Busting myths by nuclear and fossil fuel supporters criticizing 100%

clean, renewable energy

By Mark Z. Jacobson

Ecowatch

June 19, 2017

This week, a scientific journal is publishing a paper (http://www.pnas.org - add rest of link
when available) by nuclear and fossil-fuel supporters, replete with false information, whose
only purpose is to criticize a 2015 paper
(http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/combining.html)
I and colleagues published in the same journal, on the potential for the United States grid to
stay stable at low cost with 100% clean, renewable wind, water, and solar (WWS) power for
all purposes. The journal is also publishing our response
(http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/PNASReplyClac
k.pdf).

The main arguments made by the authors, most of whom have a history of advocacy,
employment, research, or consulting in nuclear power, fossil fuels, or carbon capture, are
that (1) we should have included nuclear power, fossil fuels with carbon capture, and
biofuels as part of our mix because those technologies would lower costs, (2) it will be too
hard to scale up several of the technologies we propose, and (3) our modeling contained
errors. The paper is dangerous because virtually every sentence in it is inaccurate, but most
people dont have time to check the facts. To that end, we include an additional line-by-line
response to the paper
(http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/Line-by-line-
Clack.pdf). Below, our main responses to the Clack paper are summarized.

First, to their claim that nuclear, fossils with carbon capture, and biofuels reduce costs of
decarbonization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
(https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter7.pdf) concludes
the exact opposite: (Section 7.8.2) Without support from governments, investments in new
nuclear power plants are currently generally not economically attractive within liberalized
markets, Similarly, even strong nuclear advocates disagree (https://medium.com/third-
way/is-nuclear-too-innovative-a14fb4fef41a#.qag59xnk0):there is virtually no history of
nuclear construction under the economic and institutional circumstances that prevail
throughout much of Europe and the United States. Next, an independent assessment of our
100% WWS plans versus nuclear and CCS options (http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2722880)
concludes, Neither fossil fuels with CCS or nuclear power enters the least-cost, low-carbon
portfolio. Even Clack doesnt believe his own abstract. He writes, Completely agree that
CCS are too expensive currently...
(https://twitter.com/clacky007/status/860651710573760512).
The basis for Clack claiming nuclear and carbon capture are inexpensive are a set of
outdated, minority studies that (a) underestimate their high costs; (b) ignore the 10-19 year
lag time between planning and operation of a nuclear plant versus 2-5 years for a typical
wind or solar farm; (c) ignore the cost of the 25% higher air pollution due to the 25%
additional energy thus 25% more fossil-fuel mining, transport, and combustion needed to
run carbon capture equipment (d) ignore the climate cost of the 50 times higher carbon
emissions of fossil fuels with carbon capture relative to wind per unit energy; and (e) ignore
the robust evidence and high agreement by the IPCC
(https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter7.pdf) of
weapons proliferation, meltdown, mining, and waste risks associated with nuclear power.
They also ignore the air pollution, carbon emissions, and land use issues associated with
large-scale biofuels.

As part of their argument Clack further ignores the more than a dozen other published
studies that have examined high penetrations of renewables in the electric power sector
without nuclear or carbon capture, as referenced here
(http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/PNASReplyClac
k.pdf), falsely implying that ours is the only one.

Second, to Clacks claim that we propose technologies that cant be scaled up, we disagree.
Underground thermal energy storage (UTES) in rocks is a well tested (in multiple locations)
and established low-cost seasonal heat-storage technology that costs less than 1/300th that of
batteries per unit energy stored. It is a form of district heating, which is already used
worldwide (e.g., 60% of Denmark), Moreover, hot water storage or electric heat pumps can
substitute for UTES.

Clack also criticizes our proposal to use some hydrogen, but hydrogen fuel cells already
exist and the process of producing hydrogen from electricity was discovered in 1838. Its
scale-up is much easier than for nuclear or CCS. With respect to aircraft, the space shuttle
was propelled to space on hydrogen combustion, a 1500-km-range, 4-seat hydrogen fuel cell
plane already exists, several companies are now designing electric-only planes for up to
1500 km, and we propose aircraft conversion only by 2035-2040.

Clack further questions whether industrial demand is subject to demand response, yet the
National Academies of Sciences review it cites states
(https://www.nap.edu/read/12621/chapter/6#251), Demand response can be a lucrative
enterprise for industrial customers.

Third, to their claim that we made modeling errors, this is absolutely false, as indicated in
each specific published response
(http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/PNASReplyClac
k.pdf). Most notably, Clack claims that we erred because our peak instantaneous
hydropower load discharge rate exceeded our maximum possible annual-average discharge
rate. But Clack is wrong because averages mathematically include values higher and lower
than the average. Clack made other similar mathematical errors.
More importantly, it was made clear to Clack by email on February 29, 2016 that turbines
were assumed added to existing hydropower reservoirs to increase their peak instantaneous
discharge rate without increasing their annual energy consumption or the number of dams, a
solution not previously considered. It was also made clear that it was alternatively possible
to increase the discharge rate of CSP rather than hydropower. Increasing hydropowers peak
instantaneous discharge rate was not a modeling mistake but an assumption.

Despite having full knowledge in writing, not only in 2016 but also weeks prior to the
publication of their article, that this was an assumption, Clack and coauthors made the
intentionally false claim in their paper that it was an error. The fact that Clack (twice) and
all his coauthors (once) were informed in writing about a factual assumption, but
intentionally mischaracterized it as a mistake instead of an assumption, then further falsely
pretended the numbers resulted in mathematical errors when they knew there were none,
speaks to the integrity and motivation of the Clack et al. authors.

Finally, Clack falsely claim that the 3-D climate model, GATOR-GCMOM, that we used
has never been adequately evaluated, despite it taking part in 11 published multi-model
inter-comparisons and 20 published evaluations against wind, solar, and other data; despite
Zhangs 2008 Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry Journal comprehensive review that
concluded GATOR-GCMOM is the first fully-coupled online model in the history that
accounts for all major feedbacks among major atmospheric processes based on first
principles; and despite hundreds of processes in it still not in any other model
(http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/GATOR/GATOR-GCMOMHist.pdf).

In sum, Clacks analysis is riddled with intentional misinformation and has no impact on the
conclusions of our 2015 grid integration study, namely that the U.S. grid can remain stable
at low cost upon electrification of all energy sectors and provision of the electricity by 100%
wind, water, and solar power combined with low-cost electricity, heat, cold, and hydrogen
storage and demand response.