Jump to content

Mark Z. Jacobson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 185.51.72.120 (talk) at 19:43, 5 December 2017 (→‎Opinion on energy systems). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mark Z. Jacobson
Born
Mark Zachary Jacobson

1965 (age 58–59)
Alma materUniversity of California, Los Angeles
Scientific career
InstitutionsUniversity of California, Los Angeles
Stanford University
ThesisDeveloping, coupling, and applying a gas, aerosol, transport, and radiation model to study urban and regional air pollution (1994)
Doctoral advisorRichard P. Turco
Websitestanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/

Mark Zachary Jacobson (born 1965) is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University and director of its Atmosphere/Energy Program.[1] Jacobson has developed computer models[2] to study the effects of fossil fuel and biomass burning on air pollution, weather, and climate.

Jacobson, along with his primary coauthor, Dr. Mark Delucchi, also published the first peer-reviewed paper proposing that the world move to 100% renewable energy, namely wind, water, and solar power, in all energy sectors.[3] He has subsequently written several other papers on this topics for individual states and countries.

In 2017 Jacobson filed a lawsuit against the same peer-reviewed scientific journal the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, requesting $10 million in damages for defamation and breach of contract.[4][5] This followed several requests by Jacobson and coauthors to correct ahead of publication or retract a study by Christopher Clack, Ken Caldeira, and 19 other researchers that critiqued his paper on keeping the U.S. grid stable with 100% renewable energy.[5]

Research

Jacobson has published research on the role of black carbon and other aerosol chemical components on global and regional climates,[6] his climate models are regarded, alongside the earlier models of Wiscombe, Rosen, MacCracken, & James Hansen, as contributing to the field of aerosol climate modeling.[7] Building on earlier work and sentiments expressed by other researchers, such as Michael MacCracken in 1982,[8] in 2001 Jacobson stated that black carbon, which is emitted during fossil and biomass burning, may be the second leading cause of global warming after carbon dioxide in terms of direct radiative forcing, as published in the Journal Nature.[9] In Jacobson's case, this sentiment evolved from a 1997 model by Jacobson that resulted in the output that black carbon internally mixed in aerosols decreased daytime cooling and increased nighttime warming[10] and a 2000 paper where the radiative effects of different mixing states of black carbon were modeled.[11]

Jacobson has also published roadmaps to transition the world as a whole,[3][12][13] all 50 U.S. states,[14][15][16][17] and 139 countries[18] to 100% renewable wind, water, and solar (WWS) energy for all energy purposes. According to Jacobson, a speedy transition to renewable energy and renewable energy alone, is required to reduce the potential acceleration of global warming, including the disappearance of the Arctic Sea ice. Alongside all the other more, energy ambivalent, decarbonization plans that have been proposed, a decarbonization of the world energy market will also eliminate millions of premature deaths worldwide each year caused by air pollution and reduce disruption associated with fossil fuel shortages.[3] His roadmaps have served as the convincing basis for 50 cities[19] and over 100 international companies[20] to commit to transitioning to 100% renewable energy[21] as well as for several proposed state[22][23][24][25] and federal[26][27][28][29] resolutions and laws to do the same. Jacobson co-founded the non-profit Solutions Project in 2011 along with Marco Krapels, Mark Ruffalo, and Josh Fox. The Solutions Project, a political advocacy group, combines presentations of science, business, and culture in an effort to influence energy policy switches to the "100% renewable world".

Soot and Aerosol

See also: Richard P. Turco and Black carbon

Jacobson began computer model development in 1990, when he started to build algorithms for what is now called GATOR-GCMOM (Gas, Aerosol, Transport, Radiation, General Circulation, Mesoscale, and Ocean Model).[2] This model simulates air pollution, weather, and climate from the local to global scale. Zhang (2008, pp. 2901, 2902) calls Jacobson's model "the first fully-coupled online model in the history that accounts for all major feedbacks among major atmospheric processes based on first principles."[30]

Several of the individual computer code solvers Jacobson developed for GATOR-GCMOM include the gas and aqueous chemistry ordinary differential equations solvers SMVGEAR[31] and SMVGEAR II,[32][33] alongside a slew of other related and expanded models,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][40][41] The GATOR-GCMOM model has incorporated these processes and has evolved over several decades.[42][43][10][44][45][46][47][48][49]

One of the most important fields of research that Jacobson has added to, with the aid of GATOR-GCMOM, is refining the range of values on exactly how much diffuse tropospheric black carbon, affects the climate. Something initially studied by his PhD adviser Richard Turco, when formulating the "nuclear winter" hypothesis of global cooling. Jacobson produced refinements on the effect of Soot emissions from carbonaceous fossil fuel, biofuel, and biomass burning sources, leading to the conclusion that diffuse emitted soot plumes are the second-leading cause of global warming after carbon dioxide in terms of direct radiative forcing.[9] This result was obtained after Jacobson became the first to model the regional or global evolution and aging of size- and composition resolved soot aerosol particles, which were determined to coalesce into larger particles and therefore trap more sunlight over time.[10][11] The absorbed solar radiation gets converted to heat, which is re-emitted to the atmosphere. Under other circumstances the sunlight would potentially reflect back out into space, had the light struck a more reflective surface. Therefore as a whole, soot affects the planets albedo, a unit of reflectance. While the more familiar greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere by trapping thermal-infrared heat radiation that is emitted by the surface of the Earth, black carbon warms the atmosphere by absorbing sunlight and re-emitting that energy to the air around it as thermal-infrared heat. Jacobson and others drew from these models, that soot from diesel engines, coal-fired power plants and burning wood is a "major cause of the rapid melting of the Arctic's sea ice."[48][50] Jacobson's refinement to the values on soot and his conclusion that black carbon may be the second leading cause of global warming in terms of radiative forcing was affirmed in the comprehensive review of Bond et al. (2013).[51]

Jacobson has also independently modeled and corroborated the work of World Health Organization researchers, who likewise estimate that soot/particulate matter itself, which causes respiratory illness, heart disease and asthma, from fossil fuels and biofuels, may cause at least 1.5 million premature deaths each year, mostly in the developing world where wood and animal dung are used for cooking from fossil fuel and biofuel sources.[48]

Because of the short atmospheric lifetime of black carbon, in 2002 Jacobson concluded that controlling soot is the fastest way to begin to control global warming and that it will likewise improve human health.[52] However, he cautioned that controlling carbon dioxide, the leading cause of global warming, was imperative for stopping warming.

100% renewable energy

Main article: 100% renewable energy

Jacobson has published papers about transitioning to 100% renewable energy systems, including the grid integration of renewable energy. He has concluded that wind, water, and solar (WWS) power can be scaled up in cost-effective ways to fulfill world energy demands in all energy sectors, In 2009 Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi published "A Path to Sustainable Energy" in Scientific American.[3] The article addressed several issues related to transitioning to 100% WWS, such as the energy required in a 100% electric world, the worldwide spatial footprint of wind farms, the availability of scarce materials needed to manufacture new systems and the ability to produce reliable energy on demand. Jacobson has updated and expanded this 2009 paper as the years progress, including a two-part article in the journal Energy Policy in 2010.[12][13][53][12] Jacobson and his colleague estimated that 3.8 million wind turbines of 5-Megawatt (MW) size, 49,000 300-MW concentrated solar power plants, 40,000 300-MW solar PV power plants, 1.7 billion 3-kW rooftop PV systems, 5350 100-MW geothermal power plants, and some 270 new 1300-MW hydroelectric power plants would be needed. All of which would require approximately 1% of the world's land to be achieved.[12]

Jacobson regards that barriers to the plan are primarily social and political, not technological or economic and argues that the energy cost in a WWS world should be similar to today's costs.[13]

Jacobson and his colleagues have also published papers for a select number of US states, on transitioning to 100% renewable/WWS energy by 2050.[15][16][17] In 2015 Jacobson was lead author in two peer reviewed papers[14][54] that examined the feasibility of transitioning the United States to a 100% energy system, powered exclusively by wind, water and sunlight(WWS), that also argues as having solved the grid reliability problem with high shares of intermittent sources. In 2016 the editorial board of PNAS selected the grid integration study of Jacobson and his co-workers as best paper in the category "Applied Biological, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences" and awarded him a Cozzarelli Prize.[55]

In June 2017, an article published in the PNAS critiqued Jacobson’s grid integration findings for making modeling errors and assumptions.[56] The PNAS published a response by Jacobson and co-authors, with Jacobson writing that, "The premise and all error claims by Clack et al. about Jacobson et al. are demonstrably false. We reaffirm Jacobson et al.'s conclusions.[57]" Jacobson also authored a line-by-line response[58] Jacobson would then begin to write a number of posts for "EcoWatch", that disputes issues with the critique and would also single out The New York Times, Forbes and other media outlets as getting things "wrong", when they summarized the critique.[59][60][61][62]

In August 2017, Jacobson and colleagues published a new paper[18] in the inaugural edition of the Energy journal, Joule, laying out 100%, renewable WWS energy roadmaps for 139 countries of the world by 2050, with 80% by 2030.

