clack conca
https://nuclear-news.net/2014/07/05/the-lies-and-distortions-of-james-conca-and-his-science-media-centre-advisors-concerning-the-health-of-the-children-of-fukushima/
==
a green rod blog
JAMES CONCA AND FORBES ARE HORMESIS THEORY PROMOTERS AND SUPPORTERS
SadieDog March 17, 2015"More lies from James Conca and Forbes…
"But the real health and environmental impacts from the Fukushima reactors are nothing compared to the tsunami. Contrary to all the hype and fear, Fukushima is basically a large Superfund site. No one will die from Fukushima radiation, there will be no increased cancer rates, the food supply is not contaminated, the ocean nearby is not contaminated, most of the people can move back into their homes....."
:{
}:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/03/16/the-fukushima-disaster-wasnt-very-disastrous/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/03/16/the-fukushima-disaster-wasnt-very-disastrous/
Yes, James Conca said that."
Mainly 40K, although for the highest doses it was 60Co. The advantage of using 40K as a radiation source is that, with an energy maximum 1460 KeV, the majority of the photons undergo Compton scattering, which produce a cascade of lower-energy electrons and deflected gamma rays resulting in a broad range of secondary ionization events. Thus, cells exposed to this 40K source experience a significant spectrum of ionizing energies which is reasonably representative of background radiation sources. Additionally, potassium is one of the eight most abundant elements in the earth’s crust and, considering 40K’s half-life of 1.25 billion years, it is a common and continual source of natural environmental radiation.
The lies and distortions of James Conca and his Science Media Centre advisors concerning the health of the children of Fukushima
http://nuclear-news.net/2014/07/05/the-lies-and-distortions-of-james-conca-and-his-science-media-centre-advisors-concerning-the-health-of-the-children-of-fukushima/
If all one listens to is the mass media news, these quack hormesis theory promoters are more than likely the only viewpoint one will get, but to get the truth, one has to go elsewhere, such as the following link... Of course, this takes time, energy and personal interest. Most people prefer being spoon fed propaganda and being plugged into the Matrix.
At Fukushima Daichi, 3 Or More Coriums Melted Out Of Containment Into Ground, Compared To 1 At Chernobyl - China Syndrome, Ongoing Criticalities, Evidence And Data, Multiple 100 Ton Corium Lava Fires Underground
http://www.agreenroadjournal.com/2016/05/at-fukushima-daichi-3-or-more-coriums.html
MANY ALTERNATIVE AND MAIN STREAM NEWS OUTLETS PROMOTE OR SUPPORT THE HORMESIS THEORY; CLAIM THAT NOTHING BAD HAPPENED AT FUKUSHIMA, NO ONE HURT, NO ONE DIED, NOTHING BAD CAME OUT OF IT
:{:{Dana's Fukushima Warning: Ian Goddard James Corbett WHOI UVic Jan 11th 2015:(style="text-align:justify;background-color:#ffffff;"):}: **VIDEO:**https://youtu.be/mOzJs0DAdzs:{ 7 min.}:
}:
:{
}:
==
forbes
...
Years after those nuclear reactors withstood one of the largest earthquakes in history, only to fall to the largest tsunami in history, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) made a very strong and important statement concerning radiation effects from the Fukushima disaster (UNSCEAR press release; NYTimes DotEarth):
“It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers from exposure to radiation following the leaks and explosions at the earthquake-damaged power plant in March of 2011.”
But there was still a flurry of debate several days ago on the 4thanniversary of the accident, with many outrageous claims on all sides (HuffPost; NBC; Al Jazeera; HiroshimaSyndrome). However, as the Breakthrough Institute points out, the most important thing to take away from the last four years is what did not happen - and never will:
- Fukushima children have no more thyroid cancer rates than any other regions in Japan, and are actually lower than many.
The one thing the Japanese government did right was tell everyone to not eat anything from the area for a few months while radioactive iodine died away completely. New ultrasound diagnostic techniques found more thyroid nodules and cysts in all Japanese (these were already in the population), but the numbers for Fukushima children were actually lower than the rest of Japan (NIH; NYTimes; UN Report; Nuclear News; J. of Am. Phys. and Surg.; CBCnews; Hiroshima Syndrome; National Geographic; Asahi Shimbun). Unfortunately, some very unethical and greedy people knowingly reported the wrong data sets and claimed that thyroid cancers have exploded in Japan and Japanese children are dying by the thousands (Business Insider; Eco Child’s Play).
