Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
kristopher
kristopher's Journal
kristopher's Journal
February 28, 2012
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-27/nuclear-energy-group-sues-over-uranium-mining-ban-in-arizona.html
Nuclear Energy Group Sues Over Uranium Mining Ban in Arizona
Nuclear Energy Group Sues Over Uranium Mining Ban in Arizona
February 27, 2012, 10:05 PM EST
By Edvard Pettersson
Feb. 27 (Bloomberg) -- The Nuclear Energy Institute and the National Mining Association said they sued the U.S. to reverse a ban on new uranium mining on federal land around the Grand Canyon in Arizona.
The two organizations, representing mining and nuclear power companies, today asked a federal court in Arizona to reverse a U.S. Interior Department ban, announced Jan. 9, on new hard-rock mining claims on about 1 million acres (405,000 hectares) of land, according to an e-mailed statement. The lawsuit couldn’t be independently confirmed from court records.
Richard Myers, vice president for policy development with the nuclear power group, said in the statement that the proposed land withdrawal was designed to protect against circumstances that no longer exist. The land involved isn’t within the Grand Canyon or the buffer zone protecting the national park, according to the statement.
“Contrary to the assertions by the administration, today’s environmental laws ensure that ore extraction and production at uranium mines have minimal environmental impact on the surrounding land, water and wildlife,” Myers said.
Arizona Strip
The uranium resources in the so-called Arizona Strip represent ...
February 27, 2012, 10:05 PM EST
By Edvard Pettersson
Feb. 27 (Bloomberg) -- The Nuclear Energy Institute and the National Mining Association said they sued the U.S. to reverse a ban on new uranium mining on federal land around the Grand Canyon in Arizona.
The two organizations, representing mining and nuclear power companies, today asked a federal court in Arizona to reverse a U.S. Interior Department ban, announced Jan. 9, on new hard-rock mining claims on about 1 million acres (405,000 hectares) of land, according to an e-mailed statement. The lawsuit couldn’t be independently confirmed from court records.
Richard Myers, vice president for policy development with the nuclear power group, said in the statement that the proposed land withdrawal was designed to protect against circumstances that no longer exist. The land involved isn’t within the Grand Canyon or the buffer zone protecting the national park, according to the statement.
“Contrary to the assertions by the administration, today’s environmental laws ensure that ore extraction and production at uranium mines have minimal environmental impact on the surrounding land, water and wildlife,” Myers said.
Arizona Strip
The uranium resources in the so-called Arizona Strip represent ...
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-27/nuclear-energy-group-sues-over-uranium-mining-ban-in-arizona.html
February 27, 2012
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/27/activists_challenge_japans_nuclear_village/singleton/
Activists challenge Japan’s “nuclear village”
Activists challenge Japan’s “nuclear village”
MONDAY, FEB 27, 2012 10:00 AM EST
A year after Fukushima, an energized civil society pushes for solar power and accountability
BY AKITO YOSHIKANE
The quiet resolve of Japanese citizens in the aftermath of last year’s triple disaster of earthquake, tsunami and reactor meltdown quickly turned into frustration as the government failed to adequately respond to the worst nuclear catastrophe since Chernobyl in 1986.
In the nearly one year since the March 11 earthquake, Japan has suffered a bevy of problems, from rolling blackouts and currency woes, to radiation fears, all under the tutelage of a central leadership that has failed to inspire public confidence.
So much so that Japan changed prime ministers last August – now the sixth in five years – amid a pivotal period in the country’s history. Yet the crisis in leadership, lack of transparency and revelations of nuclear safety oversights have also facilitated activism in a civil society that typically emphasizes cohesion over confrontation.
The fallout from Fukushima and the bungled response have spurred an increasing number of citizens to challenge the bureaucracy and nuclear industry as health and safety concerns still linger. Local areas are undergoing a rapid shift toward renewable energy. And citizen groups – many of which are led by women — are also leading the charge for a more direct democracy by attempting to hold what would be an unprecedented national referendum on the use of nuclear power.
The grass-roots effort is ...
MONDAY, FEB 27, 2012 10:00 AM EST
A year after Fukushima, an energized civil society pushes for solar power and accountability
BY AKITO YOSHIKANE
The quiet resolve of Japanese citizens in the aftermath of last year’s triple disaster of earthquake, tsunami and reactor meltdown quickly turned into frustration as the government failed to adequately respond to the worst nuclear catastrophe since Chernobyl in 1986.
In the nearly one year since the March 11 earthquake, Japan has suffered a bevy of problems, from rolling blackouts and currency woes, to radiation fears, all under the tutelage of a central leadership that has failed to inspire public confidence.
So much so that Japan changed prime ministers last August – now the sixth in five years – amid a pivotal period in the country’s history. Yet the crisis in leadership, lack of transparency and revelations of nuclear safety oversights have also facilitated activism in a civil society that typically emphasizes cohesion over confrontation.
