30 False and 5 highly misleading statements in the main text of Clack et al.

(2017) submitted to PNAS Evaluation of the Jacobson et al. Energy

System Modeling Studies

By Mark Z. Jacobson
February 28, 2017

Bold = statements from Clack et al.

Non-bold = replies by Jacobson

Note that these replies are only to the main text, not the supplemental information of Clack et
al. I am not waiving objections to the supplemental information but am first requesting a
review by PNAS of what I am submitting here and a decision by PNAS to withdraw the
Clack et al. article.

If they are permitted to resubmit a letter, I request PNAS to ensure that they eliminate the
false and misleading statements identified here and eliminate authors who did not
substantially contribute to the work and ensure full disclosure of any and all perceived
conflicts of interest among other authors, including research funding or separate income or
gifts for carbon capture, nuclear, bioenergy, or fossil fuels.

1) A large number of analyses and assessments, including those performed by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the International
Energy Agency have concluded that deployment of a diverse portfolio of clean energy
technologies makes a transition to a low-carbon-emission energy system both more
feasible and less costly.

False. IPCC says the exact opposite:

IPCC Working Group III, Chapter 7

Section 7.6.1.1. P. 534. high shares of variable RE power, for example, may not be ideally
complemented by nuclear, CCS, and CHP plants (without heat storage).

Further, IPCC clearly states nuclear and coal with carbon dioxide capture and storage are
possible but not necessary options:

FAQ 7.2. P. 569. The main mitigation options in the energy supply sector are energy
efficiency improvements, , use of renewable energy, use of nuclear energy, and carbon
dioxide capture and storage (CCS)A combination of some, but not necessarily all, of the
options is needed.

In addition, IPCC believes there is robust evidence and high agreement that nuclear has
meltdown, safety, weapons proliferation, and financial risks:
Executive Summary. P. 517. Barriers to and risks associated with an increasing use of
nuclear energy include operational risks and the associated safety concerns, uranium
mining risks, financial and regulatory risks, unresolved waste management issues, nuclear
weapons proliferation concerns, and adverse public opinion (robust evidence, high
agreement).

IPCC further states that nuclear is not economically attractive:

Section 7.8.2. P. 542. Potential (nuclear) project and financial risks are illustrated by the
significant time and cost over-runs of the two novel European Pressurized Reactors (EPR)
in Finland and France. Without support from governments, investments in new nuclear
power plants are currently generally not economically attractive within liberalized
markets,

In addition, IPCC states that nuclear is a declining share of low-carbon energy and has a lot
of barriers and risks associated with increasing it:

Executive Summary. P. 517. Nuclear energy is a mature low-GHG emission source of

baseload power, but its share of global electricity generation has been declining (since
1993). Nuclear energy could make an increasing contribution to low-carbon energy supply,
but a variety of barriers and risks exist.

In sum, Clack et al. mislead PNAS by claiming IPCC believes including nuclear will make a
transition more feasible and less costly. IPCC says nothing of the sort and in fact suggests it
may not be needed and is expensive and risky.

In addition, Freed et al. (2017), who are strong nuclear advocates, admit that nuclear is
extremely costly and that the nuclear supporters have reduced their ambitions to saving
existing plants rather than growing new plants. They further state,

Indeed, there is virtually no history of nuclear construction under the economic and
institutional circumstances that prevail throughout much of Europe and the United States.

Thus, even nuclear advocates believe there is virtually no chance for nuclear to contribute in
any substantial manner to a transition in 2 of the 3 largest carbon emitting markets
worldwide, contrary to what Clack et al. claim.

Finally, IPCC recognize and encourage our 100% WWS studies. They state:

IPCC Working Group III, Chapter 7

Section 7.6. P. 533. Studies of high variable RE penetration (8 citations, including Delucchi
and Jacobson, 2011) and the broader literature (2 citations) suggest that integrating
significant RE generation technology is technically feasible, though economic and
institutional barriers may hinder uptakeThe determination of least-cost portfolios of those
options that facilitate the integration of fluctuating power sources is a field of active and
ongoing research (citations).
In sum, the premise of the Clack et al. criticism is based on egregiously false claims by the
authors of what IPCC says and ignores the fact that IPCC encourages the work of Jacobson,
Delucchi et al.

2) To demonstrate that such a system is technically and economically feasible, a study

must, at a minimum, demonstrate through transparent analysis and validated modeling
that the required technologies can, at scale, provide adequate and reliable energy
services. Some recent research, notably by Jacobson et al. fails to meet these basic
criteria, and go further to propose a substantially narrowed portfolio based only on
wind, solar and hydroelectric power.

False. The papers by Jacobson et al. (2015a) and (2015b) are 100% transparent. The
LOADMATCH model has been available on request since the original PNAS paper was
published, and multiple people have requested and obtained the model. Further, the 50-state
paper spreadsheet to this day is posted on the internet, available for anyone to see. Every
number in both papers is transparent.

It is also false and hypocritical for Clack et al. to claim the only portfolio is wind, solar, and
hydroelectric power. Energy technologies in Jacobson et al. (2015a,b) also included
geothermal, tidal, and wave power and solar heat. Jacobson et al. further included multiple
storage types (pumped hydro, hydroelectric, CSP, water, ice, rocks, hydrogen) and demand
response.