- Food from Fukushima is safe to eat, even the seafood.
Fukushima’s home cooked meals have no detectible radioactive cesium. Three of the prefecture’s food cooperatives tested two days-worth of meals from 100 households, and none had detectable radiation from Fukushima (MINPO). The fishing stocks off the Japanese coast are not contaminated (NAR).
- Radiation in most of the Evacuation Zone around Fukushima is low enough for people to move back.
Except for a relatively small region around the reactors, the risk of evacuees moving back to their homes are the same as driving a car (UNSCEAR). Yes, driving can be dangerous, but it is not a reason to live as a refugee for the rest of one’s life. On the other hand, the forced relocations of people in the evacuation zone is what caused all of the deaths and hardship that these people suffered in the aftermath of the reactor accident. But even with the fear and gross misrepresentations, about a third of the people from Fukushima want to return to their homes. About a third don’t want to and about a third are undecided (MINPO News).
- None of the crewmembers from the USS Reagan stationed at Fukushima have cancer rates or other ailments that are any different than the rest of the Navy.
A Pentagon study found mildly elevated levels of stress disorders, but radiation effects such as cancer were actually lower on the USS Reagan than most other ships. Which is reasonable since the total cumulative dose during the entire mission was only 0.08 mSv, way too low to cause any health effects (DTRA). But some unethical lawyers might make some real money.
- There is no, and never will be, a Fukushima Death Toll. No one received enough radiation to change the background cancer rates that normally exist in Japan.
For the general population in Fukushima prefecture, across Japan and beyond, the World Health Organization said, "the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated". The Fukushima disaster doesn’t even rate on the scale of common radiation hazards. The EPA estimates that the radiation from natural radon gas in our homes results in over 20,000 cancer fatalities in the United States every year, although this number is based on the LNT model just like all predictions. This radon effect is equivalent to five times the total radiation released from Fukushima every year, with no outcry from those who cry out against radiation effects.
I know the lack of death and destruction is boring to some, and doesn’t fit into the evil picture painted by zealots against anything nuclear. But the amount of radiation released from Fukushima, while sounding big, was too small when spread out over so many miles to have much discernable effect on the Japanese people, now or in the future.
Or anyone else, anywhere.
But the stoking of fear and misrepresentation, the botched response and forced evacuations, the ridiculous limits on low levels of radiation, the closing of all nuclear plants and the increase of coal- oil- and gas-fired electricity, and the politicization of the tragedy – these have huge and lasting effects.
Yes, the Fukushima site is a mess. It will cost billions to clean up. It was completely avoidable but Japan did not have a working regulatory commission or the safety guidelines that are in place in America. And they ignored our repeated warnings.
But as to death and destruction, the Fukushima accident shows that nuclear power plant disasters are not very disastrous.
==
cited by heartland w/ shellenberger
THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
JANUARY 6, 2017
By Nathan Makla
Lifting the undue regulations currently placed on the nuclear power industry would lead to an expansion of nuclear energy in the United States, which would be beneficial to the environment, economy, and to the stability of the U.S. power grid.
Nuclear Energy Institute President and CEO Marvin Fertel said in a recent interview the administration of President-elect Donald Trump will be “much more positive than negative” for the nuclear industry. Fertel went on to cite Trump’s decision to tap Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) as the country’s next attorney general, a man he says “has always been a very big supporter of nuclear energy.”
Nuclear power is America’s largest source of clean-air, carbon-dioxide-free electricity. It produces few, if any, air pollutants or greenhouse-gas emissions. Nuclear power can produce a
vast amount of power from a tiny volume of fuel and requires less land than other
so-called “green-energy sources,” such as wind. An average nuclear power plant occupies about
one-third of 1 square mile, whereas a wind farm must use up to 200 square miles of land to
generate the same amount of power. The nuclear energy industry also has a proven track record of safety.
Scientist James Conca argued in a recent Forbes article 2016 was an active year for the nuclear power industry in the United States and internationally. “Currently, there are 450 nuclear power reactors in operation globally, 98 in the United States … Sixty new plants are under construction, five in the United States.”
However, Conca argues nuclear power faces a difficult battle, because even at a low cost of 5 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), “They cannot compete with cheap natural gas and wind energy that is subsidized at 2.3¢/kWh. Solar is even more heavily subsidized, usually over 10¢/kWh, but up to 54¢/kWh in some states like Washington.”