The fallout from Fukushima and the bungled response have spurred an increasing number of citizens to challenge the bureaucracy and nuclear industry as health and safety concerns still linger. Local areas are undergoing a rapid shift toward renewable energy. And citizen groups – many of which are led by women — are also leading the charge for a more direct democracy by attempting to hold what would be an unprecedented national referendum on the use of nuclear power.
The grass-roots effort is ...
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/27/activists_challenge_japans_nuclear_village/singleton/
February 27, 2012
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/27/idUSL4E8DR4KI20120227
Japan cities press utility to switch from nuclear
Japan cities press utility to switch from nuclear
Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:50am EST
* Mayors say no utility should depend on single energy source
* Only two of 54 reactors on stream a year after nuclear disaster
* Government wants some units restarted to cope with summer demand
By Risa Maeda
TOKYO, Feb 27 (Reuters) - Three of Japan's major cities called for Kansai Electric Power Co, its second largest nuclear generator, to draw up a plan to switch to other energy sources nearly a year after the country suffered the world's worst nuclear accident in 25 years.
The mayors of Osaka, Kobe and Kyoto, home to a total of 5.7 million people, on Monday submitted questions on prospects for alternative energy supplies and price incentives to curb demand.
The cities hold a total 12 percent stake in Kansai. Nuclear power accounted for 44 percent of demand in Kansai's base in western Japan in the year to March 2011 -- making it the country's most nuclear-dependent utility.
Only two of Japan's 54 nuclear reactors are on stream after an earthquake and tsunami crippled the Fukushima Daiichi plant, run by Tokyo Electric Power Co., or Tepco, the largest nuclear operator....
Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:50am EST
* Mayors say no utility should depend on single energy source
* Only two of 54 reactors on stream a year after nuclear disaster
* Government wants some units restarted to cope with summer demand
By Risa Maeda
TOKYO, Feb 27 (Reuters) - Three of Japan's major cities called for Kansai Electric Power Co, its second largest nuclear generator, to draw up a plan to switch to other energy sources nearly a year after the country suffered the world's worst nuclear accident in 25 years.
The mayors of Osaka, Kobe and Kyoto, home to a total of 5.7 million people, on Monday submitted questions on prospects for alternative energy supplies and price incentives to curb demand.
The cities hold a total 12 percent stake in Kansai. Nuclear power accounted for 44 percent of demand in Kansai's base in western Japan in the year to March 2011 -- making it the country's most nuclear-dependent utility.
Only two of Japan's 54 nuclear reactors are on stream after an earthquake and tsunami crippled the Fukushima Daiichi plant, run by Tokyo Electric Power Co., or Tepco, the largest nuclear operator....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/27/idUSL4E8DR4KI20120227
February 27, 2012
The two underlined portions are the false statements in this claim. There is no "should" nor do they say that we need 80-85% "dependable" energy sources. What they wrote is the current grid configuration can accommodate 20%. They set no hard limit on potential renewable penetration nor do they specify the "need" for any percentage of "dependable" energy sources.
In fact, if you go to the link you provided above http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12619&page=258 and look to the left you'll see a link titled "PDF report brief". This document is their plain language summary of the original paper "Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments (2010)"
Here is the link to the summary:
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/groups/energysite/documents/webpage/energy_054518.pdf
Now, is the NAS the final word on this? No they are not. Their work often lags current research in rapidly evolving fields like renewable integration where direct observation of real world events precedes the academic work the NAS relies on. In this case the worlds leading experts on the integration of variable resources into the grid have this to say:
You can download the full document by clicking the pdf link below and you'll be able to see figure 7 and the deleted paragraph refering to fig 7. It is an excellent explanation of how
Wind Power Myths Debunked
november/december 2009 IEEE power & energy magazine
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MPE.2009.934268
1540-7977/09/$26.00©2009 IEEE
By Michael Milligan, Kevin Porter, Edgar DeMeo, Paul Denholm, Hannele Holttinen, Brendan Kirby, Nicholas Miller, Andrew Mills, Mark O’Malley, Matthew Schuerger, and Lennart Soder
http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf
If you download it you'll find that they also debunk the claim that variable resources (specifically wind in this case) requires large amounts of backup generation.
There is no 2004 report, Pam. You made that up.
While the NAS site is the definitive source to establish whether this paper exists, since you want to continue your pretense and claim it only listed at academic libraries, then let's call your bluff on that point also:
http://libraries.mit.edu/esl/science/
That is an online link to MIT's engineering and science libraries. Your supposed document doesn't exist their either. A final point about the National Academy Press listings. Just because the document isn't available by PDF doesn't mean it isn't listed in their database. All of their work is there.
Now let's move to the new distraction you are trying to manufacture. The NAS paper supports what I've said, not what you've claimed. Your claim is that there is hard-limit, maximum possible contribution to the grid by renewables of 15-20%. Here are your own words:
"That's one of the reasons the National Academy of Science and Engineering says that renewables should be only about 15% to 20% of our electrical capacity. For the remaining 80% to 85%, we need energy sources that are dependable and not dependent on the whims of Mother Nature."
