Talk:Mark Z. Jacobson

Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

3O opinion removed by involved edit User:Johnfos in 2011

I seem to remember a discussion on this page from 2010. On checking the edit history it was blanked in 2011. I am re-instating this talk page edit as (1) it was improperly removed and (2)this editorial issue has come up here before. There is more information relating to this discussion in the edit history that is worthy of reading, though the below is a succinct summary.

Boundarylayer (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

From WP:3o. First of all - stop reverting the article. A revert war is harmful and does not lead to resolution of the dispute. I agree with FellGleamingthat to state as fact that "wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 per cent of the world's energy, eliminating all fossil fuels," is problematic. This can be solved in two ways - the first is the proposed "believes that." A second way is to remove the endcap - IE - "Jacobson has studied how wind, water and solar technologies can effect the use of fossil fuels."

Secondly. I agree with FellGleaming that stating what Jacobson's analyses show without also showing that other disagree is not appropriate. If Jacobson's alanyses are, in fact, notable, they will have been discussed in reliable sources not authored by him - and I suspect those reliable sources will put his thoughts in context. Can we find a reliable source that adresses his work on nuclear power vs wind energy, as opposed to an article written by him about it? I have made edits to the article to reflect what I consider a possible compromise. I will self revert if requested on this talk page with justification. You are both requested not to revert me. Hipocrite (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

Amongst fellow researchers presenting a low-carbon energy future, Jacobson is known for his advocacy against nuclear energy and at times, blocks those who present the positive comparative cost and greenhouse gas benefits of nuclear energy when compared to renewable energy.

I had a look at the blog and some of the tweets. This is a low level controversy of limited encyclopedic value. Indeed it has no relevance to a disinterested account of the subject. WP:BLPGOSSIP applies here. Best forgotten. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Renewable Nuclear

Jacobson's analyses state that "nuclear power results in up to 25 times more carbon emissions per unit energy than wind energy, when delays between planning and operation and emissions from reactor construction, uranium refining and transport are considered" This probably does not belong in a biographical note at all. There are some glaring flaws. There is a huge movement, of which MZJ himself is a member, to create delays between planning and operation of nuclear. Such delays benefit the very industries that WWS energy is supposed to supplant. Besides, molten salt reactors can actually produce fissile uranium to replace that which they consume. So whatever the uranium or thorium refining now costs, the cost per MWh is greatly reduced, by up to 100 times. It is rather weird to write about emissions from reactor construction. An 1100 MW reactor needs far less concrete than the number of giant 5 MW wind "turbines" necessary to produce 1000 MW.years of energy even at 33.3% production factor in a year. 200x3 = 600 large concrete bases, to resist toppling of a structure sweeping the sky at nearly 200 metres, with vanes 60 metres or more long. This is without counting the concrete for the hydro dams to store the peak wind energy for when the wind isn't blowing hard enough. I doubt if Prof. Jacobson actually has data on the carbon cost of the rare earths for his proposed solar panels, let alone the tons of neodymium needed for the generators and motors that steer the nacelle and adjust the setting of the blades when the wind is faster than 12 metres/sec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveyHume (talk • contribs) 21:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The text claims following: "The lifecycle emission figures from Jacobson are in the range of the consensus determined by the 2014 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 4-110 g/kWh." The IPCC raport states: "The ranges of harmonized lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions reported in the literature are ... and 4 – 110 gCO2eq/kWh for nuclear power" thus it is not consensus, but range of reported. The actual figures in the report shows that high end of the values are outliers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.157.162.224 (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I had written the article to reflect this very matter that you bring up, last year, but the editor "Mark Z Jacobson" has re-written that section to say what it now does.

This was the previous version on the IPCC While Jacobson's results are at the higher end of the two extreme poles of peer-reviewed calculations that the IPCC deemed worthy of consideration (1-220 g/CO2eq/kWh), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) regard Warner and Heath's methodology as the most credible and thus also report that the nuclear power emission is 12 g/kWh, which is comparable to wind energy.[1] & In 2015 an assessment of the various strategies that have been proposed to get to a global zero or low carbon economy by circa 2040, determined that the 100 percent renewable world that Jacobson discusses, would be the most costly and difficult to achieve, and that like many of the other scenarios proposed, it requires "more detailed analyses realistically addressing the key constraints", specifically relating to "the costs associated with integration of large amounts of variable generation".

109.125.17.18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Publications related to the WWS project

Here are some publication related to the WWS (wind, water, sun) project. They may be useful for this article or a new article on that project. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• 2009 presentation
• Jacobson and Delucchi (2009) Scientific American article
• Jacobson and Delucchi (2011a)
• Jacobson and Delucchi (2011b)
• Trainer (2012) critique
• Trainer (2013) critique
• Delucchi and Jacobson (2012) rebuttal
• Fischetti (2015) Scientific American article
• Jacobson et al (2015) 50 US states study
• Jacobson et al (2015)
• Delucchi et al (2016) spreadsheets
• Jacobson et al (2016) report

References

I have tagged this article as needing outside help/bias issue

As can be seen in the edit summary of the article, the subject of the article is now writing and re-writing the contents of the page. This has coincided with the recent publications in the PNAS/national academy and the "$10 million lawsuit".