Michael Shellenberger, the founder and president of Environmental Progress, argues in a recent USA Today article nuclear energy’s recent problems (in certain parts of the country) are not because nuclear power is uneconomical. Shellenberger says the issue is they are punished by discriminatory policies that treat one zero-carbon energy option more favorably than another. “In 2013, solar received 281 times more in subsidies per unit of electricity than nuclear, while wind received 17 times more, according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration. As a result of this perverse incentive, some nuclear plants that produce power at costs lower than the wind subsidy could be forced to close.”
Although governments have unfairly favored renewable energy, they shouldn’t make the same mistake with nuclear power by doling out subsidies or mandating the use of nuclear energy. They should instead lift the undue regulations currently placed on the nuclear power industry. This would lead to an expansion of nuclear energy in the United States, which would be beneficial to the environment, economy, and to the stability of the U.S. power grid.
What We’re Working On
Budget & Tax
Federal Lawmakers Compile Wish List for Regulatory Rollback...
==
conca NEI also brkthru?
Similarly, the Breakthrough Institute is just a bunch of 'free' market ideologues. An example of their incompetence: Mark Lynas pens error-riddled, cost-less nuke op-ed after relying on wingnut Breakthrough Institute for data.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/04/13/207880/mark-lynas-error-cost-nuke-op-ed/
Dr. Wade Allison, Emeritus Professor of Physics at Oxford University Promotes Hormesis Theory, Same As Galen Winsor And Dr. Yamashita MD
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/12/dr-wade-allison-emeritus-professor-of.html
Ann Coulter, Forbes, Conca, Corbett Report Agree; More Radiation Is Good For You. As Part Of Mass Media And Nuclear Industry Promoting Quack Hormesis Theory Promoters
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/08/ann-coulter-says-more-radiation-is-good.html
==
11/14 conca
hmmn
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/11/14/does-our-military-know-something-we-dont-about-global-warming/#2e363eda4567
Every branch of the United States Military is worried about climate change. They have been since well before it became controversial. In the wake of an historic climate change agreement between President Obama and President Xi Jinping in China this week (Brookings), the military’s perspective is significant in how it views climate effects on emerging military conflicts.
China will be our biggest military and political problem by the middle of this century. It would be nice to understand what issues will exacerbate our struggles.
At a time when Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bush 41, and even British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, called for binding international protocols to control greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. Military was seriously studying global warming in order to determine what actions they could take to prepare for the change in threats that our military will face in the future.
The Center for Naval Analysis has had its Military Advisory Board examining the national security implications of climate change for many years. Lead by Army General Paul Kern, the Military Advisory Board is a group of 16 retired flag-level officers from all branches of the Service.
This is not a group normally considered to be liberal activists and fear-mongers.
This year, the Military Advisory Board came out with a new report, called National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change, that is a serious discussion about what the military sees as the threats and the actions to be taken to mitigate them.
“The potential security ramifications of global climate change should be serving as catalysts for cooperation and change. Instead, climate change impacts are already accelerating instability in vulnerable areas of the world and are serving as catalysts for conflict. >Bill Pennell, former Director of the Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, summed up the threat in recent discussions about climate and national security:
“Theenvironmental consequences of climate change are a significant threat multiplier, which by itself, can be a cause for future conflicts. Global warming will affect military operations as well as its theaters of operations. And it poses significant risks and costs to military and civilian infrastructure, especially those facilities located on the coastline.”
“The countries and regions posing the greatest security threats to the United States are among those most susceptible to the adverse and destabilizing effects of climate change. Many of these countries are already unstable and have little economic or social capital for coping with additional disruptions.”
“Whether in Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, or North Korea, we are already seeing how extreme weather events - such as droughts and flooding and the food shortages and population dislocations that accompany them - can destabilize governments and lead to conflict. For example, one trigger of the chaos in Syria has been the multi-year drought the country has experienced since 2006 and the Assad Regime’s ineptitude in dealing with it.”
So why is the country as a whole, and those who normally support our military, so loathe to prepare for possible threats from this direction?
In 1990, Eugene Skolnikoff summarized the national policy issues surrounding global warming and why it has been so difficult to rationally develop policy to address it.
“The central problem is that outside the security sector, policy processes confronting issues with substantial uncertainty do not normally yield policy that has high economic or political costs. This is especially true when the uncertainty extends not only to the issues themselves, but also to the measures to avert them or deal with their consequences.”