The two underlined portions are the false statements in this claim. There is no "should" nor do they say that we need 80-85% "dependable" energy sources. What they wrote is the current grid configuration can accommodate 20%. They set no hard limit on potential renewable penetration nor do they specify the "need" for any percentage of "dependable" energy sources.
In fact, if you go to the link you provided above http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12619&page=258 and look to the left you'll see a link titled "PDF report brief". This document is their plain language summary of the original paper "Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments (2010)"
Here is the link to the summary:
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/groups/energysite/documents/webpage/energy_054518.pdf
Transmission and Storage Requirements
From the level of deployment now until the level expected in 2020, there are no technological issues constraining deployment of wind, solar, conventional geothermal, and biopower technologies. However, a substantial fraction of new renewable electricity generation capacity would come from intermittent (wind and solar) and/or distant sources. As a result, increases in transmission capacity and other grid improvements are critical for significant penetration of renewable electricity sources. Co-location of renewable energy generation with fast-responding fossil fuel-fired generation, such as natural gas combustion turbines, can increase consistency and the value of building transmission lines. Further, for renewable power to produce more than 20 percent of total power generation, many local and regional electrical systems would require storage technologies to integrate these intermittent resources. Options include pumped hydropower, batteries, compressed air energy storage, or conversion of excess generated electricity to chemical fuels. Achieving a predominant (i.e., more than 50 percent) level of renewable electricity penetration would require storage technologies, as well as other scientific advances and dramatic changes in how we generate, transmit, and use electricity....
From the level of deployment now until the level expected in 2020, there are no technological issues constraining deployment of wind, solar, conventional geothermal, and biopower technologies. However, a substantial fraction of new renewable electricity generation capacity would come from intermittent (wind and solar) and/or distant sources. As a result, increases in transmission capacity and other grid improvements are critical for significant penetration of renewable electricity sources. Co-location of renewable energy generation with fast-responding fossil fuel-fired generation, such as natural gas combustion turbines, can increase consistency and the value of building transmission lines. Further, for renewable power to produce more than 20 percent of total power generation, many local and regional electrical systems would require storage technologies to integrate these intermittent resources. Options include pumped hydropower, batteries, compressed air energy storage, or conversion of excess generated electricity to chemical fuels. Achieving a predominant (i.e., more than 50 percent) level of renewable electricity penetration would require storage technologies, as well as other scientific advances and dramatic changes in how we generate, transmit, and use electricity....
Now, is the NAS the final word on this? No they are not. Their work often lags current research in rapidly evolving fields like renewable integration where direct observation of real world events precedes the academic work the NAS relies on. In this case the worlds leading experts on the integration of variable resources into the grid have this to say:
Does Wind Need Storage?
The fact that “the wind doesn’t always blow” is often used to suggest the need for dedicated energy storage to handle fluctuations in the generation of wind power. Such viewpoints, however, ignore the realities of both grid operation and the performance of a large, spatially diverse wind-generation resource. Historically, all other variation (for example, that due to system loads, generation-commitment and dispatch changes, and network topology changes) has been handled systemically. This is because the diversity of need leads to much lower costs when variability is aggregated before being balanced.
Storage is almost never “coupled” with any single energy source—it is most economic when operated to maximize the economic benefit to an entire system. Storage is nearly always beneficial to the grid, but this benefit must be weighed against its cost. With more than 26 GW of wind power currently operating in the United States and more than 65 GW of wind energy operating in Europe (as of the date of this writing), no additional storage has been added to the systems to balance wind. Storage has value in a system without wind, which is the reason why about 20 GW of pumped hydro storage was built in the United States and 100 GW was built worldwide, decades before wind and solar energy were considered as viable electricity generation technologies. Additional wind could increase the value of energy storage in the grid as a whole, but storage would continue to provide its services to the grid—storing energy from a mix of sources and responding to variations in the net demand, not just wind.
...
In a system with less base load and more flexible generation, the value of storage is relatively insensitive to the wind penetration. Figure 8 shows that storage still has value with no wind on the system, but there is a very slight increase in the value of storage even at a wind-penetration rate of 40% (energy). An across-the-board decrease in market prices reduces the incentives for a unit with high fixed costs and low variable costs (e.g., coal or nuclear) to be built in the first place. This means that in a high-wind future, fewer low-variable-cost units will be built. This reduces the amount of time that low-variable-cost units are on the margin and also reduces the value of storage relative to the “near-term” value with the same amount of wind.
The question of whether wind needs storage ultimately comes down to economic costs and benefits. More than a dozen studies analyzing the costs of large-scale grid integration of wind come to varying conclusions, but the most significant is that integration costs are moderate, even with up to 20% wind-energy penetration, and that no additional storage is necessary to integrate up to 20% wind energy in large balancing areas. Overall, these studies imply that the added cost of integrating wind over the next decade is far less than the cost of dedicated energy storage, and that the cost can potentially be reduced by the use of advanced wind-forecasting techniques.
