27-9-2017 at Ada's Technical Books, Jim Conca presents a lecture and answers questions on the Stanford University / Mark Z. Jacobson 100 Percent Renewables proposal. Credits: Speaker - Jim Conca Host - Seattle Friends of Fission Venue - Ada's Technical Books, Seattle, WA Video, Audio - Karl Pauls Audio - Charles H. / KBFG Radio 107.3 Seattle, WA Video on YouTube: https://youtu.be/8iQnMYGUwiE Downloadable audio available on soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/karl-pauls/seattle-friends-of-fission-27-9-2017-jim-conca-unscientific-fantasy-100-percent-renewables

1. The
Geopolitics
of
Energy:
Can
We
Achieve
a
Renewable-­‐Only
Energy Distribution
by
2040?
Dr.
James
Conca
&
Dr.
Judith
Wright
Ada’s
Technical
Books
&
Cafe
UFA
Ventures/WSUTC/Parker
Foundation/LANL Seattle, WA
Richland,
WA http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/ September
2017

2. What Effect Will The Trump Administration Have On Energy?
-­ Very little, except a return to mid-­20th century regulatory policies
-­ President Trump supports an all-­of-­the-­above energy strategy with
a heavy tilt towards fossil fuels, and with no regard to climate
change or regulations of any kind
-­ Pipelines will get approved easily, but are safer than truck/rail/ship
-­ Drilling public lands/parks will increase at great risk to these lands,
but will only benefit oil companies as leases are much cheaper than
drilling on private lands. Will not effect prices or supplies.
-­ Regulations and specific energy mixes will fall to the States
-­ Will not effect natural gas use;; already cheap and plentiful
-­ Will not effect coal use as cheap gas is the driver, not regulations
-­ Will not effect oil prices or production;; we are already oil
independent and prices are decided by the world market
-­ Will have no effect on wind as Red States get more renewable
subsidies than Blue States
-­ Nuclear power could benefit by fast-­tracking licensing

3. Why do we care about answering this question?
-­‐ Almost
all
serious
analyses
(IPCC,
NOAA,
NREL,
IEA)
find
the
only
feasible
low-­‐carbon
energy
future
comes
from
a
diverse
portfolio
of
all
low-­‐carbon
technologies.
30%
R
is
probable,
50%
difficult,
80%
possible,
but
not
100%.
-­‐ In
contrast,
Jacobson
at
Stanford
stated
that
our
energy
portfolio
could
be
narrowed
to
only
wind and
solar,
with
some
hydro
back-­‐up,
and
that
it
could
be
low-­‐cost
and
reliable.
-­‐ Some
states
and
businesses,
like
California
and
Amazon,
have
based
their
energy
policies
on
Jacobson’s
paper.
-­‐ Leading
energy
experts,
including
colleagues
at
Stanford,
and
climate
experts
like
Jim
Hansen,
found
their
analysis
flawed
with
errors,
inappropriate
methods,
and
implausible
assumptions.
-­‐ Policies
based
on
the
promise
of
100%
renewables
could
be
counter-­‐
productive
and
seriously
impede
our
move
to
decarbonize
the
energy
sector,
and
prevent
our
leadership
in
moving
the
world
to
lower
carbon.
-­‐ The
ethical
dilemma
is
that
trying
to
be
100%
renewable
will
prevent
eradication
of
global
poverty
as
significant
increases
in
energy
(10
to
20
trillion
kWhs/yr)
are
required
in
countries
with
little
infrastructure

4. When
such
conditions
converge
with
CC
drought-­‐
constrained
hydroelectric
output
in
the
future,
significant
back-­‐up
will
be
needed.
Unfortunately,
there
is
ample
evidence
for
conditions
with
sustained,
coincident
low
output
from
both
wind
and
solar
resources.

5. Cooling GlacialPeriod
GlacialPeriods
Relative changes in global average temperature for the past 550 million years based on various
methods from various researchers. The time scale is vastly different for each of the five general
time segments, going from hundreds of millions of years per segment, to millions of years, to
thousands of years. Note that the Earth has generally been warmer than it is today, and that we
have been in a major cooling period for the last 10 million years, with glaciation the last 2.3 my.
Anthropocene?
What
Was
Paris
COP21
Really
About?

