Tag Archives: caldeira

Rebellious cities team up to post climate data taken down by the EPA.

Two years ago, a paper came out arguing that America could cheaply power itself on wind, water, and solar energy alone. It was a big deal. Policy makers began relying on the study. A nonprofit launched to make the vision a reality. Celebrities got on board. We named the lead author of the study, Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson, one of our Grist 50.

Now that research is under scrutiny. On Monday, 21 scientists published a paper that pointed out unrealistic assumptions in Jacobson’s analysis. For instance, Jacobson’s analysis relies on the country’s dams releasing water “equivalent to about 100 times the flow of the Mississippi River” to meet electricity demand as solar power ramps down in the evening, one of the critique’s lead authors, Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science, told the New York Times.

Jacobson immediately fired back, calling his critics “nuclear and fossil fuel supporters” and implying the authors had sold out to industry. This is just wrong. These guys aren’t shills.

It’s essentially a family feud, a conflict between people who otherwise share the same goals. Jacobson’s team thinks we can make a clean break from fossil fuels with renewables alone. Those critiquing his study think we need to be weaned off, with the help of nuclear, biofuels, and carbon capture.

Grist intends to take a deeper look at this subject in the coming weeks, so stay tuned.

View the original here:

Rebellious cities team up to post climate data taken down by the EPA.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Ringer, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Rebellious cities team up to post climate data taken down by the EPA.

The Great Lakes are already grimy. Trump wants to zero out cleanup funding.

Two years ago, a paper came out arguing that America could cheaply power itself on wind, water, and solar energy alone. It was a big deal. Policy makers began relying on the study. A nonprofit launched to make the vision a reality. Celebrities got on board. We named the lead author of the study, Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson, one of our Grist 50.

Now that research is under scrutiny. On Monday, 21 scientists published a paper that pointed out unrealistic assumptions in Jacobson’s analysis. For instance, Jacobson’s analysis relies on the country’s dams releasing water “equivalent to about 100 times the flow of the Mississippi River” to meet electricity demand as solar power ramps down in the evening, one of the critique’s lead authors, Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science, told the New York Times.

Jacobson immediately fired back, calling his critics “nuclear and fossil fuel supporters” and implying the authors had sold out to industry. This is just wrong. These guys aren’t shills.

It’s essentially a family feud, a conflict between people who otherwise share the same goals. Jacobson’s team thinks we can make a clean break from fossil fuels with renewables alone. Those critiquing his study think we need to be weaned off, with the help of nuclear, biofuels, and carbon capture.

Grist intends to take a deeper look at this subject in the coming weeks, so stay tuned.

View original article:  

The Great Lakes are already grimy. Trump wants to zero out cleanup funding.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Ringer, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Great Lakes are already grimy. Trump wants to zero out cleanup funding.

EPA employees speak out about the agency’s problems under Trump.

Two years ago, a paper came out arguing that America could cheaply power itself on wind, water, and solar energy alone. It was a big deal. Policy makers began relying on the study. A nonprofit launched to make the vision a reality. Celebrities got on board. We named the lead author of the study, Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson, one of our Grist 50.

Now that research is under scrutiny. On Monday, 21 scientists published a paper that pointed out unrealistic assumptions in Jacobson’s analysis. For instance, Jacobson’s analysis relies on the country’s dams releasing water “equivalent to about 100 times the flow of the Mississippi River” to meet electricity demand as solar power ramps down in the evening, one of the critique’s lead authors, Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science, told the New York Times.

Jacobson immediately fired back, calling his critics “nuclear and fossil fuel supporters” and implying the authors had sold out to industry. This is just wrong. These guys aren’t shills.

It’s essentially a family feud, a conflict between people who otherwise share the same goals. Jacobson’s team thinks we can make a clean break from fossil fuels with renewables alone. Those critiquing his study think we need to be weaned off, with the help of nuclear, biofuels, and carbon capture.

Grist intends to take a deeper look at this subject in the coming weeks, so stay tuned.

Continue at source: 

EPA employees speak out about the agency’s problems under Trump.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, organic, PUR, Ringer, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on EPA employees speak out about the agency’s problems under Trump.

A battle royale has broken out between clean power purists and pragmatists.

Two years ago, a paper came out arguing that America could cheaply power itself on wind, water, and solar energy alone. It was a big deal. Policy makers began relying on the study. A nonprofit launched to make the vision a reality. Celebrities got on board. We named the lead author of the study, Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson, one of our Grist 50.

Now that research is under scrutiny. On Monday, 21 scientists published a paper that pointed out unrealistic assumptions in Jacobson’s analysis. For instance, Jacobson’s analysis relies on the country’s dams releasing water “equivalent to about 100 times the flow of the Mississippi River” to meet electricity demand as solar power ramps down in the evening, one of the critique’s lead authors, Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science, told the New York Times.