The fact that “the wind doesn’t always blow” is often used to suggest the need for dedicated energy storage to handle fluctuations in the generation of wind power. Such viewpoints, however, ignore the realities of both grid operation and the performance of a large, spatially diverse wind-generation resource. Historically, all other variation (for example, that due to system loads, generation-commitment and dispatch changes, and network topology changes) has been handled systemically. This is because the diversity of need leads to much lower costs when variability is aggregated before being balanced.
Storage is almost never “coupled” with any single energy source—it is most economic when operated to maximize the economic benefit to an entire system. Storage is nearly always beneficial to the grid, but this benefit must be weighed against its cost. With more than 26 GW of wind power currently operating in the United States and more than 65 GW of wind energy operating in Europe (as of the date of this writing), no additional storage has been added to the systems to balance wind. Storage has value in a system without wind, which is the reason why about 20 GW of pumped hydro storage was built in the United States and 100 GW was built worldwide, decades before wind and solar energy were considered as viable electricity generation technologies. Additional wind could increase the value of energy storage in the grid as a whole, but storage would continue to provide its services to the grid—storing energy from a mix of sources and responding to variations in the net demand, not just wind.
...
In a system with less base load and more flexible generation, the value of storage is relatively insensitive to the wind penetration. Figure 8 shows that storage still has value with no wind on the system, but there is a very slight increase in the value of storage even at a wind-penetration rate of 40% (energy). An across-the-board decrease in market prices reduces the incentives for a unit with high fixed costs and low variable costs (e.g., coal or nuclear) to be built in the first place. This means that in a high-wind future, fewer low-variable-cost units will be built. This reduces the amount of time that low-variable-cost units are on the margin and also reduces the value of storage relative to the “near-term” value with the same amount of wind.
The question of whether wind needs storage ultimately comes down to economic costs and benefits. More than a dozen studies analyzing the costs of large-scale grid integration of wind come to varying conclusions, but the most significant is that integration costs are moderate, even with up to 20% wind-energy penetration, and that no additional storage is necessary to integrate up to 20% wind energy in large balancing areas. Overall, these studies imply that the added cost of integrating wind over the next decade is far less than the cost of dedicated energy storage, and that the cost can potentially be reduced by the use of advanced wind-forecasting techniques.
You can download the full document by clicking the pdf link below and you'll be able to see figure 7 and the deleted paragraph refering to fig 7. It is an excellent explanation of how
Wind Power Myths Debunked
november/december 2009 IEEE power & energy magazine
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MPE.2009.934268
1540-7977/09/$26.00©2009 IEEE
By Michael Milligan, Kevin Porter, Edgar DeMeo, Paul Denholm, Hannele Holttinen, Brendan Kirby, Nicholas Miller, Andrew Mills, Mark O’Malley, Matthew Schuerger, and Lennart Soder
http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf
If you download it you'll find that they also debunk the claim that variable resources (specifically wind in this case) requires large amounts of backup generation.
February 26, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/22/430256/nasa-earth-is-losing-half-a-trillion-tons-of-ice-a-year/
NASA: Earth Is Losing Half A Trillion Tons Of Ice A Year
NASA: Earth Is Losing Half A Trillion Tons Of Ice A Year
By Climate Guest Blogger on Feb 22, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Global Ice Loss from 2003-2010 Could “Cover the Entire United States in One and Half Feet of Water”
...
Using satellite measurements from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), the researchers measured ice loss in all of Earth’s land ice between 2003 and 2010, with particular emphasis on glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica.
The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth’s glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level. That’s enough ice to cover the United States 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) deep.
“Earth is losing a huge amount of ice to the ocean annually, and these new results will help us answer important questions in terms of both sea rise and how the planet’s cold regions are responding to global change,” said University of Colorado Boulder physics professor John Wahr, who helped lead the study. “The strength of GRACE is it sees all the mass in the system, even though its resolution is not high enough to allow us to determine separate contributions from each individual glacier.”
About a quarter of the average annual ice loss came from glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica (roughly 148 billion tons, or 39 cubic miles). Ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica and their peripheral ice caps and glaciers averaged 385 billion tons (100 cubic miles) a year. Results of the study will be published online Feb. 8 in the journal Nature.
Traditional estimates ...
By Climate Guest Blogger on Feb 22, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Global Ice Loss from 2003-2010 Could “Cover the Entire United States in One and Half Feet of Water”
...
Using satellite measurements from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), the researchers measured ice loss in all of Earth’s land ice between 2003 and 2010, with particular emphasis on glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica.
The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth’s glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level. That’s enough ice to cover the United States 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) deep.
“Earth is losing a huge amount of ice to the ocean annually, and these new results will help us answer important questions in terms of both sea rise and how the planet’s cold regions are responding to global change,” said University of Colorado Boulder physics professor John Wahr, who helped lead the study. “The strength of GRACE is it sees all the mass in the system, even though its resolution is not high enough to allow us to determine separate contributions from each individual glacier.”
About a quarter of the average annual ice loss came from glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica (roughly 148 billion tons, or 39 cubic miles). Ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica and their peripheral ice caps and glaciers averaged 385 billion tons (100 cubic miles) a year. Results of the study will be published online Feb. 8 in the journal Nature.
Traditional estimates ...
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/22/430256/nasa-earth-is-losing-half-a-trillion-tons-of-ice-a-year/
February 26, 2012
http://notes.nap.edu/2011/06/02/more-than-4000-national-academies-press-pdfs-now-available-to-download-for-free/
http://www.nap.edu/about.html
If it was about renewable energy in 2004, it would be accessible in this library.
Find a published paper that cites the report you claim exists. I looked and there were none.
Simply put, you are not telling the truth
MORE THAN 4,000 NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS PDFS NOW AVAILABLE TO DOWNLOAD FOR FREE
June 2, 2011 · by Barb Murphy
The National Academies—National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council—are committed to distributing their reports to as wide an audience as possible. Since 1994 we have offered “Read for Free” options for almost all our titles.In addition, we have been offering free downloads of most of our titles to everyone and of all titles to readers in the developing world. We are now going one step further. Effective June 2nd, PDFs of reports that are currently for sale on the National Academies Press (NAP) Website and PDFs associated with future reports* will be offered free of charge to all Web visitors.
For more than 140 years, the NAS, NAE, IOM, and NRC have been advising the nation on issues of science, technology, and medicine. Like no other collection of organizations, the Academies enlist the nation’s foremost scientists, engineers, health professionals, and other experts to address the scientific and technical aspects of society’s most pressing problems. The results of their work are authoritative and independent studies published by the National Academies Press.
NAP produces more than 200 books a year on a wide range of topics in science, engineering, and health, capturing the best-informed views on important issues.
We invite you to visit the NAP homepage and experience the new opportunities available to access our publications. There you can sign up for MyNAP, a new way for us to deliver all of our content for free to loyal subscribers like you and to reward you with exclusive offers and discounts on our printed books. This enhancement to our free downloads means that we can reach out even further to inform government decision making and public policy, increase public education and understanding, and promote the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge.
...
June 2, 2011 · by Barb Murphy
The National Academies—National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council—are committed to distributing their reports to as wide an audience as possible. Since 1994 we have offered “Read for Free” options for almost all our titles.In addition, we have been offering free downloads of most of our titles to everyone and of all titles to readers in the developing world. We are now going one step further. Effective June 2nd, PDFs of reports that are currently for sale on the National Academies Press (NAP) Website and PDFs associated with future reports* will be offered free of charge to all Web visitors.
For more than 140 years, the NAS, NAE, IOM, and NRC have been advising the nation on issues of science, technology, and medicine. Like no other collection of organizations, the Academies enlist the nation’s foremost scientists, engineers, health professionals, and other experts to address the scientific and technical aspects of society’s most pressing problems. The results of their work are authoritative and independent studies published by the National Academies Press.
NAP produces more than 200 books a year on a wide range of topics in science, engineering, and health, capturing the best-informed views on important issues.
We invite you to visit the NAP homepage and experience the new opportunities available to access our publications. There you can sign up for MyNAP, a new way for us to deliver all of our content for free to loyal subscribers like you and to reward you with exclusive offers and discounts on our printed books. This enhancement to our free downloads means that we can reach out even further to inform government decision making and public policy, increase public education and understanding, and promote the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge.
...
http://notes.nap.edu/2011/06/02/more-than-4000-national-academies-press-pdfs-now-available-to-download-for-free/
The National Academies Press
The National Academies Press (NAP) was created by the National Academies to publish the reports issued by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council, all operating under a charter granted by the Congress of the United States. The NAP publishes more than 200 books a year on a wide range of topics in science, engineering, and health, capturing the most authoritative views on important issues in science and health policy. The institutions represented by the NAP are unique in that they attract the nation’s leading experts in every field to serve on their award-wining panels and committees. The nation turns to the work of NAP for definitive information on everything from space science to animal nutrition.
Digital (PDF) Content
We offer more than 4,000 titles in PDF format. All of these PDFs can be downloaded for free by the chapter or the entire book*. Our frequently asked questions guide answers questions about accessing our digital content.
...
*There are a small number of reports that never had PDF files and therefore, those reports are not available for download. In addition, part of the series, "Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals" are not available in PDF and future titles in this series will also not have PDFs associated with them.
