost—would still be grossly uncompetitive with any efficiency and most renewables, sending out a kilowatt-hour for ~9–13¢/kWh instead of new LWRs’ ~12–18+¢. In contrast, the average U.S. windfarm completed in 2007 sold its power (net of a 1¢/ kWh subsidy that’s a small fraction of nuclear subsidies) for 4.5¢/kWh. Add ~0.4¢ to make it dispatchable whether the wind is blowing or not and you get under a nickel delivered to the grid."

  "In short, the notion that different or smaller reactors plus wholly new fuel cycles (and, usually, new competitive conditions and political systems) could overcome nuclear energy’s inherent problems is not just decades too late, but fundamentally a fantasy. Fantasies are all right, but people should pay for their own. Investors in and advocates of small-reactor innovations will be disappointed. But in due course, the aging advocates of the half-century-old reactor concepts that never made it to market will retire and die, their credulous young devotees will relearn painful lessons lately forgotten, and the whole nuclear business will complete its slow death of an incurable attack of market forces. Meanwhile, the rest of us shouldn’t be distracted from getting on with the winning investments that make sense, make money, and really do solve the energy, climate, and proliferation problems, led by business for profit."

  On Nuclear + cap-and-trade = bipartisan climate bill? posted 4 months, 3 weeks ago 16 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

   

   

  The Rocky Mountain Institute has evaluated new nuclear power for climate change mitigation.  The analysis can be found at the following web page:

   http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php

  FORGET NUCLEAR

  "This non-technical summary article compares the cost, climate protection potential, reliability, financial risk, market success, deployment speed, and energy contribution of new nuclear power with those of its low- or no-carbon competitors. It explains why soaring taxpayer subsidies aren't attracting investors. Capitalists instead favor climate-protecting competitors with less cost, construction time, and financial risk. The nuclear industry claims it has no serious rivals, let alone those competitors-which, however, already outproduce nuclear power worldwide and are growing enormously faster.

  Most remarkably, comparing all options' ability to protect the earth's climate and enhance energy security reveals why nuclear power could never deliver these promised benefits even if it could find free-market buyers-while its carbon-free rivals, which won $71 billion of private investment in 2007 alone, do offer highly effective climate and security solutions, sooner, with greater confidence."

  "New nuclear power is so costly that shifting a dollar of spending from nuclear to efficiency protects the climate several-fold more than shifting a dollar of spending from coal to nuclear. Indeed, under plausible assumptions, spending a dollar on new nuclear power instead of on efficient use of electricity has a worse climate effect than spending that dollar on new coal power!

  If we’re serious about addressing climate change, we must invest resources wisely to expand and accelerate climate protection. Because nuclear power is costly and slow to build, buying more of it rather than of its cheaper, swifter rivals will instead reduce and retard climate protection."

   

  The White House science adviser should study this article and, maybe, enlist RMI as a consultant to show them how climate change should be mitigated.  New nuclear power plants are not the answer.

  On This White House science adviser thinks America should embrace nuclear power posted 5 months, 2 weeks ago 6 Responses