Jacobson immediately fired back, calling his critics “nuclear and fossil fuel supporters” and implying the authors had sold out to industry. This is just wrong. These guys aren’t shills.

It’s essentially a family feud, a conflict between people who otherwise share the same goals. Jacobson’s team thinks we can make a clean break from fossil fuels with renewables alone. Those critiquing his study think we need to be weaned off, with the help of nuclear, biofuels, and carbon capture.

Grist intends to take a deeper look at this subject in the coming weeks, so stay tuned.

Link – 

A battle royale has broken out between clean power purists and pragmatists.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, organic, PUR, Ringer, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A battle royale has broken out between clean power purists and pragmatists.

Watch John Oliver call BS on Trump’s promises to coal miners.

Two years ago, a paper came out arguing that America could cheaply power itself on wind, water, and solar energy alone. It was a big deal. Policy makers began relying on the study. A nonprofit launched to make the vision a reality. Celebrities got on board. We named the lead author of the study, Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson, one of our Grist 50.

Now that research is under scrutiny. On Monday, 21 scientists published a paper that pointed out unrealistic assumptions in Jacobson’s analysis. For instance, Jacobson’s analysis relies on the country’s dams releasing water “equivalent to about 100 times the flow of the Mississippi River” to meet electricity demand as solar power ramps down in the evening, one of the critique’s lead authors, Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science, told the New York Times.

Jacobson immediately fired back, calling his critics “nuclear and fossil fuel supporters” and implying the authors had sold out to industry. This is just wrong. These guys aren’t shills.

It’s essentially a family feud, a conflict between people who otherwise share the same goals. Jacobson’s team thinks we can make a clean break from fossil fuels with renewables alone. Those critiquing his study think we need to be weaned off, with the help of nuclear, biofuels, and carbon capture.

Grist intends to take a deeper look at this subject in the coming weeks, so stay tuned.

Continue reading here: 

Watch John Oliver call BS on Trump’s promises to coal miners.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, organic, PUR, Ringer, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch John Oliver call BS on Trump’s promises to coal miners.

Your electric vehicle might not be as green as you think it is

Your electric vehicle might not be as green as you think it is

By on 17 Dec 2014commentsShare

Driving an electric car feels good: You’re not burning gasoline, and you’re avoiding its attendant ills, like poisoning your community and contributing to climate change. But, when you take into account where the electricity that powers your car comes from, it turns out that those warm fuzzies might be baseless.

A new study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that if you live in a coal-dependent state, driving an electric vehicle might make your net effect on the environment and public health worse than if you had just stuck with a gas-powered vehicle. A team from the University of Minnesota compared cars powered by 10 different gasoline alternatives. The AP’s Seth Borenstein reports:

The study finds all-electric vehicles cause 86 percent more deaths from air pollution than do cars powered by regular gasoline. Coal produces 39 percent of the country’s electricity, according to the Department of Energy.

But if the power supply comes from natural gas, the all-electric car produces half as many air pollution health problems as gas-powered cars do. And if the power comes from wind, water or wave energy, it produces about one-quarter of the air pollution deaths.

Hybrids and diesel engines are cleaner than gas, causing fewer air pollution deaths and spewing less heat-trapping gas.

But ethanol isn’t, with 80 percent more air pollution mortality, according to the study.

The takeaway? In many parts of the country, electric cars may be … symbolic, at least at the moment. But they will make more and more sense as coal dies out and America’s energy system continues to get greener.

“Unfortunately, when a wire is connected to an electric vehicle at one end and a coal-fired power plant at the other end, the environmental consequences are worse than driving a normal gasoline-powered car,” Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist with the Carnegie Institution for Science, said in an email to Climate Central. Caldeira is unaffiliated with the study, but is working on similar research. “But electric vehicles are still good because they move us down a path toward a future near-zero emissions energy and transportation system,” he said. “Unfortunately, given the way electricity is generated in the U.S. today, the first steps down this path to lower pollution involves increases in pollution.”

Burning coal for electricity is responsible for a huge amount of America’s air pollution, and it’s the single biggest source of climate change — causing CO2 pollution in the country. Recognizing this, the Obama administration has proposed rules to crack down on coal plant pollution, which should have the effect of pushing some utilities toward cleaner energy. Meanwhile, the natural gas boom is already making coal an uneconomical source of power for utilities.

So, coal is already on the decline. And that’s good news for all those aspiring Tesla drivers out there.

Source:
Study: Your all-electric car may not be so green

, The Associated Press.

Electric Cars a Mixed Bag For Health, Climate

, Climate Central.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

This article is from:

Your electric vehicle might not be as green as you think it is

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Your electric vehicle might not be as green as you think it is