I think it wise to get outside editors to review the edits and changes that have been made by the subject of the article in recent months. Boundarylayer (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If anything the introduction is much too long-winded and much of the content should be moved to their appropriate sections with a "Controversies/lawsuit" section added. He does not even directly reference the paper he is suing over, which needs to be there too. -- Sjschen (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed "whomever" wrote the vast majority of the introduction here, made it far too long-winded for an article on a person with 1-2 primary areas of publishing. Going by other examples, it is usually much-much shorter.

I also find it concerning that the editor User:Mark Z. Jacobson did not make reference to the paper that he is apparently suing over. Instead in our article, it is only mentioned in the following manner - "The premise and all error claims by Clack et al. about Jacobson et al. are demonstrably false. We reaffirm Jacobson et al.'s conclusions." Jacobson also authored a line-by-line response[72] and several editorial posts that pointed to additional problems with the critique"

There was also a scientific dispute on energy related matters between James Hansen and Jacobson and both of their colleagues a few years back(2013), with this dispute curiously being absent from this article on Jacobson too. The discussion and response is well referenced in James Hansens page and it's worthy of inclusion here.

To end, there seems to be a somewhat NPOV assessment of this newer 2017 dispute in IEEE that we could likely use to eliminate a large chunk of the material found in this article. This was written in June and makes no mention to the lawsuit, just detailing the general outline of Jacobson, both 2017 papers/Jacobson's response. | Can the U.S. Grid Work With 100% Renewables? There's a Scientific Fight Brewing. June 2017

Boundarylayer (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I organized it a bit by moving content from the intro to the sections. A lot of what Jacobson editing into this article is not really relevant about himself as a subject and more about his views and the support he has on energy transition. Much of it should probably go into the 100% renewable energy page or climate modelling. At the end, what this page really needs is a section on this lawsuit and controversy since there needs to be a bit more details on what exactly this mess is all about. -- Sjschen (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

There is clearly COI editing going on here. As well from his reverts, citations deletions, and general unwillingness to comment here on the talk page before deleting I feel that there is definitely a biased if not bad-faith editing going on. Whether the citation he deleted are "Printing unbalanced, misleading, and factually inaccurate information" I can't say but those are from the 2 top pages of Google results. If no one objects I'm going to call an administrator to deal with this. -- Sjschen (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the COI reverts and citation deletions are particularly concerning. I've since done some editing to put this lawsuit in context, to list the events, controversies and general expert opinion, that preceded it.

It may be reverted, but we'll see if they stop edit warring first and begin engaging here. If further blanket reversions occur, I don't think we'll have any other option but to follow your plan, to ask for further assistance.

Boundarylayer (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I am agreeable to Boundarylayer most recent edits. They are balanced and more accurate than the previous edits, which claimed without proof that the environmental and academic communities condemned the lawsuit. This unsupported claim was based on quotes from a few people, a small portion of these communities, who according to another source did not even seem to know what the allegations in the suit were. The previous edits also incorrectly claimed that the Jacobson studies relied on significant increases in hydropower when in fact, the 139 country paper and the 48-contiguous state paper both assumed 0 increase in the number of conventional hydropower reservoir size or dams. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The most recent edits are small correction based on a series of major edits by User:Mark_Z._Jacobson (COI editor). I suggest we go further back to the article reorganization at 17:49, 10 November 2017 before the addition of the cited articles and summaries that the COI editor considered "opinion, unbalanced, misleading, and inaccurate". In addition I have also duplicated the comments the COI editor responded on his talk page below as part of this discussion. -- Sjschen (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. My intention is not to criticize you personally but to point out the issues with what was stated and how it appears to someone like myself who is familiar with the facts of the situation. The November 10 version you pointed to is generally ok aside from the fact that it says incorrectly in the 2nd paragraph, "solely heavily up-scaled hydroelectricity, wind, and solar" since none of the plans rely "solely" on these three (they all also involve geothermal, tidal, wave plus electricity, heat, and cold storage and all-distance transmission) and because there is zero upscaled hydroelectricity in the most recent study, the 139-country paper published in Joule, 2017. In addition, in the 2015 PNAS paper, no added hydropower dams or increases in reservoir size were assumed at all, only increases in the numbers of hydropower turbines to speed up the instantaneous discharge of water at some times while decreasing it at other times. Having said that, I am also fine with the current version as it stands, because it now contains (in the last section (opinion section)) precise and accurate information about the 2009 E&ES study with regard to nuclear power so there can be no ambiguity or misunderstanding. If something you think is glaringly missing from the current version, maybe you can point it out on this page, and we can discuss. Thank you. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Boundarylayer Thank you for your edits to the nuclear opinion discussion. Here are my comments and suggested clarifications/corrections:

1. Jacobson's primary coauthor is not Diesendorf but Delucchi. Additional primary authors who have found a "100% renewable world" in the list of 24 citations provided include Mathieson, Greiner, Kempton, and Mason, not only Breyer, Connolly, and Diesendorf.

2. Of the citations 88-93 that claim "Jacobson's "100 percent renewable world" is instead deemed to cost orders of magnitude more", references 88, 89, 90, and 91 do not even mention Jacobson's name or reference his studies and Refs. 92-94 are all by the exact same authors and seem to be the same article. Nowhere in that article is it stated that Jacobson's "100 percent renewable world" is "orders of magnitude more."