The National Academies Press (NAP) was created by the National Academies to publish the reports issued by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council, all operating under a charter granted by the Congress of the United States. The NAP publishes more than 200 books a year on a wide range of topics in science, engineering, and health, capturing the most authoritative views on important issues in science and health policy. The institutions represented by the NAP are unique in that they attract the nation’s leading experts in every field to serve on their award-wining panels and committees. The nation turns to the work of NAP for definitive information on everything from space science to animal nutrition.
Digital (PDF) Content
We offer more than 4,000 titles in PDF format. All of these PDFs can be downloaded for free by the chapter or the entire book*. Our frequently asked questions guide answers questions about accessing our digital content.
...
*There are a small number of reports that never had PDF files and therefore, those reports are not available for download. In addition, part of the series, "Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals" are not available in PDF and future titles in this series will also not have PDFs associated with them.
http://www.nap.edu/about.html
If it was about renewable energy in 2004, it would be accessible in this library.
Find a published paper that cites the report you claim exists. I looked and there were none.
February 26, 2012
Relevant section starts on page 22
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mpsc/implementation_PA295_renewable_energy2-15-2012_376924_7.pdf
Michigan Renewables Cheaper than Coal: Another State Success Story
Michigan Renewables Cheaper than Coal: Another State Success Story
...Michigan's 2008 renewable portfolio standard (RPS) law required the state commission to report on how the law was working in practice. The February 15, 2012 report was a report card on the remarkable success of that state's RPS law. It stands in marked contrast to many of the critics of state renewable laws like Grover Norquist who don't get their facts straight and claim that these laws raise rates, force ratepayers to buy more expensive renewable power, and don't create any economic benefits.
...
First, they said the law has generated over $100 million in investments in the state, spurred manufacturing, and created jobs.
Second, the law has led to more than 100 megawatts of new renewable capacity in the state, putting it on track to meet its 10% requirement. So the law is working.
Third, and this might be the most dramatic point made by the Commission, the cost of these new renewable projects -- including, wind, solar and hydro -- is less than the cost of a new coal plant.
That deserves to be repeated. In contrast to ...
...Michigan's 2008 renewable portfolio standard (RPS) law required the state commission to report on how the law was working in practice. The February 15, 2012 report was a report card on the remarkable success of that state's RPS law. It stands in marked contrast to many of the critics of state renewable laws like Grover Norquist who don't get their facts straight and claim that these laws raise rates, force ratepayers to buy more expensive renewable power, and don't create any economic benefits.
...
First, they said the law has generated over $100 million in investments in the state, spurred manufacturing, and created jobs.
Second, the law has led to more than 100 megawatts of new renewable capacity in the state, putting it on track to meet its 10% requirement. So the law is working.
Third, and this might be the most dramatic point made by the Commission, the cost of these new renewable projects -- including, wind, solar and hydro -- is less than the cost of a new coal plant.
That deserves to be repeated. In contrast to ...
Relevant section starts on page 22
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mpsc/implementation_PA295_renewable_energy2-15-2012_376924_7.pdf
February 25, 2012
http://www.wickedlocal.com/plymouth/topstories/x1793848245/Nuclear-Regulatory-Commission-chief-sides-with-Pilgrim-watchdog-group#axzz1nRNHOiym
Nuclear Regulatory Commission chief sides with Pilgrim watchdog group
Nuclear Regulatory Commission chief sides with Pilgrim watchdog group
By Christopher Burrell
The Patriot Ledger
Posted Feb 23, 2012 @ 06:07 AM
In a surprising move to side with critics of the Pilgrim nuclear power plant, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is arguing to expand, not limit, the public’s chance to ask plant-safety questions in light of last year’s Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster in Japan.
The Fukushima nuclear plant has a similar reactor to the one at Pilgrim, which has been trying for six years to win approval from the NRC for a 20-year extension of its operating license.
“Given the significance of that accident (at Fukushima) and the potential implications for the safety of our nuclear reactors, we should allow members of the public to obtain hearings on new contentions on emerging information,” NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko wrote in a dissenting opinion released Wednesday.
Jaczko was the sole dissenter on the five-member commission, which is appointed by the president.
The majority of the commission voted to deny the watchdog group...
By Christopher Burrell
The Patriot Ledger
Posted Feb 23, 2012 @ 06:07 AM
In a surprising move to side with critics of the Pilgrim nuclear power plant, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is arguing to expand, not limit, the public’s chance to ask plant-safety questions in light of last year’s Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster in Japan.
The Fukushima nuclear plant has a similar reactor to the one at Pilgrim, which has been trying for six years to win approval from the NRC for a 20-year extension of its operating license.
“Given the significance of that accident (at Fukushima) and the potential implications for the safety of our nuclear reactors, we should allow members of the public to obtain hearings on new contentions on emerging information,” NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko wrote in a dissenting opinion released Wednesday.
Jaczko was the sole dissenter on the five-member commission, which is appointed by the president.