:{
}:
“The climate change issue illustrates - in fact exaggerates - all the elements of this central problem. Indeed, no major action is likely to be taken until those uncertainties are substantially reduced, and probably not before evidence of warming and its effects are actually visible. Unfortunately, any increase in temperature will be irreversible by the time the danger becomes obvious enough to permit political action.”
:{
}:
And this was in 1990!
As Arctic ice diminishes, the region will see new shipping routes, new energy zones, new fisheries, new tourism and new sources of conflict not covered by existing maritime treaties. Since the United States is not party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) treaty, we will not have maximum operating flexibility in the Arctic. Even seemingly small administrative issues may become important in the new era, e.g., the Unified Command Plan presently splits Arctic responsibility between two Combatant Commands: U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and U.S. European Command (EUCOM). This type of things needs to be resolved with the coming global changes in mind. Source: Center for Naval Analysis
General Gordon Sullivan put the issue of uncertainty where it should be: “People are saying they want to be perfectly convinced about climate science projections…But speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield.”
And as Rear Admiral David Titley, former Oceanographer of the Navy, stated in a 2013 testimony to Congress, “I tell people, this is cutting-edge 19th-Century science that we’re now refining.”
The Military Advisory Board is dismayed that discussions of climate change have become so polarizing and have receded from the arena of informed public discourse and debate.
“While the causes of climate change and its impacts continue to be argued or ignored in our nation, the linkage between changes in our climate and national security has been obscured. Political concerns and budgetary limitations cannot be allowed to dominate what is essentially a salient national security concern for our nation. Our Congress, the administration, and all who are charged with planning and assuring our security should take up the challenge of confronting the coming changes to our environment.”
What makes this week’s U.S.-China climate agreement so important is its announcement in the run up to the 2015 United Nation’s global climate summit in Paris. Since most of humanity’s emissions come from our two countries, international pressure has mounted on both of us to get serious about reductions. Our military was knee-deep in these negotiations.
The world was thinking that the U.S. and China was ready for a game of GHG chicken, each waiting for the other to instigate steep cuts. By announcing a common plan in advance of the Paris summit, the two Presidents have undercut the acrimony anticipated for these negotiations and set a do-something tone for the conference that the rest of the world will find hard to ignore.
Our Military Advisory Board concluded that “coordinated and well-executed actions to limit heat-trapping gases and increase resilience to help prevent and protect against the worst projected climate change impacts are required — now.”
Whatever your thoughts on the relative human and natural influences on climate change, ignoring our military is not prudent. They understand the dangers of not being prepared.
Dr. James Conca is an expert on energy, nuclear and dirty bombs, a planetary geologist, and a professional speaker. Follow him on Twitter @jimconca and see his book at Amazon.com
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/06/26/debunking-the-unscientific-fantasy-of-100-renewables/#3b6f96e529f9
off bs
I have been a scientist in the field of the earth and environmental sciences for 33 years, specializing in geologic disposal of nuclear waste, energy-related research, planetary surface processes, radiobiology and shielding for space colonies, subsurface transport and environmental clean-up of heavy metals. I am a Trustee of the Herbert M. Parker Foundation, Adjunct at WSU, an Affiliate Scientist at LANL and consult on strategic planning for the DOE, EPA/State environmental agencies, and industry including companies that own nuclear, hydro, wind farms, large solar arrays, coal and gas plants. I also consult for EPA/State environmental agencies and industry on clean-up of heavy metals from soil and water. For over 25 years I have been a member of Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the NRDC, the Environmental Defense Fund and many others, as well as professional societies including the America Nuclear Society, the American Chemical Society, the Geological Society of America and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.
- :{Is Hacking :(style="background-color:#f5f5f5;"):}::{Nuclear Power :(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}::{Plants Something We Should Be Afraid Of?:(style="background-color:#f5f5f5;"):}:6 hours ago
- Super Majority Of Americans Worry About Clean Drinking Water1 week ago
- Seeding The Clouds - Should We Mess With Our Earth's Climate?2 weeks ago
- :{Small Legislative Steps For :(style="font-weight:inherit"):}:**Nuclear Energy**2 weeks ago
- Natural Gas Industry Blasts Nuclear Power With Fake News
- It's Final -- Corn Ethanol Is Of No Use444,291 views
- Does Our Military Know Something We Don't About Global Warming?325,311 views
- How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources292,215 views
- Pick Your Poison For Crude -- Pipeline, Rail, Truck Or Boat176,977 views
- **U.S. Winning Oil War Against Saudi Arabia**149,887 views
conca on clack?
https://www.ecowatch.com/mark-jacobson-pnas-2454280135.html
Response to Forbes: Stop Inaccuracies—100% Renewable Energy Is Possible
:{
This is a response to James Conca's article in Forbes on June 26, "Debunking the Unscientific Fantasy of 100% Renewables."