Jacobson is co-founder of the non-profit The Solutions Project along with Marco Krapels, Mark Ruffalo, and Josh Fox. This organization "helps to educate the public about science-based 100% renewable energy transition roadmaps and facility a transition to a 100% renewable world".[63] The Solutions Project has "influenced nonprofits and community builders to commit to a transition to 100% renewable energy".

Opinion on energy systems & academic controversies

See also: Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources and renewable energy debate

Jacobson states that if the United States wants to reduce global warming, air pollution and energy instability, it should invest only in the best energy options, and that nuclear power is not one of them.[64] Like his PhD advisor Richard P. Turco, who notably coined the phrase "nuclear winter", Jacobson has taken a similar approach to calculating the hypothetical effects of nuclear wars on the climate but has further extended this into providing an analysis that intends to inform policy makers on which energy sources to support, as of 2009.[65] Jacobson's analyses state that "nuclear power results in up to 25 times more carbon emissions per unit energy than wind energy. A phrase that has been repeated in the mass media, including a New York Daily News article penned by Jacobson in 2011.[66][67] These numbers are based on a 2009 paper of Jacobson's that was published in Energy and Environmental Science, which reports nuclear lifecycle emissions to be 9-70 g/kWh, which is within the range of wind energy but that the "lifecycle plus opportunity-cost plus catastrophic risk emissions" of nuclear energy is some 68–180.1 g/kWh.[68] Opportunity-cost emissions are emissions from the background electric power grid due to the additional time required between planning, financing, permitting, constructing, and operating one type of energy facility versus another. [68] Jacobson estimates the time between planning and operation of nuclear is 10-19 years, whereas that for onshore and offshore wind and solar is 2-5 years.

This analysis has been received with considerable controversy, as Jacobson arrived at this conclusion of "25 times more carbon emissions than wind, per unit of energy generated" (68–180.1 g/kWh), by specifically expanding on some concepts that are highly contested.[69][70] These include, though are not limited to, the suggestion that emissions associated with civil nuclear energy should, in the upper limit, include the risk of carbon emissions associated with the burning of cities resulting from a nuclear war aided by the expansion of nuclear energy and weapons to countries previously without them. An assumption that Jacobson's debating opponent similarly raised, during the Ted talk Does the world need nuclear energy? in 2010, with Jacobson heading the debate in the negative.[71] Jacobson assumes, at the high end (180.1 g/kWh), that 4.1 g/kWh are due to some form of nuclear induced burning that will occur once every 30 years.(Table 3 of [68]). At the low end, 0 g/kWh are due to nuclear induced burning. Responding to a commentary on his work in the Journal Environmental Science and Technology in 2013, Dr. James Hansen has characterized Jacobson's analysis on this topic of greenhouse gas emissions, as "lack(ing) credibility" and similarly regards Jacobson's other viewpoint of extra "opportunity-cost" emissions as "dubious". With the foundation of Hansen's incredulity being based on French experience, that decarbonized ~80% of the grid in 15 years, completed 56 reactors in the 15 year period, thus raising the fact that depending on the existence of established regulator certainty & political conditions, nuclear energy facilities have been accelerated through the licensing/planning phase and have therefore rapidly decarbonizated electric grids.[72].

Jacobson however contends[68], that while construction times of nuclear reactors are generally 4-9 years he argues that construction cannot start until a site permit is obtained and financing and insurance are issued. With each step of the planning process as potentially being subject to delay. As a result, Jacobson opines that for a given power generation, nuclear facilities take years-to-decades longer to be connected to the grid than an equally capacity factor-corrected wind or solar facility. Jacobson draws the bulk of this 10-19 year plan+construction figure from a selection of mostly western-nuclear-projects, planned during the infancy of the so called "Nuclear renaissance"(2001-present) that were notably planned inside the backdrop of liberalized markets and are therefore absent of the changes in economic/"political will" that are vital to both Hansen's and Jacobson's decarbonization plans. Jacobson has also used the controversially "open ended" phrase "given strong enough political will", as being fundamentally necessary for his ambitious WWS build program.[73] Jacobson has been criticized for selecting favorable numbers on the low-end of the range of estimates for WWS costs and construction times, while consistently selecting higher-end estimates for nuclear energy.[74]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) regard Yale University's Warner and Heath's methodology, used to determine the Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources, as the most credible, reporting that the conceivable range of total-life-cycle nuclear power emission figures, are between 4-110 g/kWh, with the specific median value of 12 g/kWh, being deemed the strongest supported and 11 g/kWh for Wind.[75]. While Jacobson's limited lifecycle figures, of 9-70 g/kWh, falls within this IPCC range. The IPCC however, does not factor in Jacobson's "opportunity cost" emissions on any energy source. The IPCC has not provided a detailed explanation for not including Jacobson's "opportunity costs". Aside from the time required for planning, financing, permitting, and constructing a power plant, for every energy source that can be analyzed, the time required and therefore Jacobson's "opportunity costs" also depends on political factors, for example hypothetical legal cases that can stall construction and other issues that can arise from site specific NIMBYISM. It is the delay/opportunity cost CO2 emissions that are the bulk of the difference between Jacobson's overall emissions for nuclear of 68-180.1 g/kWh and the IPCC's lifecycle emissions. Jacobson argues that "opportunity cost" emissions are real emissions that need to be accounted for.[68]