6. Global
Temperature
and
Carbon
Dioxide
Courtesy
of
Richard
Somerville
and
the
IPCC

7. Projected
global
temperature
change
for
increasing
emissions
(scenario
A2)
and
for
decreasing
emissions
(scenario
B1)
Two
scenarios
for
global
temperature
changes
depending
upon
CO2
emissions
reductions:
A2
-­‐ no
reductions
B1
– significant
reductions
Paris
was
only
about
who would
pay
for
implementing
B1

8. Our
Decisions
Determine
Our
Future

9. Many
Crop
Yields
Decline
Under
Higher
Temperatures
For
Washington
State,
apples
and
cherries
do
badly
but
grapes
and
dry-­‐land
wheat
do
quite
well

10. Emissions
pathways
to
limiting
global
warming
to
just
2º
Celsius
(3.6º
Fahrenheit)
above
the
temperatures
of
the
1800s.

11. Global Energy Distribution
as indicated by nighttime electricity use
…from the generation of 20 trillion kWhs/year
…and we are going to 30 trillion kWhs/year by 2040, perhaps earlier.

12. Kentucky
92% coal
4% gas
0% nuclear
3% hydro
1% renew.
European Union
25% coal
24% gas
27% nuclear
10% hydroelectric
3% oil 11% renewablesPresent Energy Distribution (Transportation)
95%
0% 5% 0% Petroleum fuels
(including H for fuel
cells)
Nuclear (H for fuel
cells)
Biofuels
Solar (including H for
fuel cells)
Present Energy Distribution (Power)
8%
20%
15%
0%
0%
1%
0%
17%
39%
Oil
Gas
Coal (all types)
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
Wind
Geothermal
Biofuels
Solar
coal
gas
nuclear
hydro
oil and
other
petroleum
bio
United States
30% coal
34% gas
20% nuclear
7% hydroelectric
6% wind 3% other
World (2015)
A Target Sustainable Energy Distribution
by 2040 (Power)
1% 4%
28%
34%
11%
7%
1%
7%
7%
Oil
Gas
Coal (all types)
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
Wind
Geothermal
Biofuels
Solar
Present Energy Distribution (Transportation)
95%
0% 5% 0% Petroleum fuels
(including H for fuel
cells)
Nuclear (H for fuel
cells)
Biofuels
Solar (including H for
fuel cells)
China
77% coal
2% gas (+ oil + biomass)
2% wind (+ solar)
2% nuclear
17% hydro
Washington
4% coal
3% gas
9% nuclear
78% hydro
6% renew.
Illinois
41% coal
8% gas
48% nuclear
3% renew.
Korea
28% coal
30% gas
8% oil
22% nuclear
12% hydro + renewables
41%
22%
4%
11%
16%
2%
0.5%
2%
5%

13. 1980
20
30
40
10
2000 2020 2040
20
30
40
10
historic
projected
World presently at
20 trillion kWhrs/year
U.S. presently at
4 trillion kWhrs/year
present fossil fuel
contribution
2/3 of present total
In order to address any
of the environmental
issues we seem to
care about like
climate change:
almost
20 tkWhrs
must be
non-­fossil fuel

14. 1.5 billion people have no access to
electricity, 80% of them in South Asia
and sub–Saharan Africa.
2.4 billion people burn wood and
manure as their main energy source.
3 billion more people will be born by 2040
Source: Kay Chernush for the
U.S. Department of State
Map of
Global
Energy
Poverty
Source: United Nations
Millions of people without electricity
Millions of people relying on biomass
56
96
28
20
18
570
801
815
530509
221
332
3,000Millions of people to be born by 2040
What Paris COP21 was about is how to give
these people 3,000 kWhs/person/year without
giving them coal, and who’s going to pay for it.
This is the only way to eradicate global poverty
It takes
3,000 kWhs
per person
per year to lift
someone out
of poverty

15. A Target Sustainable Energy Distribution
by 2040 (Transportation)
25%
40%
30%
5% Fossil fue
(including
fuel cells)
Nuclear (
cells)
Biofuels
Solar (inc
for fuel ce
This requires renewables and nuclear worldwide to quadruple over what anyone is expecting by 2040:
4 million+ MW wind turbines;; over 1,700 new nuclear reactors;; a 100 bbl of biofuels;; 3 tkWhrs from hydro;; 4 tkWhrs from other
World Target ® a Third, a Third and a Third -­ 1/3 fossil fuel, 1/3 renewables and 1/3 nuclear
World (2015)
20 tkWhrs/yr
petroleum
(e-,H2-cars)
A Target Sustainable Energy Distribution
by 2040 (Power)
0%
16%
17%
33%
10%
11%
3%
2% 8%
Oil
Gas
Coal (
Nucle
Hydro
Wind
Geoth
Biofue
Solar
World (2040)
30 tkWhrs/yr
bio
geo
coal
gas
nuclear
hydro
wind
solar
nuclear
solar
Biofels
22%
95%
11%
4%16%
5%
41%

