Charles Barton’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  RussellLowes You used StormSmith to discredit mining Uranium from the Sea? Unbelievable. Don't Stormsmith has been repeatedly discredited discredited. You will have to come up with a better source than that.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month ago 162 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Building enough nuclear plants would require a change in the method of building. The focus would have to be on factory production with a minimum of onsite labor. There are advanced nuclear designs, most notably te LFTR that are relatively simple, robust, and requite a minimum of building time.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month ago 162 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Rod, the good news is that Amory can retire to raise and eats those famous bananas he grows in his legendary greenhouse. Lovins finished his career, when he failed to finish the last three of the 5 rebuttals he promised in response to David Bradish's critique. No doubt Lovins now recognizes the damage he did to his reputation by failing to give his promised answers to Bradish. He is now making a panicky effort to appear to be available for debate, but he is a day late and a dollar short. His moment is passing fast.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month ago 162 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  “My writings show why nuclear expansion therefore can’t deliver on its claims: it would reduce and retard climate protection, because it saves between two and 20 times less carbon per dollar,. . . than energy efficiency or micropower” Lovins critics complain that his data bas is created by cherry picking sources. If the critics are correct then Lovins contentions are based on a confirmationism, a major epistemological error. According to the Institute for Energy Research “The Energy Information Administration (EIA) produces forecasts of energy supply and demand for the next 20 years using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). These forecasts are updated annually and published in the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). EIA published a preliminary version of the AEO 2009 in December 2008, and updated the forecasts in April, 2009, to incorporate the energy provisions in the stimulus. All sectors of the energy system are represented in NEMS, including the electric power generation, transmission, and distribution system.” The IER has summerized data from the EIA’s updated April 2009 forecast. If lovins dors not Cherry pick his data, he would most certainly use thee EIA data, but we find that the EIA data contradicts Lovins claims. For example, the EIA forcast for energy generator completed in 2016 estimates that Advanced Combined Cycle generators, a form of natural gas powered generators which Lovins likes because of their efficiency will have a levelized cost of 8.7 cents per kWh. In contrast reactors completed in 2016 are forecast to have a levelized cost of 10.7 cents per kWh. While this figure is higher than the combined cycle generator, the combined cycle generator does not save between two and 20 times less carbon per dollar. Coal fired power plants produce a ton of CO2 per MWh of electricity produced. Hence the cost of eliminating a ton of CO2 equals the levelized cost of producing a MWh of electricity if the electricity is produced at zero emissions. However combined cycle generators prefered by Lovins for their efficiency do produce some CO2 and will varry a levelized cost of cost $160 for every ton of CO2 saved. In contrast reactors cost will cost $107 per ton of COw. Renewable generating sources turn out to also be more expensive per ton of CO2 saved than reactors: Wind (classified by Lovins as micropower) will cost $141-229 per ton CO2 Solar (classified by Lovins as micropower) will cost $263-396 per ton CO2 Hence it appears that had Mr. Lovins used recent EIA data he would have been forced to reject the claim that that non nuclear energy technologies favored by Mr, Lovins save between two and 20 times less carbon per dollar. Indeed Nuclear technology saves more CO2 per dollar of levelized cost than energy technology preferred by Mr. Lovins, Not only is Mr. Lovins wrong about nuclear power adding to the expense of preventing CO2 emissions, but he is wrong that more efficient forms of carbon emitting technology, and rewbewable forms of micropower lowering the cost of saving CPO2 emissions. ot is clear that not only does Mr. Lovins cherry pick his data sources, but je ignores or attempts to discredit sources that di not support his a priori determined conclusions.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month ago 162 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Lovins, .�All power plants fail, varying only in their failures� size, duration, frequency, predictability, and cause. Solar cells� and windpower�s variation with night and weather is no different from the intermittence of coal and nuclear plants, except that it affects less capacity at once, more briefly, far more predictably, and is no harder and probably easier and cheaper to manage. In short, the ability to serve steady loads is a statistical attribute of all plants on the grid, not an operational requirement for one plant. Variability (predictable failure) and intermittence (unpredictable failure) must be managed by diversifying type and location, forecasting, and integrating with other resources. Utilities do this every day, balancing diverse resources to meet fluctuating demand and offset outages. Even with a largely (or probably a wholly) renewable grid, this is not a significant problem or cost, either in theory or in practice�as illustrated by areas that are already 30-40% wind-powered.� First Wind and solar not only fail, but their output varies on a seasonal, daily hourly and even a minute by minute basis. These variations are sometime spread over vary large areas. For example wind output reports suggest that in many North American Locations day time wind outputs are lower than night time wind outputs. Summer wind outputs are typically lower than Summer wind outputs Photo Voltaic and solar thermal outputs varie according to time of the day, without building from nothing at dawn, to maximum output at solar noon, and back to nothing at dusk. Solar output varies according to season of the year, with winter outputs being substantially lower than summer outputs. Solar out also varies with cloud cover and following rain storms, dust storms, and even snow falls. Both wind and solar outputs are very much effected by location. For example many areas of the south have cloud cover 50% of the time or more. The same areas my have wind capacity factors of .20 or less meaning that solar and wind generation power will not be available for at least 30% of the time. Nuclear Generators deliver over 90% of their rated power on an annual basis. Most power shut downs are conducted by operator choice, rather than temporal or geographic factors. Nuclear plants produce equal amounts of power during summer and winter, and thus are far more reliable than solar and wind power facilities. Nuclear plants are available to produce power when consumers want electricity. Solar and wind powered facilities produce when solar and other climatic conditions are good at particular localities. Conditions at many localities may not be good for much of the time at some localities. Thus the lovins claim that "Solar cells� and windpower�s variation with night and weather is no different from the intermittence of coal and nuclear plants," is utterly, completely and totally absurd. Lovins completely misrepresents the difference between renewables and nuclear power, and this misrepresentation suggests Lovins simply does not understand the limitations of renewable generated electricity.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month ago 162 Responses