The majority of the commission voted to deny the watchdog group...
http://www.wickedlocal.com/plymouth/topstories/x1793848245/Nuclear-Regulatory-Commission-chief-sides-with-Pilgrim-watchdog-group#axzz1nRNHOiym
February 25, 2012
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/groups/energysite/documents/webpage/energy_054518.pdf
The quoted portion is on the first and second pages.
The quote you provided from Chu is incomplete and is far from support for your assertion that there is a hard upper limit to how much renewables can contribute.
His understanding of energy systems in 2009, when this interview was done, was not as good as it should have been. He is overstating the role of storage in a grid and the degree to which deploying storage is a "problem". I doubt he would make the same statement today.
Not done.
All of the documents published by NAS are searchable on the NAS site:
http://www.nap.edu/
A very, very few might not be available for PDF download, but ALL of the work is online. Your paper US Energy Policy: The Path Forward. National Academy of Sciences May 19, 2004 doesn't exist nor is it a reference used in any other paper anywhere.
Most people's behavior like this is moderated by a sense of shame that you seem to be totally missing.
Your 2010 quote says the same as I wrote above. It is a complete refutation of the false claim you keep making. The quotes you selected are put into clearer language in the "Report Briefing" prepared by the authors:
Wind Power
From 1997 to 2006, the wind power industry experienced a 20 percent compound annual growth rate. Wind turbine technology is fairly mature and turbines are able to produce the amount of energy used in their manufacturing and installation in less than half a year. This “energy payback period” is only expected to improve as turbines’ towers and rotors become larger and more efficient. Without any radically new technology, wind power has the potential to supply 10 to 20 percent of electricity demand by 2030. Electricity from Renewable Sources determined that a U.S. Department of Energy scenario involving installation of 300 GW of wind capacity by 2030 (which would be sufficient to provide 20 percent of total electricity generation) would be possible but very challenging. Such a scenario would require a huge expansion of manufacturing, materials, and installation, and require up to $100 billion in capital costs and transmission upgrades more than a no-new-wind scenario. However, it would provide 140,000 jobs and reduce CO2 emissions by 800 million tons/year.
Solar Power
There are two main types of solar power generation: photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar power. In PV solar, sunlight strikes the surface of a cell made of a light absorbing material. These materials include silicon or thin films of inorganic materials, such as cadmium telluride, that have absorption properties well matched to capture the solar spectrum. PV solar is useful for providing power at times of peak usage and has a very high resource potential in a number of U.S. regions. In the United States, about 22 percent of residential and 65 percent of commercial rooftop space is appropriate for PV cells. Based on available rooftops alone, PV could potentially supply more electricity than the United States consumed in 2008. Worldwide production of PV modules is increasing rapidly, but from a very small base.
Electricity from Renewable Sources describes one scenario involving installation of 100 to 200 GW of PV capacity (which would be sufficient to meet 10 to 15 percent of total electricity usage) by 2030 that would be very expensive but possible. It would also create 120,000 to 260,000 jobs and reduce CO2 emissions by 70 to 100 million tons per year. Unfortunately, the production of solar cells is currently very expensive; less expensive thin-film cells exist but are less efficient. Also, because its manufacturing is extremely energy intensive, PV has the longest energy payback period (1 to 7.5 years) of any renewable source.
From 1997 to 2006, the wind power industry experienced a 20 percent compound annual growth rate. Wind turbine technology is fairly mature and turbines are able to produce the amount of energy used in their manufacturing and installation in less than half a year. This “energy payback period” is only expected to improve as turbines’ towers and rotors become larger and more efficient. Without any radically new technology, wind power has the potential to supply 10 to 20 percent of electricity demand by 2030. Electricity from Renewable Sources determined that a U.S. Department of Energy scenario involving installation of 300 GW of wind capacity by 2030 (which would be sufficient to provide 20 percent of total electricity generation) would be possible but very challenging. Such a scenario would require a huge expansion of manufacturing, materials, and installation, and require up to $100 billion in capital costs and transmission upgrades more than a no-new-wind scenario. However, it would provide 140,000 jobs and reduce CO2 emissions by 800 million tons/year.
Solar Power
There are two main types of solar power generation: photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar power. In PV solar, sunlight strikes the surface of a cell made of a light absorbing material. These materials include silicon or thin films of inorganic materials, such as cadmium telluride, that have absorption properties well matched to capture the solar spectrum. PV solar is useful for providing power at times of peak usage and has a very high resource potential in a number of U.S. regions. In the United States, about 22 percent of residential and 65 percent of commercial rooftop space is appropriate for PV cells. Based on available rooftops alone, PV could potentially supply more electricity than the United States consumed in 2008. Worldwide production of PV modules is increasing rapidly, but from a very small base.
Electricity from Renewable Sources describes one scenario involving installation of 100 to 200 GW of PV capacity (which would be sufficient to meet 10 to 15 percent of total electricity usage) by 2030 that would be very expensive but possible. It would also create 120,000 to 260,000 jobs and reduce CO2 emissions by 70 to 100 million tons per year. Unfortunately, the production of solar cells is currently very expensive; less expensive thin-film cells exist but are less efficient. Also, because its manufacturing is extremely energy intensive, PV has the longest energy payback period (1 to 7.5 years) of any renewable source.