16. How
Do
We
Achieve
a
Low-­‐Carbon
Future
for
Washington
State?
• Electric vehicles are the
most effective way in
Washington State to
address the petroleum
fuel issue because the
majority of electricity
generated in WA State is
from non-­‐fossil fuel.
• Washington
State
is
already
the
lowest
carbon-­‐emitting
state
-­‐ 78% hydro, 9%
nuclear, 6%
wind,
4%
coal,
3%
natural
gas
• WA
State
emissions
have
decreased
since
1990,
because
of
lower
emissions
in
the
agriculture
and
the
industrial
sectors.
• Our
only
coal
plant
is
closing
in
2025
and
will
eliminate
almost
half
of
our
emissions
from
power sources.
• Gasoline
largest
source
Easily
– We
Already
Have

17. A
fully-­‐electric
vehicle
in
Washington
State
gets
the
equivalent
of
over
100
miles/gallon
Electricity
generation
in
WA
State
is
over
90%
non-­‐fossil
fuel
because
of
hydro,
nuclear
and
wind.
Electric
vehicles
in
WA
are
green,
equivalent
to
getting over 100 mpg.
Electric
vehicles
charged
in
Indiana
are no
greener
then
ordinary
cars
using
gasoline
and
getting 30
mpg
because
over
90%
of
their
electricity
is
generated
from
coal.
State of
CHARGE
Electric Vehicles’ Global Warming
If
Washington
State
replaces
80%
of
our
cars
with
electric
vehicles
by
2040
we
would
cut
CO2 emissions
by
60%
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
att-hour of electricity. For example, the Nissan LEAF is
ted to consume 0.34 kWh of electricity per mile traveled
the Chevy Volt consumes 0.36 kWh when operating on
city. To compare electric vehicles with gasoline vehicles,
rage EV efficiency of 0.34 kWh/mile is assumed, which is
entative of the efficiency of small to midsize electric vehicles
ble today. EVs that use less electricity per mile will have
emissions and lower operating costs, while those that use
electricity per mile will have greater emissions and costs.
e energy efficiencies of electric vehicles can be compared
hose of gasoline vehicles in the same way that global
ng emissions are compared. The EPA fuel economy labels
ctric vehicles carry a mile-per-gallon energy efficiency rat-
esignated mpge, which reflects the energy consumption of
as it relates to a gasoline vehicle. For example, the electric
y consumed by a Nissan LEAF is equivalent to the gasoline
Table 1.2. ELECTRIC VEHICLE EFFICIENCY RATINGS
2012 MITSUBISHI FORD NISSAN CHEVY
MODELS “i” FOCUS EV LEAF VOLT
ELECTRIC
EFFICIENCY
(kWh/MILE)
ENERGY
EFFICIENCY
RATING
(MILES PER
GALLON OF
GASOLINE
EQUIVALENT)
0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36
112 105 99 94
Source: www.fueleconomy.gov.

18. U.S.
Electric
sector
monthly
CO2
emissions
are
at
a
25-­‐year
low
as
natural
gas
overtakes
coal’s
share
of
power
generation
and
we
have
implemented
significant
efficiency
and
conservation
policies
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
Electric
Power
Carbon
Dioxide
Emissions
Lowest
in
25 years
Source:
Energy
Information
Administration and
American
Gas
Association

19. Huge
shale
gas
production
Source:
Richard
Meyer,
AGA,
US
Department
of
Energy,
Energy
Information
Administration.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
US
Shale
Gas
Production
Antrim
(MI,
IN,
&
OH)
Bakken
(ND)
Woodford
(OK)
Barnett
(TX)
Fayetteville
(AR)
Eagle
Ford
(TX)
Haynesville
(LA
&
TX)
Marcellus
(PA
&
WV)
Utica
(OH,
PA
&
WV)
Rest
of
US
'shale'
Billion
Cubic
Feet
per
Day