Jacobson has also studied carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology, concluding that, whereas it can reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, other pollutants will increase particularly as the CCS equipment does not address them and requires 25% more energy, thus coal, to run. Further, because mining and transport emissions are not eliminated but in fact increase 25%, carbon dioxide emissions are still more than 50 times those of wind power per unit energy produced. Thus, CCS will increase air pollution, extend all the other deleterious effects of coal mining, transport and processing, and reduce carbon dioxide only modestly, thus represents an opportunity cost over clean, renewable energy options.[68]

Jacobson's 100% renewable world approach is supported by a 2016 publication by Mark Cooper, a long standing critic of nuclear energy at the Vermont Law School,[76] In 2016 Cooper published,[77] a comparison of the 100% WWS roadmaps of Jacobson with deep decarbonization proposals that included nuclear power and fossil fuels with carbon capture. Cooper concluded that the 100% WWS pathway was the least cost and “Neither fossil fuels with CCS or nuclear power enters the least-cost, low-carbon portfolio.” This conclusion by Cooper is in stark contrast to numerous studies published over the period 2011 to 2015, assessments by the Brookings Institute, Professor of Economics at MIT, Paul Joskow along with a number of independent scientists who have analyzed, with a different methodology, the various strategies proposed to get to a global zero or low carbon economy, by circa 2050. In these varied reports, the renewables-alone approach, has been found to cost "orders of magnitude" more and be more difficult to achieve than the other more flexible energy paths, that have been assessed.[78][79][80][81][82][83]

Loftus' assessment of the myriad of decarbonization plans concluded in 2014-2015, that "more detailed analyses realistically addressing the key constraints", of Jacobson's plan, specifically relating to "the costs associated with integration of large amounts of variable generation" are needed.[84] Jacobson's 100% renewable world, has raised concerns about integration/grid-stability and the issue of Brownouts damaging equipment, some solutions presented for these issues include an expansion on the reliance of energy storage systems. Jacobson counters these by citing 24 publications, primarily penned by the authors Breyer, Mathieson, Jacobson himself, and Diesendorf, that instead argue, that the "100% renewable world" is not simply theoretically possible but will work out cheaper than present electricity rates.[85]

In 2012, health physicist, Professor Kathryn Higley of Oregon State University would take issue with Jacobson's paper on "quantifying" the estimated number of cancer deaths as a result of the Fukushima nuclear accident, specifically in regard to Jacobson writing that the accident "may cause nontrivial cancer mortality and morbidity".[86] Burton Richter, tenured in Stanford with Jacobson would also publish a criticism Jacobson's paper on estimating cancer deaths from the Fukushima accident, as it contained "too much editorializing about accident potential at Diablo Canyon which makes the paper sound a bit like an anti-nuclear piece".[87] Jacobson has helped the campaign to close some nuclear reactors, including criticizing the Diablo Canyon in 2016, were he cited a news publication that allegedly states that it "cooks" fish larvae and continued that closing it would not increase Californian carbon emissions.[88] He also argues for the ending of US federal loan guarantees being issued to electric utilities that choose to build nuclear reactors and instead argues for the funds to be used to support WWS.[89] When the californian nuclear energy facility was announced to be closed in the year 2025, Jacobson tweeted that people should "cheer".[90]

In a discussion between Jesse Jenkins, a PhD student at MIT studying decarbonization pathways and Jacobson, that was conducted on twitter in 2016, Jenkins pointed out that nuclear energy has scaled faster and therefore offseted more carbon than the technologies advocated by Jacobson, of WWS, Jenkins also pointed out that the global-decarbonization plans that include a contribution from nuclear energy work out cheaper and explained how Jacobson's plan would be the most difficult to achieve. Jacobson soon blocked Jenkins.[91]

In 2017 Ken Caldeira and 20 other researchers published the largest focused critique of Jacobson's "100% Renewable world" paper.[92] David Victor of the University of California, San Diego, a co-author of the critique of Jacobson’s model for a cheap "100% renewable world", was motivated to contribute to the paper "when policy makers started using this [Jacobson] paper for scientific support." When it was "obviously incorrect".[93]