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/groups/energysite/documents/webpage/energy_054518.pdf
The quoted portion is on the first and second pages.
The quote you provided from Chu is incomplete and is far from support for your assertion that there is a hard upper limit to how much renewables can contribute.
Q: Is California ready to turn to renewable energy—wind, solar, geothermal—to provide base load electrical power?
Chu: No, it's not there yet. We need to solve the problem of energy distribution and energy storage before renewables becomes, for example, 50 percent of the base load electricity. There's no way it can become 50 percent until we have a mass-energy storage system or a huge international or national distribution system.
Yet aren't you pro-renewables?
I am pro-renewables. Absolutely, because I think we can solve these technological problems. I think we can solve them in one or two decades.
California currently buys about 30 percent of its electricity from coal-generated plants. We know this. And California's new regulations want to wean us away from this. We need to do it. But if we want to get 30 percent of our electricity from sources like wind or solar energy, we need to solve the energy-storage problem.
Chu: No, it's not there yet. We need to solve the problem of energy distribution and energy storage before renewables becomes, for example, 50 percent of the base load electricity. There's no way it can become 50 percent until we have a mass-energy storage system or a huge international or national distribution system.
Yet aren't you pro-renewables?
I am pro-renewables. Absolutely, because I think we can solve these technological problems. I think we can solve them in one or two decades.
California currently buys about 30 percent of its electricity from coal-generated plants. We know this. And California's new regulations want to wean us away from this. We need to do it. But if we want to get 30 percent of our electricity from sources like wind or solar energy, we need to solve the energy-storage problem.
His understanding of energy systems in 2009, when this interview was done, was not as good as it should have been. He is overstating the role of storage in a grid and the degree to which deploying storage is a "problem". I doubt he would make the same statement today.
February 25, 2012
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/02/obama-proposes-tax-reform-making-renewables-credits-permanent?cmpid=WNL-Friday-February24-2012
Obama seeks to make renewable Production Tax Credit permanent
Obama Proposes Tax Reform, Making Renewables Credits Permanent
New Hampshire, U.S.A. -- The US Federal Government is making another pitch for business-tax reform, and within that thrust it is underscoring its support for renewable energy.
The proposed adjustments in the Framework for Business Tax Reform incorporate five themes, including lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent, and to 25 percent for manufacturing "and even lower for advanced manufacturing activities." The current Research and Experimentation (R&D) tax credit's lower option of 14 percent rate in excess of a base amount would be hiked to 17 percent and made permanent.
For renewable energy sectors, the key part of the President's proposal also includes making the temporary tax credits for renewable energy production permanent -- and making it refundable. Doing so will "provide a strong, consistent incentive to encourage investments in renewable energy technologies," according to the Treasury Department. (Here's the press release and full PDF of the proposed business tax reforms.)
[...] This Framework recognizes that, as we expand manufacturing in the United States, the tax code should encourage doing so in way that is sustainable and that puts the United States in the lead in manufacturing the clean energy technologies of the future. This will create jobs here at home and can also have important spillover benefits. Moving toward a clean energy economy will reduce air and water pollution and enhance our national security by reducing dependence on oil. Cleaner energy will play a crucial role in slowing global climate change, meeting the President's goal of producing 80 percent of our nation's electricity from clean sources by 2035.
...
New Hampshire, U.S.A. -- The US Federal Government is making another pitch for business-tax reform, and within that thrust it is underscoring its support for renewable energy.
The proposed adjustments in the Framework for Business Tax Reform incorporate five themes, including lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent, and to 25 percent for manufacturing "and even lower for advanced manufacturing activities." The current Research and Experimentation (R&D) tax credit's lower option of 14 percent rate in excess of a base amount would be hiked to 17 percent and made permanent.
For renewable energy sectors, the key part of the President's proposal also includes making the temporary tax credits for renewable energy production permanent -- and making it refundable. Doing so will "provide a strong, consistent incentive to encourage investments in renewable energy technologies," according to the Treasury Department. (Here's the press release and full PDF of the proposed business tax reforms.)
[...] This Framework recognizes that, as we expand manufacturing in the United States, the tax code should encourage doing so in way that is sustainable and that puts the United States in the lead in manufacturing the clean energy technologies of the future. This will create jobs here at home and can also have important spillover benefits. Moving toward a clean energy economy will reduce air and water pollution and enhance our national security by reducing dependence on oil. Cleaner energy will play a crucial role in slowing global climate change, meeting the President's goal of producing 80 percent of our nation's electricity from clean sources by 2035.
...
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/02/obama-proposes-tax-reform-making-renewables-credits-permanent?cmpid=WNL-Friday-February24-2012
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Dec 19, 2003, 02:20 AMNumber of posts: 29,798