21. What
is
the
fastest
growing
energy
source
in
the
world?
Coal
0
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
Global
Consumption
(TWh)
Wind
Solar
Geo
and
Biomass
Hydro
Nuclear
Gas
World
20151965 1975 1985 1995 2005

22. Non-­‐Fossil
FuelsGlobal
Non-­‐Fossil
Fuel
Consumption
(TWh)
0
Wind
Geo
and
Biomass
Hydro
Nuclear
World
For
wind
energy
to
replace
coal
and
oil
will
require
about
eight
million
MW-­‐turbines,
or
over
four
billion
tons
of
steel
and
eight
billion
tons
of
cement
20151965 1975 1985 1995 2005
Solar
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000

23. What determines
the cost of power?
• the price of oil
• the price of natural gas
• the price of steel
• the price of concrete
• the price of copper and
rare metals like Li
The most sensitive to
these prices is wind
energy, followed by
coal, then gas. The
least affected is nuclear.
data from Per Peterson, Berkeley
Concrete + steel + copper are > 98% of construction inputs, and
become more expensive in a carbon-constrained economy
200
400
600
800
1000
100 200 300 400 500
Mass of Steel (MT/MW)
Concrete Volume (m3/MW)
Natural
Gas
Combined
Cycle
Nuclear
Coal
Wind
Mundane Logistical Hurdles Rarely Discussed

24. Non-­‐Fossil
FuelsGlobal
Non-­‐Fossil
Fuel
Consumption
(TWh)
0
Wind
Geo
and
Biomass
Hydro
Nuclear
World
20151965 1975 1985 1995 2005
Solar
For
wind+hydro+nuclear to
replace
coal
and
oil
would
require
four million
MW-­‐wind
turbines
with
a
doubling
of
hydro
and
nuclear
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000

25. Some
Inconsistencies
in
Jacobson’s
Plan
• assumes
a
nuclear
war
every
30
years
or
so,
absurdly
and
unethically
tying
war
to
nuclear
power
even
though
nuclear
power
has
nothing
to
do
with
nuclear
weapons
• assumes
the
rate
that
we
can
build
renewable
energy
systems
is
ten
times
greater
than
we’ve
ever
done,
with
no
regulatory
or
other
issues
that
would
slow
renewable
projects
• assumes
that
15
million
acres
covered
by
wind
and
solar
would
have
no
environmental
impacts
or
public
concerns
even
though
that
much
area
would
exceed
all
the
roadways,
building
surfaces
and
human-­‐covered
land
in
existence
today

26. Some
Inconsistencies
in
Jacobson’s
Plan
• assumes
that
intermittency
(wind
stops
blowing,
sun
sets)
is
not
an
important
issue
and
can
be
dealt
with
easily
with
no
baseload
power,
which
hasn’t
happened
so
far
anywhere
and
is
why
we
install
so
much
natural
gas
alongside
wind,
or
use
hydro
in
the
Pacific
Northwest
• assumes
energy
storage
with
hydrogen
and
heat
stored
in
rocks
buried
underground
will
be
the
best
storage
method,
even
though
they
have
never
been
put
in
place
in
any
practical
way
and
large
storage
has
been
moving
in
other
directions,
e.g.,
vanadium
flow
batteries
and
pumped
hydro
storage
• assumes
demand
can
be
adjusted
easily
and
quickly
(demand
response)
and
at
no
cost

27. Some
Inconsistencies
in
Jacobson’s
Plan
• assumes
cost
is
no
problem
and
that
costs
will
continue
to
go
down
for
the
next
50
years,
even
for
steel,
copper,
cement,
rare
earth
elements
and
other
rare
elements,
which
is
unlikely
in
the
extreme,
especially
since
China
controls
the
rare
element
supply
and
steel
is
limited
• assumes
that
scaling
technologies
up
from
the
lab
to
the
field
is
trivial,
contrary
to
every
single
technology
we
have
ever
developed
• assumes
transmission
increases
are
no
big
deal
• assumes
unlimited
hydroelectric
power
as
backup,
with
new
installations
equal
to
600
Hoover
Dams
-­‐ more
hydropower
than
we
produce
from
all
energy
sources
today
-­‐ mainly
from
uprates
to
existing
dams

29. Historical and proposed hydroelectric generation per year.
Hydro is the second most difficult to get permitted, right after nuclear.
Regulators and the public do not want any more big hydro plants.
Christopher T. M. Clack et al. PNAS 2017;;114:6722-­6727
©2017 by National Academy of Sciences