3. With regard to nuclear "mean" lifecycle emissions, IPCC specifically concludes in the "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY" on page 517:

"Nuclear energy...Its specific emissions are below 100 gCO2eq per kWh on a lifecycle basis..." It does not state 12 g-CO2/kWh.

Even if it did, the proper nuclear numbers for comparison with Jacobson (2009) are means, not medians.

Jacobson (2009) derive their lifecycle numbers from Sovacool, which is consistent with Lenten (2008), and both provide numbers as means.

The 12 g-CO2/kWh you cite is a median number from Warner and Heath (2012) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x/full

Warner and Heath (2012), however, provide, in their Table 2, the mean for PWR nuclear reactors as 27 g-CO2/kWh and for LWR as 22 g-CO2/kWh, thus an average of around 25 g-CO2/kWh.

Further, the Jacobson roadmap studies are only relevant for the 2030-2050 time frame. The abstract of Warner and Heath (2012) specifically states,

"Depending on conditions, median life cycle GHG emissions could be 9 to 110 g CO2-eq/kWh by 2050"

This is because in part by 2050, much more energy will be required to extract uranium due to its scarcity.

Thus, according to Warner and Heath (2012) the median number for 2050 will be much higher than the median number of 25 g/kWh today.

I request that the text be clarified to include the information above.

4. Why did you remove the upper end of 4.1 g-CO2/kWh as the estimated emissions from the burning of cities? Instead, it now sounds as if it is 180.1 g-CO2/kWh. The text currently states, "Jacobson assumes, at the high end(180.1 g/kWh), that some form of nuclear induced burning will occur once every 30 years" This would be clearer if it says, "Jacobson assumes, at the end end (180.1 g/kWh) that 4.1 g/kWh is due to burning of cities resulting from a nuclear exchange resulting from nuclear energy expansion, but at the low end (68 g/kWh), 0 emissions due to a nuclear exchange."

5. The "15 year period" referred to by Hansen is only the construction period, NOT the time between planning and operation. The time between planning and operation includes time to locate a site, obtain a site permit, obtain financing, obtain a construction permit, construct the plant, and obtain an operating permit. The 10 to 19 year time requirement from planning to operation of a nuclear plant is a fact in the United States. Please see the references in Jacobson (2009), and specifically Koomey and Hultman (2007) for the construction times, which they have tracked for U.S. reactors. The long time is not due to NIMBYISM (although that can play a part) but to permitting requirements and financing. Please clarify/correct. Thank you. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, the use of the term "fantastical" from Hansen is unreferenced. It also seems this is an unbalanced, non-factual denigration that does not belong in a biography. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem.

On (1) Within these 24 publications. Breyer is author of some 7 of these papers, Connolly 4, Jacobson 4 and Diesendorf 3. So to summarize, simply listing these 4 authors who are largely responsible for the 24 papers that determine a transition to a 100% renewable world, will be cheap and will be an easy engineering task, is an accurate summary necessary to inform readers. It is not necessary to list everyone with more than 1 publication, as you suggest, in order to simply communicate to readers that the 24 papers are largely the work of, primarily, 4 individuals. I will however remove the phrase "principle co-author" however as that seems to have caused some understandable confusion. I was simpy reading Demystifying Sustainability: Towards Real Solutions By Haydn Washington, specifically pg 184-5 were it lists Jacobson and Diesendorf having a similar publication history when it comes to nuclear energy. Even going so far as both using the very same units of measure. Jacobson concludes nuclear energy emits 9-25 times more CO2 than wind energy (2011) Diesendorf, using the very same unusual unit of measure, "6-22 times wind energy" (2014) etc. Diesendorf re-states your sentiments on the following issues: (A) the aforementioned CO2 emissions of nuclear energy in terms of X times wind energy, (B) the suggestion of a higher price, (C) the suggestion of a "peak uranium", along with (D) the opinion that pursing civil nuclear energy results in an increased risk of nuclear war.

For all these reasons, I used the phrase "principle co-author". As short of Benjamin Sovacool, author of Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power and an individual who likewise published a highly criticized appraisal of CO2 emissions from nuclear energy akin to Jacobson, and a publisher who Jacobson has also contributed with elsewhere, though not within these specific 24 publications under discussion. I know of few other researchers who have so consistently used this method of presentation, of putting things in terms of "X times wind energy" and who has likewise consistently come down on the negative, over every aspect of nuclear energy. For this reason, I hope you can see why I used the phrase "principle co-author" with respect to Diesendorf? A phrase that however may cause confusion. So could you, or other editors, instead suggest some other, less ambiguous phrase or description for Diesendorf? Instead of "principle co-author"? Something more descriptive, that takes the presentation of Jacobson & Diesendorf's publications, as found in Demystifying Sustainability: Towards Real Solutions, that takes these joint presentations on a wide range of nuclear matters, into account?

On 2 we can use Ted Trainer's publication that does specifically mention Jacobson, instead of simply using the references you take issue with that instead, only discuss the "100% renewable plan". Is that agreeable? http://www.greens.org/s-r/60/60-09.html alongside http://www.theenergycollective.com/ed-dodge/301031/critique-100-renewable-energy-new-york-plan. They specifically mention Jacobson. Likewise, both the phrase "orders of magnitude greater"/more expensive and a figure over the number "10" is presented when discussing Jacobson & Delucci in | Loftus et. al 2015 pg 101-2. A reference that is, contained in the article already. pg 107 also presents the Jacobson Delucci approach of costing approximately 100 trillion dollars in comparison to the lower costs of the more "agonist" decarbonizing approaches. pg 107 also states With the exception of the $100 trillion case cited by Jacobson & Delucchi, the range of energy system incremental investment is approximately 20–50% over the baseline investment, or in the range of 1% of global GDP. This particular statement, likewise puts the Jacobson plan in the "exceptionally costly"/"outlier" arena.