Conca's article describes a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by Chris Clack and coauthors on June 19, criticizing a paper colleagues and I authored in the same journal in 2015. Our original paper showed that the U.S. can transition to 100% clean, renewable energy in all energy sectors without coal, nuclear power or biofuels. In this response, I show that Conca was negligent by not reporting on our response in PNAS and by seriously misrepresenting facts.
...
However, as stated in our PNAS-published response to Clack that Conca negligently fails to cite, the IPCC says the exact opposite: "Without support from governments, investments in new nuclear power plants are currently generally not economically attractive within liberalized markets, ..." Further, unlike in our studies, neither the IPCC, NOAA, NREL, nor the IEA has ever performed or reviewed a cost analysis of grid stability with near 100% clean, renewable energy so could not possibly have come to the conclusion claimed by Conca.
Conca, then makes a misleading and irrelevant statement. He says that we "assume a nuclear war every 30 years or so." The PNAS study he is criticizing says nothing of the sort. He fails to tell readers he is referring to a completely different paper that I wrote from 2009 that estimated the upper-limit risk of nuclear war from nuclear weapons proliferation. However, just like he negligently failed to report our response published in PNAS, Conca failed to report the lower-limit risk of nuclear war as stated in the 2009 paper, zero nuclear wars. Why would he report only the upper-limit of a risk rather than both the upper and lower-limit risks?
Conca then claims we assumed 15 million acres covered by wind and solar, which is wrong, but even if it were correct, he doesn't realize this is only 0.66% of U.S. land area to replace all fossil fuels. He forgets that the 1.7 million active and 2.3 million inactive oil and gas wells alone in the U.S. plus the 20,000 new ones each year occupy more than 1% of U.S. land area for the roads, well pads, and storage facilities.
Conca then falsely claims we proposed to add new hydroelectric installations equivalent to 600 Hoover dams when our paper clearly calls for zero new dams. We propose only to increase the hydropower maximum discharge rate by adding turbines without increasing the annual hydropower energy output (thus no change in the annual amount of water in any reservoir). The concept of adding turbines to the outside of existing hydropower dams to increase the maximum discharge rate while keeping annual hydropower energy constant was a new idea that works. The legitimate question is, what is the maximum discharge rate that is practical relative to other options by 2050, not whether it is possible to increase the discharge rate.
Regardless, an alternate solution to increasing the hydropower discharge rate is to increase the discharge rate of concentrated solar power (CSP) and/or adding batteries. Both methods results in low-cost solutions as illustrated for the United States and Canada here. These results contradict Clack's premise that our nation's energy can't run 100% on wind, water and solar power alone at low cost.
Conca further criticizes underground storage in rocks, but it is inexpensive (less than 1/300th the cost per unit energy stored than batteries) and a form of district heat. Sixty percent of Denmark's heat is from district heating.
In sum, debate about our energy future can be constructive and is certainly encouraged. But inaccurate statements about scientific work and amplifications of those inaccuracies help no one. Had Conca read our PNAS response at all, he would not have made the errors he did. However, my colleagues and I are always seeking to improve our methods and calculations. Our goals are to better the quality of life of everyone by determining the best ways to provide clean, renewable, and reliable energy while creating jobs and improving people's health and reducing costs. Hopefully others share these goals, regardless of political party affiliation.
Our research shows a transition to a reliable, low-carbon, electrical generation and transmission system can be accomplished with commercially available technology and within 15 years,” said Alexander MacDonald, co-lead author and recently retired director of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) in Boulder.
A high-resolution map based on NOAA solar irradiance data shows a snapshot of solar energy potential across the United States. (Credit: Image by Chris Clack/CIRES)
The paper was published online in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Although improvements in wind and solar generation have continued to ratchet down the cost of producing renewable energy, these energy resources are inherently intermittent. As a result, utilities have invested in surplus generation capacity to back up renewable energy generation with natural gas-fired generators and other reserves.
“In the future, they may not need to,” said co-lead authorChristopher Clack, a physicist and mathematician with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder.