This 2017 critique resulted in Jacobson filing a lawsuit against the peer-reviewed scientific journal the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and the principle author of the paper, requesting $10 million in damages for defamation.[94] Jacobson's attorney states that the "lawsuit concerns remedying falsification of material fact" and violation of journal polices, and "does not seek to litigate science."[5] While most all news reports and academics have criticized the lawsuit,[95][96][97] one blog piece has suggested that, "Not a single blog post or news article I could find complaining about this lawsuit even mentioned Jacobson's allegation."[98] Adil Shamoo, the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal, Accountability in Research, has commented that "scientists should be able to sue if they feel that a paper is 'reckless' or 'malicious' and that the Clack paper "was not written as if it was part of a scientific dialogue."[4]

Curriculum

Education

Current positions

  • Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, 2007–present.
  • Director and co-founder, Atmosphere/Energy Program, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, 2004–present.
  • Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment, January 2008 – present.
  • Senior Fellow, Precourt Institute for Energy, January 2010 – present.

Publications

Books

  • Jacobson, M. Z., Fundamentals of Atmospheric Modeling. Cambridge University Press, New York, 656 pp., 1999.
  • Jacobson, M. Z., Fundamentals of Atmospheric Modeling, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, New York, 813 pp., 2005.
  • Jacobson, M. Z., Atmospheric Pollution: History, Science, and Regulation, Cambridge University Press, New York, 399 pp., 2002.
  • Jacobson, M. Z., Air Pollution and Global Warming: History, Science, and Solutions, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2011.

Selected articles

  • Jacobson, Mark Z (2001). "Strong radiative heating due to the mixing state of black carbon in atmospheric aerosols". Nature. 409: 695–697. doi:10.1038/35055518.
  • Streets; et al. (2001). "Recent Reductions in China's Greenhouse Gas Emissions". Science. 294: 1835–1837. doi:10.1126/science.1065226. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last2= (help)
  • Jacobson, Mark Z (2001). "Global direct radiative forcing due to multicomponent anthropogenic and natural aerosols". Journal of Geophysical Research. 106 (2): 1551–1568. Bibcode:2001JGR...106.1551J. doi:10.1029/2000JD900514.
  • Jacobson, Mark Z (2002). "Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming". Journal of Geophysical Research. 107 (D19): 16–22. Bibcode:2002JGRD..107.4410J. doi:10.1029/2001JD001376.
  • Jacobson, Mark Z; Colella, W. G.; Golden, D. M. "(2005) Cleaning the Air and Improving Health with Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Vehicles". Science. 308 (5730): 1901–1905. doi:10.1126/science.1109157.
  • Jacobson, Mark Z; Archer, Christina L. (2005). "Evaluation of global wind power". Journal of Geophysical Research. 110 (D12): 16–22. Bibcode:2005JGRD..11012110A. doi:10.1029/2004JD005462.
  • Jacobson, Mark Z (2009). "Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security". Energy and Environmental Science. 2: 148–173 [155]. doi:10.1039/b809990c.
  • Jacobson, Mark Z; Delucchi, Mark A. (2011). "Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials". Energy Policy. 39 (3): 1154–1169. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.040.
  • Jacobson, Mark Z; Delucchi, Mark A. (2011). "Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part II: Reliability, system and transmission costs, and policies". Energy Policy. 39 (3): 1170–1190. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.045.
  • Jacobson, Mark Z; Archer, Christina L. (2012). "Saturation wind power potential and its implications for wind energy". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109 (39): 15679–15684. doi:10.1073/pnas.1208993109.
  • Bond; et al. "(2013) Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment". Journal of Geophysical Research. 118 (11): 5380–5552. doi:10.1002/jgrd.50171. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last2= (help)
  • Jacobson; et al. (2015). "100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) all-sector energy roadmaps for the 50 United States". Energy and Environmental Science. 8 (7): 2093–2117. doi:10.1039/C5EE01283J. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last2= (help)
  • Jacobson; et al. (2015). "Low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for all purposes". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112: 15060–15065. doi:10.1073/pnas.1510028112. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last2= (help)
  • Jacobson, Mark Z.; Delucchi, Mark A.; Cameron, Mary A.; Frew, Bethany A. (27 June 2017). "The United States can keep the grid stable at low cost with 100% clean, renewable energy in all sectors despite inaccurate claims". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 114 (26): E5021–E5023. doi:10.1073/pnas.1708069114. ISSN 0027-8424. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Awards

See also

References

  1. ^ "Atmosphere / Energy Program | Civil and Environmental Engineering". cee.stanford.edu. Retrieved 2017-08-31.
  2. ^ a b Jacobson, M.Z. "History of, Processes in, and Numerical Techniques in GATOR-GCMOM" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  3. ^ a b c d Jacobson, Mark Z.; Delucchi, M.A. (November 2009). "A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030" (PDF). Scientific American. 301 (5): 58–65. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1109-58. PMID 19873905.
  4. ^ a b Woolston, Chris (November 8, 2017). "Energy researcher sues the US National Academy of Sciences for millions of dollars". Nature. 551 (7679): 152–153. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22944. Retrieved November 20, 2017.
  5. ^ a b c Thaler, Paul S. (2017-11-03). "STATEMENT CONCERNING LAWSUIT BROUGHT BY PROF. MARK Z. JACOBSON" (PDF). E&E News. Cohen Seglias: Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  6. ^ a b "Bitz, Ginoux, Jacobson, Nizkorodov, and Yang Receive 2013 Atmospheric Sciences Ascent Awards". Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union. 95: 266. 2014. doi:10.1002/2014EO290012.
  7. ^ An Overview of the Studies on Black Carbon and Mineral Dust Deposition in Snow and Ice Cores in East Asia.
  8. ^ MacCracken, Michael C (1982). "Parametric study of the effects of arctic soot on solar radiation". Atmospheric Environment. doi:10.1016/0004-6981(82)90057-9.
  9. ^ a b Jacobson, M.Z. (2001). "Strong radiative heating due to the mixing state of black carbon in atmospheric aerosols" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  10. ^ a b c Jacobson, M.Z. (1997). "Development and Application of a new air pollution modeling system--Part III. Aerosol-phase simulations" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  11. ^ a b Jacobson, M.Z. (2000). "A physically-based treatment of elemental carbon optics: Implications for global direct forcing of aerosols" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  12. ^ a b c d Jacobson and Delucchi (2011). "Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I:" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  13. ^ a b c Jacobson and Delucchi (2011). "Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part II" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  14. ^ a b Jacobson; et al. (2015). "100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) all-sector energy roadmaps for the 50 United States" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  15. ^ a b Jacobson; et al. "Examining the feasibility of converting New York State's all-purpose energy infrastructure to one using wind, water, and sunlight" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  16. ^ a b Jacobson; et al. "A roadmap for repowering California for all purposes with wind, water, and sunlight" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  17. ^ a b Jacobson; et al. "A 100% wind, water, sunlight (WWS) all-sector energy plan for Washington State" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  18. ^ a b Jacobson; et al. (2017). "100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) all-sector energy roadmaps for 139 countries of the world" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  19. ^ Sierra Club (2017). "Cities power by or committed to 100% renewable energy". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  20. ^ RE100 (2017). "The world's most influential companies, committed to 100% renewable power". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  21. ^ McKibben, Bill. "Bill McKibben: The Climate Movement's New Battle Cry". Retrieved 2017-08-31.
  22. ^ "Governor Ige signs bill setting 100 percent renewable energy goal in power sector". 2015. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  23. ^ New York State Senate (2016). "Senate Bill S5527". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  24. ^ State of California. "SB-100 California Renewable Portfolio Standard Program". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  25. ^ 190th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2017). "Bill S.1849 - An act transitioning Massachusetts to 100 percent renewable energy". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  26. ^ United States House of Representatives (2016). "H. Res. 540". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  27. ^ United States Senate (2016). "S. Res. 632". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  28. ^ United States Senate (2017). "S.987-100 by '50 Act". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  29. ^ United States House of Representatives (2017). "H.R.3314 - 100 by '50 Act". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  30. ^ Zhang, Y. (2008). "Online-coupled meteorology and chemistry models: history, current status, and outlook" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  31. ^ Jacobson and Turco (1994). "SMVGEAR: A sparse-matrix, vectorized Gear code for atmospheric models" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  32. ^ Jacobson, M.Z. (1995). "Computation of global photochemistry with SMVGEAR II" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  33. ^ Jacobson, M.Z. (1998). "Improvement of SMVGEAR II on vector and scalar machines through absolute error tolerance control" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  34. ^ Jacobson; et al. (1994). "Modeling coagulation among particles of different composition and size". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  35. ^ Jacobson, M.Z. (2002). "Analysis of aerosol interactions with numerical techniques for solving coagulation, nucleation, condensation, dissolution, and reversible chemistry among multiple size distributions" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  36. ^ Jacobson and Seinfeld (2004). "Evolution of nanoparticle size and mixing state near the point of emission" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  37. ^ Jacobson; et al. (2005). "Enhanced coagulation due to evaporation and its effect on nanoparticle evolution" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  38. ^ Jacobson; et al. (1996). "Simulating equilibrium within aerosols and non-equilibrium between gases and aerosols" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  39. ^ Jacobson, M.Z. (1999). "Studying The effects of calcium and magnesium on size-distributed nitrate and ammonium with EQUISOLV II" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  40. ^ a b Jacobson, M.Z. (2005). "Studying ocean acidification with conservative, stable numerical schemes for nonequilibrium air-ocean exchange and ocean equilibrium chemistry" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  41. ^ Jacobson, M.Z. (1997). "Numerical techniques to solve condensational and dissolutional growth equations when growth is coupled to reversible reactions" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  42. ^ Jacobson; et al. (1996). "Development and application of a new air pollution modeling system. Part I: Gas-phase simulations" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  43. ^ Jacobson, M.Z. (1997). "Development and application of a new air pollution modeling system. Part II: Aerosol module structure and design" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  44. ^ Jacobson, M.Z. (2001). "GATOR-GCMM: A global through urban scale air pollution and weather forecast model. 1. Model design and treatment of subgrid soil, vegetation, roads, rooftops, water, sea ice, and snow" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  45. ^ Jacobson, M.Z. (2001). "GATOR-GCMM: 2. A study of day- and nighttime ozone layers aloft, ozone in national parks, and weather during the SARMAP field campaign" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  46. ^ Jacobson; et al. (2007). "Examining feedbacks of aerosols to urban climate with a model that treats 3-D clouds with aerosol inclusions" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  47. ^ Jacobson and Streets (2009). "The influence of future anthropogenic emissions on climate, natural emissions, and air quality" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  48. ^ a b c Jacobson, M.Z. (2010). "Jacobson, M.Z., Short-term effects of controlling fossil-fuel soot, biofuel soot and gases, and methane on climate, Arctic ice, and air pollution health" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  49. ^ Jacobson, M.Z. (2014). "Effects of biomass burning on climate, accounting for heat and moisture fluxes, black and brown carbon, and cloud absorption effects" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  50. ^ David Perlman. Scientists say soot a key factor in warming San Francisco Chronicle, July 28, 2010.
  51. ^ Bond; et al. (2013). "Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  52. ^ Jacobson, M.Z. (2002). "Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon plus organic matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  53. ^ Nancy Folbre (March 28, 2011). "Renewing Support for Renewables". New York Times.
  54. ^ Jacobson; et al. (2015). "A low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for all purposes" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |last= (help)
  55. ^ a b PNAS Announces Six 2015 Cozzarelli Prize Recipients. News of the National Academy of Sciences, 1. March 2016.
  56. ^ Clack, Christopher T. M.; Qvist, Staffan A.; Apt, Jay; Bazilian, Morgan; Brandt, Adam R.; Caldeira, Ken; Davis, Steven J.; Diakov, Victor; Handschy, Mark A.; Hines, Paul D. H.; Jaramillo, Paulina; Kammen, Daniel M.; Long, Jane C. S.; Morgan, M. Granger; Reed, Adam; Sivaram, Varun; Sweeney, James; Tynan, George R.; Victor, David G.; Weyant, John P.; Whitacre, Jay F. (27 June 2017). "Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 114 (26): 6722–6727. doi:10.1073/pnas.1610381114. ISSN 0027-8424. Retrieved 4 August 2017.
  57. ^ Jacobson, Mark Z.; Delucchi, Mark A.; Cameron, Mary A.; Frew, Bethany A. (27 June 2017). "The United States can keep the grid stable at low cost with 100% clean, renewable energy in all sectors despite inaccurate claims". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 114 (26): E5021–E5023. doi:10.1073/pnas.1708069114. ISSN 0027-8424. Retrieved 4 August 2017.
  58. ^ Jacobson, M.Z. (2017). "Line-by-line response by M.Z. Jacobson, M.A. Delucchi" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  59. ^ Jacobson, Mark (19 June 2017). "4 Reasons Nuclear and Fossil Fuel Supporters Criticizing 100% Renewable Energy Plan Are Wrong". EcoWatch. Retrieved 4 August 2017.
  60. ^ "What New York Times Got Wrong on Assessment of Transition to 100% Renewables". EcoWatch. 2017-07-10. Retrieved 2017-09-01.
  61. ^ "Response to Forbes: Stop Inaccuracies—100% Renewable Energy Is Possible". EcoWatch. 2017-07-06. Retrieved 2017-09-01.
  62. ^ "Note to National Review: A 100% Renewable Future Is Alive and Well". EcoWatch. 2017-07-07. Retrieved 2017-09-01.
  63. ^ Mark Schwarz (February 26, 2014). "Stanford scientist unveils 50-state plan to transform U.S. to renewable energy". Stanford Report,.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  64. ^ Mark Z. Jacobson. Nuclear power is too risky CNN.com, February 22, 2010.
  65. ^ The Guardian. 2009 The carbon footprint of nuclear war
  66. ^ [https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/nuclear-option-safety-concerns-big-reason-wind-solar-better-article-1.122094 The nuclear option: Safety concerns are only one big reason wind and solar better.BY Mark Z. Jacobson 2011]
  67. ^ Nuclear power is too risky, by Jacobson CNN.com, February 22, 2010.
  68. ^ a b c d e f Jacobson, Mark Z. (2009). "Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security". Energy and Environmental Science. 2: 148–173 [155]. doi:10.1039/b809990c.
  69. ^ Does Nuclear Energy Really Equate to Nuclear War? January 5, 2011 by Charles Barton
  70. ^ The Guardian. 2009 The carbon footprint of nuclear war
  71. ^ Does the world need nuclear energy?
  72. ^ Pushker A. Kharecha and James E. Hansen. (May 22, 2013). "Response to Comment on "Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power"". Environ. Sci. Technol. 47: 130603150610001. doi:10.1021/es402211m.
  73. ^ Here's what it would take for the US to run on 100% renewable energy. VOX
  74. ^ Mark Z. Jacobson is proud that his models disagree with IPCC (and almost everyone else) March 2, 2016
  75. ^ Bruckner et al. 2014: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter7.pdf Energy Systems. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  76. ^ The Economics of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance or Relapse? Vermont Law School, June 2009, p. 1 and p. 8.
  77. ^ Cooper, Mark (2016-01-26). "The Economic and Institutional Foundations of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change: The Political Economy of Roadmaps to a Sustainable Electricity Future". Rochester, NY. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2722880. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  78. ^ Economist magazine article "Sun, wind and drain Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought Jul 26th 2014"
  79. ^ THE NET BENEFITS OF LOW AND NO-CARBON ELECTRICITY TECHNOLOGIES. MAY 2014, Charles Frank PDF
  80. ^ Comparing the Costs of Intermittent and Dispatchable Electricity-Generating Technologies", by Paul Joskow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, September 2011
  81. ^ Brook Barry W (2012). "Could nuclear fission energy, etc., solve the greenhouse problem? The affirmative case". Energy Policy. 42: 4–8. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.041.
  82. ^ "A critical review of global decarbonization scenarios: what do they tell us about feasibility?". Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 6: 93–112. doi:10.1002/wcc.324.
  83. ^ A critical review of global decarbonization scenarios: what do they tell us about feasibility? Open access PDF
  84. ^ A critical review of global decarbonization scenarios: what do they tell us about feasibility?, Loftus et. al 2014.WIREs Clim Change 2015, 6:93–112. doi: 10.1002/wcc.324
  85. ^ "Abstracts of 25 peer-reviewed published journal articles supporting the result that the electric grid can stay stable with electricity provided by 100% or near-100% renewable energy" (PDF). 2017. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  86. ^ Jacobson misuses LNT to purposefully exaggerate effects of Fukushima radiation
  87. ^ Science Controversies and Print Edition Limitations – Jacobson versus radiation biology specialists
  88. ^ Bernie Sanders wants to phase out nuclear power plants. Is that a good idea?
  89. ^ Bernie Sanders wants to phase out nuclear power plants. Is that a good idea?
  90. ^ Did Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson just call anyone supporting nuclear energy a zealot?
  91. ^ Did Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson just call anyone supporting nuclear energy a zealot?
  92. ^ A bitter scientific debate just erupted over the future of America’s power grid
  93. ^ Fisticuffs Over the Route to a Clean-Energy Future
  94. ^ A bitter scientific debate just erupted over the future of America’s power grid
  95. ^ Nikolewski, Rob (2017-11-01). "Stanford professor sues critics of his 100% renewables article". The San Diego Union Tribune. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  96. ^ Marshall, Christa (2017-11-03). "$10 million lawsuit over disputed energy study sparks Twitter war". Science | AAAS. Retrieved 2017-11-10. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  97. ^ Mooney, Chris (2017-11-01). "Stanford professor files $10 million lawsuit against scientific journal over clean energy claims". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2017-11-10.
  98. ^ "Lying is Not Okay - Izuru". www.Hi-Izuru.org. Retrieved November 20, 2017.
  99. ^ Mark Z. Jacobson. Stanford University.
  100. ^ Profile Jacobson. Stanford University, Retrieved 12. March 2016.
  101. ^ "The Henry G. Houghton Award - Early Career". American Meteorological Society. Retrieved 2017-08-31.
  102. ^ Global Green USA (2013). "Global Green Sustainable Design Awards". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  103. ^ Grist 50 (2016). "The clean energy mastermind". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Z._Jacobson&oldid=813886209"