3. With regard to nuclear "mean" lifecycle emissions, IPCC specifically concludes in the "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY" on page 517:

"Nuclear energy...Its specific emissions are below 100 gCO2eq per kWh on a lifecycle basis..." It does not state 12 g-CO2/kWh.

The median and not the "mean" is the statistically important number, as both | Beerten et. al 2009 & | Dolan, et al 2012 have exasperatingly communicated on the matter before. One cannot do a "proper" comparison between numbers that represent two entirely different things. With means on 1 hand and medians on the other. That very issue is the principle reason why Jacobson's colleague [[Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#2008_Benjamin_K._Sovacool_survey_of_nuclear_power | Sovacool was so strongly criticized by his peers in the past]. With Beerten & Dolan pointing out. "Averages and means" of CO2 emission figures, which by definition are determined "from multiple sources, can be skewed by inharmonious data, clustering bias, by outliers and so on." "averaging GHG emissions of those studies is no sound method to calculate an overall emission coefficient". The reason for this is obvious, if my real age is 25 and most people do analysis and determine accurately, but just one researcher is motivated to say a billion years old. Then while the median value would closely reflect reality, of ~25, in absolute contrast to the mean or average value, that owing to that 1 outlier, would still put my age in the thousand year range. Neither the IPCC nor any professional LCA researcher that I know of, uses or champions "mean" values, as all they do is mislead. The mean value of wind energy is similarly not supported or championed by anyone, for the same exact reason. As it's a number that communicates literally nothing of value. In direct contrast to the median figure. This is only made doubly so when the mean values for nuclear are compared with the medians value for wind. Creating a complete Apples and oranges comparison. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, states "| The median life cycle GHG emission estimates for PWR and BWR technology (are) 12 and 13 g CO2eq/kWh, respectively after harmonization."

Likewise, the IPCC state in Annex II pg 1308 "| The data on nuclear power was taken from Lenzen (2008) and Warner and Heath (2012). There is no basis in the literature as far as we know to distinguish between 2nd and 3rd generation power plants.".

You seem to acknowledge that this meta-analysis that the IPCC derive their data from, specifically Warner and heath, that this states a median value of 12 g CO2eq/kWh. Though concerningly, you did just write that it supports "an average of around 25 g-CO2/kWh" and then quite disturbingly, only a few sentences later mis-characterize this somehow as supporting "the median number of 25 g/kWh today". Something that I will allow you to clarify before we proceed further. As instead, the median is very cleary stated as 12 g CO2eq/kWh within the paper, not "25". Moreover they Warner and Heath don't get into "averages" or put any weight on that, prone to mislead, methodology. Incidentally, if 2050 values are of interest. Warner and Heath incorporate data derived from the era of inefficient gaseous diffusion, a process that was relegated to the pages of history in 2013, a year after they published in 2012. So due to this, "today" the value is actually lower than the broad median of 12 g.

In any event, I don't think crystal balling for 2050 makes much sense in an article on an individual, as likewise. There is | an MIT study that concluded that with drawing 10% of world energy from wind turbines, it could begin to influence surface heating in a deleterious manner. So I think we all recognize that further research will be needed on every energy source as time, data collection & all the energy technologies progress.

Boundarylayer (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

1. Thanks for removing the claim that Diesendorf is a coauthor. His research is completely independent of my own regardless of what similarities may appear with regard to the nuclear issue. With regard to the authors listed, Mathieson is the primary advisor on several of the papers. He should definitely be listed if you want to list names. While I agree that it is not necessary to list every independent author, it would be more accurate to use the term "several independent authors" than list just three, since there are a few completely independent papers (by Kempton and Mason, for example). Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

2. If you need a description, you could state something like, "Diesendorf and Jacobson have arrived at similar conclusions regarding nuclear power relative to renewables. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

3. If you want to use commentaries, such as Trainers', I think it is only fair and accurate to also report on the replies to the commentaries, specifically

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/12-1stRespEnergyPolicy.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/13-2ndRespEnergyPolicy.pdf

Loftus is saying our WWS studies are calling for an "order of magnitude greater buildout" than other studies, which means we would obtain a greater carbon reduction in a shorter period of time. Our studies decarbonize all energy sectors (electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, industry, agriculture/forestry/fishing), and we electrify all energy sectors. Many other studies consider only electricity, so our electricity buildout is naturally much greater than other studies that don't electrify other sectors. Electricity is only 1/5th of all energy. Thus, if we convert all energy to electricity, we will require more electricity than other plans, which don't do this. I should note that electrifying everything reduces energy demand by ~36% due to the efficiency of electricity over combustion (23%) and the elimination of energy used to mine, transport, and refine fossil fuels (13%). This is from Joule (2017). Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

4. In the sentence, "Thus, according to Warner and Heath (2012) the median number for 2050 will be much higher than the median number of 25 g/kWh today," I meant to say, "Thus, according to Warner and Heath (2012) the mean number for 2050 will be much higher than the mean number of 25 g/kWh today." Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 09:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

5. Lenzen (2008) Energy Conversion and Management 49 , 2178-2199 provides CO2 emissions from nuclear "of between 10 and 130 g-CO2e/kWh, with an average of 65 g-CO2e/kWh." They are using a mean and never use the term "median" in their paper. You, yourself acknowledge that IPCC uses Lenzen (2008) as one of the two main sources. The other main source, Warner and Heath (2012) also use means (as well as medians). Medians are misrepresentative on their face, as one can have 10 values of 9, 1 value of 10, and 10 values of a billion, and the median is 10. A median tells nothing about the accumulated emissions from all plants, which is the relevant information, wheres means do, since a mean multiplied by the total number of plants gives the total emissions. A median multiplied by the total number of plants significantly underestimates the emissions if the mean exceeds the median.

Regardless, there is no reason for you to mention either the mean or the median, since the entire purpose of the discussion in my bio is to compare my range (I do not provide a mean or a median) with the range of IPCC, which is clearly given, not to debate what the best-guess nuclear emissions are for a typical plant. By putting in "12 g-CO2/kWh" you are adding irrelevant information regarding my 2009 paper and not accounting for Lenzen's value of 65 g-CO2/kWh, which IPCC recognizes as well. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

6. You cited Dodge as another critique. However, that was not published. If you want another published critique of the NY plan that was answered, use Galbraith et al. (2013) Energy Policy. It was answered here (and referenced if you need the full reference).

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NYSWWSRespComm.pdf

Again, though, I request responses be noted along with the critiques. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe the reason why we need to note the discrepancy is that Jacobson arrived at this controversial 6-25 times figure that is based on this 180.1 value, is that both this figure and value is what Hansen and others have received with great controversy. As others have pointed out that this figure, firstly comes about by selecting a low median value of wind energy and comparing it with the naturally higer mean of nuclear. As the | "mean" value of wind energy is some 32 g-CO2/kWh, it would be impossible to arrive at this statement of "25 times wind energy" by any other means, as 180 is no more than about five times 32. So the suggestion of 6-25 times wind energy was found to be without merit by other researchers. Secondly the low end, Jacobson's figure of 68 g-CO2/kWh for nuclear is not one arrived at himself. Instead as you have mentioned it essentially comes verbatim from Sovacool 2008. Jacobson used Sovacool's numbers as an input in determining the "oppurtunity cost" of nuclear and was to add Sovacool's 68+Jacobson's 108 + 4.1(nuclear war induced burning) to arrive at this particular value of 180.1. Is this not accurate?

This synthesis by Sovacool was received with considerable controversy and rebuttals.] Jacobon expanded on this controversial methodology performed by Sovacool that has similarly resulted in Hansen and others treating it with further controversy and likewise it receiving yet further criticism.

However as Socavool's paper was widely criticized and resulted in, for example Sovacool acknowledging that the comparison of means of nuclear with medians of wind, is not suitable and frankly does nothing but mislead. Along with other researchers also pointing out, that independent of this issue, this exact high figure of 68 grams arrived at by Sovacool and used by Jacobson as his foundation on which to add "opportunity costs", this figure is merely an artifact of the biasing caused by, as Beerten et. al writes: | "studies...traced back to the same input data and performed by the same author, namely Storm van Leeuwen. After careful analysis, it must be concluded that the mix of selected LCAs results in a skewed and distorted collection of different results available in the literature". It results in a particularly skewed contamination of the literature as Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen's papers, on which Sovacool and Jacobson ultimately draw from, that these analyses, were shown to contain major errors. Not limited by mathematical errors and mistreatments. Therefore, since this has been revealed in 2009, the consensus in the field, that is for example Beerten, Dolan, Warner and Heath, essentially everyone else post 2009 everyone else in the LCA field, all essentially throw out the "means" approach precisely because Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen's papers and those they have influenced are not representative of reality. If I'm not mistaken, Storm Van Leeuwen's analysis has itself received, line by line rebuttals and shown to assume, for example that, a certain mine uses more energy than the entire country it is based in. A major error that everyone else in the field now acknowledges. As I linked to above, the NREL likewise present median values for every energy source. As the use of means has misled researchers and citizens alike. Though if you wish, to defend the means approach, can you provide some references that someone else within the field of analysis still uses means post 2009? As Jacobson, controversially appears to be alone on this matter. I hope that answers your question why this is WP:NOTABLE.

Boundarylayer (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, the nuclear emission estimates I used in the 2009 paper were conservative, likely underestimating actual emissions. Here is why

1) I used as my lower limit of lifecycle emissions 9 g-CO2/kWh, a number from the nuclear energy industry, a number with no surface credibility because it was generated by people with a financial interest in their product.

2) I used as the UPPER limit 70 g-CO2/kWh, a number just slightly above the MEAN of Sovacool (2008) (66 g-CO2/kWh), which is virtually identical to the MEAN of Lenzen (2008) (65 g-CO2/kWh). Be clear that I used their MEANS to define my upper limits. I did not use their maxima. In fact, my upper limit of 70 g-CO2/kWh is LESS than IPCC's upper limit of 110 g-CO2/kWh.