==
http://www.vibrantcleanenergy.com/media/press/
Vibrant Clean Energy, LLC was founded by Dr Christopher T M Clack in 2016with the purpose of pursuing intelligent transformation of the electric and energy system to meet the needs of the 21st century. Dr Clack is an expert in mathematics, statistics and optimization. Combining this expertise with the gained skills of numerical weather prediction, electrical engineering and economics, VCE recognized that there is a seismic shift underway within the electric grid of the US and others around the world. We wish to remain at the forefront of these changes and help guide some of the most critical science in the field.
Vibrant Clean Energy, LLC takes the initial expertise, passion and drive of Dr Clack and focuses on the industry itself to facilitate greater understanding, competition and transition for customers, users and stakeholders.
We are in the process of growing rapidly, and we have developed software products along with data. The software is protected intellectual property (ownership is with Dr Christopher T M Clack), which means Vibrant Clean Energy, LLC is the exclusive provider of the products Dr Clack created. These products are continually developed and expanded along with new software that addresses new niches within the markets. We will vigorously defend any attempts to infringe on our intellectual property rights as the exclusive entity that can produce derivative work for commercialization. Anyone interested in licensing any of our products should contact us.
VCE, LLC, PO Box 1260, Erie, Colorado 80516-1260
720-668-6873
info@vibrantcleanenergy.com
==
NOAA: Rapid, affordable energy transformation possible
www.noaanews.noaa.gov/.../012516-rapid-affordable-energy-transformation-possible...
2.
Christopher Clack (Greater Denver Area) on LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com/in/clacky007
1.
Greater Denver Area - CEO Vibrant Clean Energy, LLC - Vibrant Clean Energy, LLC
:{Christopher T M (Chris) Clack, PhD -:(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}::{ American Meteorological Society:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:
https://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/docs/profiles/ClackChristopher/profile.html
2.
Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100 ...
www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/16/1610381114.short?rss=1
Jun 19, 2017 - Early Edition; > Christopher T. M Clack, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1610381114 .... theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National ...
Christopher Clack | Aspen Global Change Institute
https://www.agci.org/redhen/contact/2773
1.
NOAA Model Finds Renewable Energy Could be Deployed in the U.S. ...
spectrum.ieee.org/.../noaa-model-finds-renewable-energy-could-be-deployed-in-the-u...
1.
Study: Deep decarbonization of U.S. grid possible without energy ...
www.utilitydive.com/news/study-deep-decarbonization-of-us-grid.../412721/
2.
Christopher T M Clack - Academia.edu
independent.academia.edu/CClack
1.
About Us | Vibrant Clean Energy
www.vibrantcleanenergy.com/about-us/
1.
Better power lines would help U.S. supercharge renewable energy ...
www.sciencemag.org/.../better-power-lines-would-help-us-supercharge-renewable-en...
2.
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722.full:{:{}::{ Current Issue > vol. 114 no. 26 > Christopher T. M. Clack, 6722–6727, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1610381114}::{
}:Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solarChristopher T. M. Clacka,b,1,2, Staffan A. Qvistc, Jay Aptd,e, Morgan Bazilianf, Adam R. Brandtg, Ken Caldeirah, Steven J. Davisi, Victor Diakovj, Mark A. Handschyb,k, Paul D. H. Hinesl, Paulina Jaramillod, Daniel M. Kammenm,n,o, Jane C. S. Longp,3, M. Granger Morgand, Adam Reedq, Varun Sivaramr, James Sweeneys,t, George R. Tynanu, David G. Victorv,w, John P. Weyants,t, and Jay F. WhitacredAuthor Affiliations:{
}:aEarth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, CO 80305;bCooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80305;cDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, 752 37 Uppsala, Sweden;dDepartment of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213;eTepper School of Business, Carnegie MellonUniversity, Pittsburgh, PA 15213;fCenter for Global Energy Policy, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027;gDepartment of Energy Resources Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;hDepartment of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, CA 94305;iDepartment of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697;jOmni Optimum, Evergreen, CO 80437;kEnduring Energy, LLC, Boulder, CO 80303;lElectrical Engineering and Complex Systems Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405;mEnergy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720;nGoldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720;oRenewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3050;pLawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550;qRenewable and Sustainable Energy Institute, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80305;rCouncil on Foreign Relations, New York, NY 10065; villrigosa, PV, cuomo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varun_SivaramsPrecourt Energy Efficiency Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4206;tManagement Science and Engineering Department, Huang Engineering Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305;uDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Jacobs School of Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093;vSchool of Global Policy and Strategy, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093;wBrookings Institution, Washington, DC 20036Edited by B. L. Turner, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, and approved February 24, 2017 (received for review June 26, 2016)==}:
}: