 |
Excerpted Roberts Quotes Promoting Wind and Solar Over Nuclear--Read Article for Full Context |
Below I parse what I think Dave got wrong in his second of a two-part post about the feasibility of 100% renewable energy. I parsed his first part here. To see what he got right you'll need to read his
articles. And if you decide to read them, keep in mind that
he has absolutely no background, theoretical or practical,
in engineering or science and has been inextricably imprinted with a bias against nuclear energy.
Two potentially large sources of dispatchable carbon-free
power are nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).
Nuclear and CCS do not have equal potential. What is “potential” about nuclear
energy? Next to hydro, it’s the largest low carbon source of electricity on the
planet, and has been for over half of a century. Wind and solar are the potentially viable energy sources,
nuclear already has a long proven history.
All through his article, Dave repeatedly associates nuclear
(a proven source of low carbon energy) with CCS (a completely unproven source)
as if they have equal “potential.” He puts nuclear in the same box as CCS, just
as antinuclear groups have always put nuclear power stations in the
same box with nuclear weapons and coal.
Nuclear power stations ≠ nuclear weapons
Nuclear power stations ≠ coal power stations
Nuclear power stations ≠ carbon capture and sequestration
Clearly, nuclear power, our main source of low carbon energy
for a half century, belongs in the box with other proven low carbon
technologies, not with fossil fuels.
Suffice it to say, a variety of people oppose one or both of
those sources, for a variety of reasons.
Why no mention of the variety of people also oppose wind, hydro, and biomass?
In this post I’m going to discuss three papers that examine
the subject, try to draw a few tentative conclusions, and issue a plea for open
minds and flexibility. It’ll be fun!
This will be fun and although he works tirelessly to
insinuate otherwise, Dave’s mind remains quite closed to nuclear as you’ll
see.
There are two papers circulating right now that cast a
skeptical eye on the goal of 100 percent renewables.
One is a literature review on the subject, self-published by
the Energy Innovation Reform Project (EIRP), authored by Jesse Jenkins and
Samuel Thernstrom ...
The other is a new paper in the journal Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews that boasts
“a comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity
systems.” It is by B.P. Heard, B.W. Brook, T.M.L. Wigley, and C.J.A. Bradshaw,
who, it should be noted, are advocates for nuclear power.