3) If I used IPCC's upper limit of 110 g-CO2/kWh, then my overall upper limit would be 110 (LCOE) + 106 (opportunity cost) + 4.1 (nuclear exchange risk) = 220.1 g-CO2/kWh, which is greater than the value of 180 g-CO2/kWh that I used.

4) Since the calculation of a factor of 9-25 is based solely on calculations with my minimum and maximum nuclear total emissions, your use of a mean or median value has zero impact on that number and is in fact a manipulation of the numbers and my methodology. You are trying to rederive my numbers in an inappropriate way, using your own technique, not the technique I used.

5) For all your smearing of Sovacool, the fact is his mean is similar to Lenzen's and you yourself admitted that IPCC respects and uses Lenzen's values. Further even Beerten says, "A more thorough review was perfermed by Lenzen (2008)." Further, the Beerten paper you cite has at least 1 author with a financial conflict of interest. The 2nd author works at the Belgian nuclear research center.

6) In sum, if you really want to re-visit the ratio of nuclear to wind, we will need to use the upper limit of 110 g-CO2/kWh from IPCC for the lifecycle portion, not the upper limit of 70 from Jacobson (2009). I made extra effort to try to be fair in that comparison. The nuclear supporters have gone to extra lengths to mislead about what I have done. Hopefully, that will stop. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

7. PS, here is an updated (in 2015) calculation of the ratio of nuclear to wind equivalent emissions of 6.3-24.1:1. Note that it updates (increases) the wind lifecycle emissions and also adds emissions from the reduction of carbon sequestration in soil due to covering the ground with a facility.

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CO2eTotalEmisEnergy.pdf

8. With respect to opportunity cost emissions, A) Hinkley Point planning began in 2008, and the plant has not even broken ground for construction. In 2017, its expected completion was given as 2025-2027, so its overall time from planning to operation will be NO LESS than 17-19 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station

B) Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power reactor in Finland was proposed in December 2000. It latest proposed completion time is May 2019. Thus, its overall time from planning to operation will be NO LESS than 18.5 years, and this was on an existing nuclear reactor site, not even a new site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant

C) Vogtle 3 and 4. These reactors were proposed in August 2006 to be added to an existing reactor site, not even a new site. Construction has started, but a decision will be made in early 2018 as to whether to cancel the project. If it is completed, it will be completed no sooner than 2019-20, giving it a planning to operation time of NO LESS than 13-14 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant

The planning to operation time of nuclear of 10-19 years I assumed in the 2009 paper is thus consistent with all three of these European and U.S. plants being built or planned. The actual data for these plants is inconsistent with Hansen's uninformed comment that opportunity cost emissions are "dubious". The numbers above speak for themselves and are all public and available on Wikipedia web pages Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

(1) The following statement made here, is factually incorrect, as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#Other_studies%7C

No, your statement is incorrect. Our study relied on a 2008 paper by the World Nuclear Association that provided 9 g-CO2/kWh as the mean. The current file that has replaced that file was published later, and in fact has increased the mean to 28 g-CO2/kWh. In fact, this new document even admits in Figure 3 that industry/associations give lower values (13 g/kWh) than universities (25 g/kWh), who both give less than government agencies (39 g/kWh).

http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf

Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

the actual "nuclear industry" figure, that is the figure arrived at, by the Swedish electrical utility Vattenfall, is some 3.3 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour for nuclear energy]. Not the "9" grams you mention here? Furthermore, the presentation that "9" grams is based on moonshine is likewise disingenuous, as 9 grams is instead the most strongly supported value arrived at by Warner and Heath's assessment of nuclear, when the now obsolete technology of gaseous diffusion] is excluded. See figure 4 of their paper. Moreover, with Warner and Heath's methodology being the principle paper that the IPCC regard as the most scholarly.

You just contradicted yourself because you previously quoted from IPCC, stating yourself that "The data on nuclear power was taken from Lenzen (2008) and Warner and Heath (2012)."

Further, despite the fact that I don't believe the 9 g-CO2/kWh for nuclear is realistic, I still used it as a lower bound, proving that I was being fair. You, on the other hand, are pretending that only lower bounds or median values close to lower bounds are relevant and are ignoring mean values and upper bounds that are even much lower than IPCC's. That is a biased viewpoint. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

To suggest that the "9 grams" value lacks "surface credibility because it was generated by people with a financial interest in their product". Is instead a viewpoint in direct contrast to the actual facts of the matter and also lays in direct contrast to the legion of researchers who write the consensus building IPCC reports. Are you arguing that Warner and Heath/the IPCC are presenting consensus figures that lack credibility? It is largely this outlier position of Jacobson that is [WP:NOTABLE]].

"The purpose of the encyclopedia is to summarize notable controversies and discrepancies. With Jacobson ultimately drawing from statistics penned by Jan Willem Storm Van Leeuwen, who wrote influencial papers that erroneously assumed that a particular copper+uranium mine uses more energy than the entire energy consumption of the country of Namibia...is notable. A litany of other LCA researchers have characterized this controversy over the years, with part of it mentioned within the Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen article itself, along with | the discussion of Sovacool's paper, Beerten et. al, & Warner and Heath's papers and indeed alongside The National Renewable Energy Laboratory)NREL) and the IPCC. The consensus is that these high end studies, all derived from Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, are entirely unrepresentative of reality. The NREL & IPCC have all dropped the presentation of mean values, derived from the hundreds of studies that were assessed because of these issues of contamination of the literature. An issue that to a less controversial degree, actually exists when assessing every energy source. For example, if I'm not mistaken the | maxima found for wind is some 300 g CO2/kWh. A figure that no one really dwells on, or uses as a foundation to build upon, as it is obviously dubious. So likewise, the mean value here for wind would not be very realistic, when there are such outliers, the median value however is far more realistic. Do you disagree?

Within the assessment of nuclear energy, the particular contamination of the literature is largely a result of Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen's work. This individual is a member of the club of rome, an organization which holds the ideology that the world population needs to be curtailed and promulgates doomsday prophecies about how the "limits to growth" are just around the corner. Likewise this individual publishes in anti-nuclear "Think tanks", the curiously named Oxford Research Group, which contrary to what you might expect, actually has no affiliations with the better known, Oxford University. This curious organization is dedicated to influencing political policy on nuclear matters. So while this is not the forum to get into conflicts of interest and the psychological phenomenon of motivated reasoning, with respect to your actual editorial suggestions here on this encyclopedia, I do not see much of any attempt to do a WP:BALANCE assessment of the sources in your proposed edits on this topic. WP:BIAS therefore would appear to apply. The IPCC and Warner and Heath do not put much of any weight on the true "industry"/Swedish Vattenfall figure of 3.3 grams of CO2 for nuclear, likewise they don't put any weight on any study influenced by the upper end Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen studies. Jacobson's studies are however reliant on these upper end values. Values that have received massive scrutiny and as detailed in the LCA literature, values that have been dismissed as entirely unrealistic. For obvious reasons.

Similarly, your selection of construction times for these particular 1st-of-there-kind-reactors, Generation III reactors, again, is not particularly balanced. If I'm not mistaken most reactors around the world are being built in Eastern and central Asia. To the tune of some ~60 reactors in 2017. Yet you choose to pick the extreme of these 2-3 reactors? Would that be accurate? Therefore a truly accurate appraisal of "opportunity costs, that is, delays in construction times would use data from the entire world. Or at the very least, incorporate data from other parts of the world. It would not focus solely upon 1st-of-their-kind-reactors from areas which haven't built a reactor in decades. Nor use the upper-end outlier case of Finnish construction delays, a construction site that I jave just read, have had apparent trouble with the reported Bulgarian mafia controlling workers on certain areas of the construction site. In sum, Jacobson's critics have pointed out a consistent manner of publication that is "dubious", precisely because worst-case scenarios for nuclear are instead presented as "normal", when they are not. Similarly no attempt at an apples-to-apples comparison with wind have been published. Where a selection of extreme-delayed wind farms, of first of their kind turbine designs have had "opportunity costs" stitched onto them. Nor any inclusion of the equally hypothetical [| global warming that may result from deriving 10% of world energy, from wind turbines. Instead nuclear energy is the only energy source that Jacobson has been motivated to determine emissions, in worst case scenarios.

A distillation/ WP:SUMMARY of Jacobson's critics is that they argue that much of his work on nuclear energy emissions is essentially worst-case scenario nuclear emissions, that include hypothetical wars and the upper limits on construction times, with Jacobson's "10-19 years" suggestion only being actually supported by 1 reactor, when there are some 400 or so that have been built to draw data from and some 60 or so that are being constructed as of 2017.

This statement is false. I provided 5 new international cases on this site of 10-19 year planning-to-operation time, plus every (all 100) U.S. reactors have taken 10-19 years. You are confusing construction time alone with planning-to-operation time, which includes construction time. To the contrary, you have not shown a single reactor worldwide that did not take this amount of time between planning and operation. Even Sweden's fast buildout was planned starting up to 10 years ahead of construction. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It would appear that Hansen et. al have history on there side while Jacobson has 1 or 2 first-of-there-kind reactor outliers on his. These upper end/worst case scenario "construction delay" emissions that Jacobson tacks onto nuclear energy are then compared with low-end median emissions from wind energy and wind farms with no delays. This is how Jacobson's statements that "Nuclear emits 6-25 times more CO2 than wind energy" were generated. Is it not a factual presentation of how this statement came about? Is this not the chronology of events? Jacobson's critics seem to consistently point out that this is not a balanced level-playing-field assessment: Instead it is an upper end, essentially worst-case-scenario nuclear emissions figure that is compared to lower end/best case scenario wind emissions. This, I think, appears to be the general distillation of the criticism of Jacobson, on the issue of nuclear emission figures. It is essentially also the criticism that Jacobson's colleague Benjamin Sovacool also received from his peers, when he used the very same Van Leeuwan influenced means of nuclear to generate a comparison table that misleadingly compared | "means of nuclear" with "median" values for every other source of energy. Something that Sovaccol has acknowledged is an apples-to-oranges comparison & therefore has published an update on the suggestion of his peers who criticized his methodology.

However, this is not the forum to discuss the minutia of Jacobson's statements. Simply it is about presenting a WP:NPOV section on them, summarizing how there is considerable controversy over them. James Hansen, etc regards them as dubious, a presentation of how the IPCC do not follow Jacobson's approach nor statistical treatments or methodology when comparing energy sources. Likewise, we have a detailed section on how Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen's papers are not representative of reality. With quotations from the rebuttals issued, within that individuals article. So perhaps some quotations from Jacobson's critics, in this article, might be warranted? A check of Jame Hansen's article devotes considerable ink to his disagreement with Jacobson over nuclear emissions. If Jacobson interprets this suggestion as unfair, then a gander at James Hansen's article should hopefully neutralize that.

Boundarylayer (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it is beyond the scope of a biography to discuss the details of this issue. However, you are misrepresenting my work by claiming I am using values that are not considered mainstream and by incorrectly characterizing the planning to operation time as only the construction time.

1) My upper limit (70 g-CO2/kWh) does not include any of van Leeuwin's values at all (his values are 84-122 g-CO2/kWh, 92-141 g-CO2/kWh, and 112 g-CO2/kWh, as provided in Sovacool, 2008), and all these values, even at the low end, are above the 70 g-CO2/kWh I use.

2) IPCC's upper limit (110 g-CO2/kWh) is even 40 g-CO2/kWh higher than mine.

3) There are 4 papers in Sovacool (2008) aside from van Leeuwin's, with upper limit emissions above 70 g-CO2/kWh (122, 80, 130, 200 g-CO2/kWh) and yet another at 64 g-CO2/kWh.

4) As such, my upper limit of 70 is entirely reasonably. It is well within IPCC's range, which also considers those other papers, and it is not affected at all by van Leeuwen's results.

5) There is no relevance of mean versus median in the above analysis. Your arbitrary selection of a single value for nuclear is also clearly selective. Not even IPCC does this. Your analogy of my upper limit of 70 with an upper limit for wind of 300 is nonsensical, particularly given that my upper limit is far below any of van Leeuwin's values and far below IPCC's upper limit.

6) You claim that 60 reactors are being constructed worldwide https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World-Statistics/Nuclear-Units-Under-Construction-Worldwide

Of the 59 alleged in the website above, -2 in the U.S. were recently canceled (Summer 2,3 in South Carolina), -the other 2 in the U.S. are the Vogtle plants I refereed to, which will take a MINIMUM of 13-14 years and they too may be cancelled next year, -the 1 in Finland is Olkiluoto 3, which will take at least 18.5 years if it is even completed. - Japan minister denies it is building the two new reactors

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-nuclear/japan-minister-denies-government-considering-new-nuclear-plants-idUSKBN18Z2ZY

-Sweden is phasing out all nuclear reactors, - France is chopping nuclear output from 75% to 50% of its electricity,

The remaining plants, if ever completed, will only replace those shut by Japan, Sweden, and France.

7) I randomly checked two of the Chinese reactors, Haiyang 1/2. In September, 2007, Westinghouse received authorization to construct these reactors.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Haiyang-1-pumps-operated-at-full-power-1410165.html

This means that site locating and planning must have started at least 2 years before, probably more. Assuming planning started in 2005, and the fact that they won't be operating until at least 2018

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Haiyang-1-pumps-operated-at-full-power-1410165.html

means a MINIMUM of 13 years between planning and operation, again well within the 10-19 year time frame I estimated.

8) You claim, "Similarly, your selection of construction times for these particular 1st-of-there-kind-reactors, Generation III reactors, again is not particularly balanced. Therefore an accurate appraisal of opportunity costs, that is, delays in construction would use data from there."

It is not only the construction time. It is the total time between planning and operation, which includes the time required to find a site, the time for the site permit, the time for the financing, the time for the construction permit and issue, and the time for the operation permit as well as the time for construction.

9) You presented a claim by Hansen even though it was clear Hansen was referring only to construction times, and even his construction time number alone of 15 years could be construed to fall within the 10-19 year planning to operation time of nuclear plants, yet you allowed that claim to go unchallenged.

I have provided evidence from 5 separate reactors that Hanson's claim is false. Neither you nor he has shown a single reactor that did not require at least 10 years between planning and operation. Unless you can find several, your quote by Hansen is unbalanced. It is not appropriate to print something in a biography that where there is no evidence that the claim is verifiable, as required by Wikipedia for a biography. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hansen makes reference to France. So I took a look at the French nuclear reactor build rate. They constructed and commissioned two reactors within 6 years. 1974-1980 at Gravelines Nuclear Power Station. With the 1973 oil shocks being the motivation behind them, at the extreme end, of including Jacobson's "planning phase" and everything really beginning in earnest in 1973. If Hansen was so inclined he could've argued, it took just "3-4 years to build one reactor. Faster than many wind farms of similar capacity are constructed. If an objection for a wind farm occurs, out of NIMBYism, they can take 7+ years etc." Though he didn't bother as the "planning phase"/ the talking phase doesn't mean much scientifically, it's the construction phase that matters. As Hansen's point was that depending on political situations, nuclear reactors can be built very fast and operate safely. He cited the French build rate as supporting this and it does.

Boundarylayer (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

This example (Gravelines) is consistent with the 10-19 year planning to operation time. The website is clear that the construction time for each plant was 6 years. This is well within the 4-9 year time frame provided in Jacobson (2009) for construction times. The additional planning to operation time from that paper is 6-10 years. Even if this were only 4 years, which you have provided no proof one way or the other, it would still be in the 10-19 year time frame. You then mislead by claiming that 2 reactors built from 1974-1980 each took 3-4 years. That is false. Each took 6 years just for construction. There is no "talking phase." Financing is required to be set up early, and that diverts money from building wind or solar. This is why it is called an "opportunity cost." Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)