32. The historical rates of installed electric-­generating capacity per capita (watts
per year per capita which normalizes among countries) for China (blue),
Germany (gray), and the United States (black) are shown with the estimated
values for the U.S. proposals from the works by Jacobson et al.
Christopher T. M. Clack et al. PNAS 2017;;114:6722-­6727
©2017 by National Academy of Sciences

33. 100% renewable requires unrealistic increases in renewable and
storage technologies. Installed capacity values for 2015 (left column
in each pair) and those used in the studies (right column in each pair).
Christopher T. M. Clack et al. PNAS 2017;;114:6722-­6727
©2017 by National Academy of Sciences

34. Coal
0
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
Global
Consumption
(TWh)
Wind
Solar
Geo
and
Biomass
Hydro
Nuclear
Gas
World
20151965 1975 1985 1995 2005

38. How much will it cost to change our energy mix?
Are costs among the various energy sources sufficiently different to
justify unethical decisions?

39. Energy
has
never
been
cheaper
than
it
is
now
Spending
on
energy
did
not
fall
below
20%
of
GDP
until
the
middle
of
the
1800’s
-­‐ the
beginning
of
the
fossil
fuel
age
In
the
preindustrial
era,
food
was
fuel
for
power
as
well
as
for
life
Courtesy
of
Carey
King,
UT
Austin

40. Levelized Costs per kWhr (2017$)
Nuclear
cf = 85%
Wind
cf = 27%
Solar
cf = 20%
Gas
cf = 73%
Coal
cf = 57%
Hydro
cf = 44%
Cents per kWhr
10¢
12¢
14¢
8¢
6¢
4¢
2¢
Levelized Energy Costs for New Power Plants (EIA/NPCC)
9.8¢
7.3¢
9.3¢
11.3¢
13.0¢
11.7¢

41. To produce 5 tkWhrs/year by mid-­century in the United States with the present
mix (⅔ fossil, ⅓ others) will cost about $12.5 trillion
of which $1.7 trillion is capital investment
But to produce 5 tkWhrs/year by mid-­century in the United States
with the ⅓ -­ ⅓ -­ ⅓ mix (fossil-­renewable-­nuclear) will cost about $12.4 trillion
of which $3.4 trillion is capital investment
However, this mix uses half of the fossil fuel (saves 2 billion tonsCO2 /yr)
and the health care savings alone from lower coal and gas (~$2 trillion)
over this time period more than pays for the extra capital investment
How Much Will A New Energy Mix Cost
Between Now And 2040 For The U.S.?
To produce 5 tkWhrs/year by mid-­century in the United States
with the 100% renewable mix will cost about $25 trillion
of which $20 trillion is capital investment
This mix uses no fossil fuels (saves 4 billion tonsCO2 /yr)
but the health care savings from no coal and gas (~$4 trillion) over this
Time period pays for less than a quarter of the extra capital investment
Levelized Costs per kWhr (2017$)
Nuclear
cf = 85%
Wind
cf = 27%
Solar
cf = 20%
Gas
cf = 73%
Coal
cf = 57%
Hydro
cf = 44%
Cents per kWhr
10¢
12¢
14¢
8¢
6¢
4¢
2¢
9.8¢
7.3¢
9.3¢
11.3¢
13.0¢
11.7¢

42. Solar
cf = 25%
Cents per kWhr
O&M Costs per kWhr Produced (2017$)
Nuclear
cf = 85%
Wind
cf = 30%
Gas
cf = 73%
Coal
cf = 57%
2.0¢
2.4¢
2.8¢
1.6¢
1.2¢
0.8¢
0.4¢
Hydro
cf = 44%
Costs change with Installation Tax Credit (30%) and
Production Tax Credit (2.5¢ rebate) for Solar and Wind.
3.2¢
cf = 35%
-­1.3¢ -­1.8¢
Costs don’t go down, just shifted from the ratepayer to the taxpayer.
0.7¢
0.6¢
1.6¢
0.8¢
1.2¢
TCO
Wind
cf = 30%
0.7¢
TCO
Solar

43. Wind benefits more from Federal than State programs
except where State mandates require specific percentages of renewables

44. Low-Carbon Electricity Markets Are Fundamentally Different
Price Collapse Implies Large Quantities of Electricity at Less than
Natural Gas Prices
Why Burn “Expensive” Natural Gas for Heat
When Electricity Is a Cheaper Heat Source?

45. Solar
PV
Market
Income
and
Average
Wholesale
Electricity
Prices
versus
Solar
PV
Penetration.

46. High
Renewable
Penetration
Increases
Electricity
Costs
The
figure
shows
market
income
for
solar
plants
as
solar
penetration
of
the
market
approaches
30%.
The
average
price
of
electricity
received
for
the
first
few
solar
plants
that
are
built
is
above
the
average
yearly
electricity
price
because
the
electricity
is
produced
in
the
middle
of
the
day
when
there
is
high
demand
and
prices
are
high.
As
more
solar
plants
are
built,
electricity
prices
at
times
of
high
solar
output
collapse.
Thus,
solar
revenue
collapses
as
solar
production
increases.
This
limits
unsubsidized
solar
capacity
to
a
relatively
small
fraction
of
total
electricity
production
even
if
there
are
large
decreases
in
solar
capital
costs.

47. Solar
PV
Market
Income
and
Average
Wholesale
Electricity
Prices
versus
Solar
PV
Penetration.

48. High
Renewable
Penetration
Increases
Electricity
Costs
At
the
same
time
there
are
only
small
changes
in
the
average
price
of
electricity.
Other
power
plants
are
required
to
provide
electricity
at
times
of
low
solar
output—but
these
plants
operate
for
fewer
hours
per
year
as
solar
and
wind
increase.
Investors
will
not
build
new
power
plants
to
meet
this
need
unless
the
price
of
electricity
increases
at
times
of
low
solar
output
to
cover
the
costs
of
a
power
plant
that
operates
only
part
of
the
time.
The
same
effect
occurs
for
wind.

49. Hourly
Wholesale
Electricity
Prices
in
Iowa
over
Two
Years.

51. Was Conca unethical for installing rooftop solar on his house in Richland, WA?

52. Solar benefits more from State programs:
Conca/Wright 4 kW rooftop solar
array installed March 2015
Federal -­ 30% tax credit ~ $6,000
WA State -­ 54¢/kWh buy back ~ $12,000/5 years
PV system has produced 4,589 kWhs
of which House used 2,943 kWhs, avoiding $206
I received a check from WA State in July for $2,478
Net cost of electricity for House is -­$1,357
House has used 20,379 kWhs during this 12 months
House bought 16,010 kWhs @7¢/kWh for $1,121 from the city
Thank you all for paying
for all my electricity
and for the entire PV system
plus paying me $1,357 or so
each year

53. To produce 5 tkWhrs/year by mid-­century in the United States with the present
mix (⅔ fossil, ⅓ others) will cost about $12.5 trillion
of which $1.7 trillion is capital investment
To produce 5 tkWhrs/year by mid-­century in the United States
with the 100% renewable mix will cost about $25 trillion
of which $20 trillion is capital investment
Levelized Costs per kWhr (2017$)
Nuclear
cf = 85%
Wind
cf = 27%
Solar
cf = 20%
Gas
cf = 73%
Coal
cf = 57%
Hydro
cf = 44%
Cents per kWhr
10¢
12¢
14¢
8¢
6¢
4¢
2¢
9.8¢
7.3¢
9.3¢
11.3¢
13.0¢
11.7¢

54. Environmental and Health Costs
Externalities (non-direct costs) not included in any cost
estimates but may be reflected in up-coming legislation
such as Cap&Trade or C-Tax, and Footprint costs
Possible legislation has carbon costs up to $15/ton CO2 emitted
The EU has assigned about $100/acre for simple footprint costs
Cents/kWhrincrease with a
$15/ton carbon tax
Nuclear
cf = 92%
0.02¢
Wind
cf = 27%
0.02¢
Solar
cf = 20%
0.08¢
Gas
cf = 84%
CO2
CO2
CO2
CO2
CO2
2 mile2
72 miles2
36 miles2
1.25¢
1.50¢
1.75¢
2.00¢
1.00¢
0.75¢
0.50¢
0.25¢
Hydro
cf = 44%
0.14 ¢
CO2
54 miles2
2011($) Carbon Tax Costs (¢ per kWhr Produced)
19 miles2
10 miles2
Area (sq miles) to produce 1 billion kWhrs/yr
4 gramsCO2 per kWhr
Coal
cf = 71%
1.46¢
0.90¢

56. Environmental and Health Costs
Externalities (non-direct costs) not included in any cost
estimates but may be reflected in up-coming legislation
such as Cap&Trade or C-Tax, and Footprint costs
Possible legislation has carbon costs up to $15/ton CO2 emitted
The EU has assigned about $100/acre for simple footprint costs
Cents/kWhrincrease with a
$15/ton carbon tax
Nuclear
cf = 92%
0.02¢
Wind
cf = 27%
0.02¢
Solar
cf = 20%
0.08¢
Gas
cf = 84%
CO2
CO2
CO2
CO2
CO2
2 mile2
72 miles2
36 miles2
1.25¢
1.50¢
1.75¢
2.00¢
1.00¢
0.75¢
0.50¢
0.25¢
Hydro
cf = 44%
0.14 ¢
CO2
54 miles2
2011($) Carbon Tax Costs (¢ per kWhr Produced)
19 miles2
10 miles2
Area (sq miles) to produce 1 billion kWhrs/yr
4 gramsCO2 per kWhr
40 deaths per 1012 kWhr
10x
Coal
cf = 71%
1.46¢
0.90¢

57. Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths per trillion kWh)
Coal – global average 100,000 (41% of global electricity)
Coal – China 170,000 (75% of China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S. 10,000 (32% of U.S. electricity)
Oil – global average 36,000 (33% of global energy, 4% of global electricity)
Natural Gas – g.aver. 4,000 (22% of global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass – g.aver. 24,000 (21% of global energy)
Solar – global average 440 (<1% of global electricity)
Wind – global average 150 (2% of global electricity)
Hydro – global average 1,400 (16% of global electricity)
Hydro – U.S. 5 (6% of U.S. electricity)
Nuclear – global average 90 (11% of global electricity w/Chernobyl&Fukushima)
Nuclear – U.S. 0.1 (19% of U.S. electricity)
Sources –World Health Organization;; CDC;; 1970 – 2011 U.S. Government assigns a value of $7 million to a life

58. Beijing, China > 80% coal

59. Beijing, China

60. Social - risks facing Americans over the past 5 years
alcohol consumption
automobile driving
coal industry
construction
food poisoning
iatrogenic
murder
mining
nuclear industry
police work
smoking tobacco

61. Number of Deaths in U.S.
Activity over the past 5 years
iatrogenic 950,000
smoking 760,000
alcohol 500,000
automobile accidents 250,000
coal use (32% of U.S. power) 60,000
murder 80,000
food poisoning 25,000
construction 5,000
police work 800
mining 360
nuclear industry (19% of U.S. power) 1
(medicine gone wrong)

62. Relative
Number of Deaths in U.S. Danger
Activity Normalized to Sub-Population Index
1) smoking (43.4 million smokers) 760,000 0.01751
2) alcohol (60 million impacted Americans) 500,000 0.00833
3) iatrogenic (180 million receive medical treatment per/yr) 950,000 0.00527
4) automobile accidents (190 million drivers) 250,000 0.00138
5) police work (680,000 police officers) 800 0.00118
6) mining (350,000 miners) 360 0.00103
7) construction (7.7 million workers) 5,000 0.00065
8) murder (300 million impacted) 80,000 0.00027
9) coal use (240 million impacted) 60,000 0.00025
10) food poisoning (304 million eat every day) 25,000 0.00008
11) nuclear industry (60 million) 1 0.0000001

63. 44
4.24.24.3
4.74.7
0.70.7
0.6
0.80.80.9
1.1
0.260.340.290.450.46
0.640.77
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
'92 '94 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00
U.S. Nuclear
Accidents per 200,000 worker-­hours
U.S. Manufacturing
U.S. Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
OSHA Accident Rates
Even non-­lethal routine accidents are
dramatically lower in the nuclear industry
than in any other industry

64. 1) Incorrect, but intentional, association with nuclear
weapons during the Cold War -­ 1945
2) Inaccurate and purposefully simplistic modeling of
health effects of low radiation doses (LNT) -­ 1959
3) Misunderstanding of the nature and amount of
nuclear power waste -­ 1976
• not much of it (<< 1 km3 worldwide)
-­ over 20,000 km3 of direct solid coal waste
• we know what to do with it
Why is Everyone So Afraid of Nuclear Energy?
Because we told them to be!

65. Carbon Footprints