To the contrary Clack, who was part of MacDonald et al. (2016), did not even include CSP,
tidal, wave, geothermal, CCS, or any storage technology nor even demand response in that
study. The omission of storage and demand response suggests a basic lack of understanding
by Clack et al. of how a real future energy systems will work. Further, despite their criticism
here, they also did not treat CCS or bioenergy. Thus, Clack is criticizing the present study for
something he himself ignored.

Similarly, another author on the present criticism (Wyant) was on another paper (Clarke et
al., 2014) that excluded storage and demand response and failed to calculate the costs of the
risks associated with nuclear and CCS. In fact, no grid integration study prior to Jacobson et
al. (2015b) has included the combination of UTES storage, hot/cold storage in water, cold
storage in ice, electrical storage (CSP, pumped hydro, hydropower) and hydrogen storage.

In sum, Clack et al. falsely call their critique an evaluation when in fact they fail to
evaluate a single improvement of Jacobson et al. (2015a,b) over previous studies, including
their own.

Rather than narrowing technologies available, Jacobson et al. (2015a,b) expand technologies
relative to MacDonald et al. (2016) and Clarke et al. (2014), among others.

So, the claim that Jacobson et al (2015a,b) have narrowed options is not only false, it is an
intentional lie.
3) We show that the Jacobson et al. studies contain modeling errors, incorrect,
implausible, and inadequately supported assumptions, and the application of methods
inappropriate to the task.

False. Clack et al. have not found a single modeling error or incorrect assumption. Whether
something is plausible or not is a value judgment, and it is easy to apply value judgments to
MacDonald et al as well, but the claim of errors or incorrect assumptions is false.

4) Jacobson et al. (11) argue that the range of future electricity generation technologies
could be readily limited to wind, solar, and hydro power.

False. Electricity technologies in Jacobson et al. also include geothermal, tidal, and wave
power and heat technologies also include solar. The authors also mislead by failing to
acknowledge all the storage types plus demand response treated.

Further, as stated, this claim is hypocritical, as the lead author of this criticism, Clack, was
part of a well-advertized paper (MacDonald et al., 2016) that unrealistically examined
scenarios where storage and demand response were excluded. They themselves also ignored
CCS and bioenergy. Similarly, another author on the present criticism (Wyant) was on
another paper (Clarke et al., 2014) that excluded storage and demand response. In fact, no
grid integration study prior to Jacobson et al. (2015b) has included the combination of UTES
storage, hot/cold storage in water, cold storage in ice, electrical storage (CSP, pumped hydro,
hydropower) and hydrogen storage. Clack et al. falsely call their critique an evaluation
when in fact they fail to evaluate a single improvement of the present study over previous
studies, including their own, namely these treatments.

5) Jacobson et al make solving the climate problem more difficult and possibly more
expensive that it needs to be. For example, Jacobson et al. exclude from consideration
several commercially available technologies notably nuclear and bioenergy that could
potentially contribute to decarbonization of the global energy system while also helping
assure high levels of reliability in the power grid.

False. IPCC disagrees with Clack et al. They state

IPCC Working Group III, Chapter 7

Section 7.6.1.1. P. 534. high shares of variable RE power, for example, may not be ideally
complemented by nuclear, CCS, and CHP plants (without heat storage).

Indicating that including nuclear with high penetrations of nuclear will make problems more
difficult rather than easier. This is one of the same reasons California shut down Diablo
Canyon, because it would hinder the growth of renewables since it would result in more
shedding and waste.

Thus, both California and IPCC disagree with the authors on this letter.
Second, Jacobson et al. are solving the air pollution, climate, and energy security problems
simultaneously, not just the climate problem. As such, that rules out biofuels, which were
found in Jacobson (2009) as well as many other studies to cause as much or more air
pollution as fossil fuels. Clack et al. proposes, by including biofuels to continue the holocaust
of air pollution mortality and morbidity that fossil fuels have resulted in. Further, studies are
ambiguous about whether biofuels actually reduce carbon more than a few percent or
increase it. Second, nuclear power has zero chance of helping avoid serious climate
problems. It takes 10-19 years between planning and operation of a single nuclear power
plant, thus the world will surpass 1.5 C warming (which will occur unless we have 80%
emission reduction by 2030) before even one new plant comes up. Clack et al. misinform the
public about the ability to plan, site, permit, finance, or operate a nuclear power plant. Even
well-informed nuclear advocates believe nuclear power is dead on a large scale (Freed et al.,
2017), yet Clack et al. ignorantly portray it is a viable solution to climate problems.

6) Further, Jacobson et al. reject carbon capture and storage technologies for fossil fuel
generation. An addition option ignored by Jacobson et al. is bioenergy coupled with
carbon capture and storage (CCS) to create negative emissions within the system, which
could help with the emissions target.

Highly misleading and hypocritical. Clack et al. make this criticism yet he himself ignored
CCS and bioenergy in MacDonald et al. (2016).

Further, several coauthors on Clack et al. have a financial or research-funding self-interest in

CCS, and others have a self interest in nuclear power, and the appearance is that this issue
was included because of their financial self interest.

As stated, bioenergy is not included because of the mortality it causes due to air pollutants.
Further, bioenergy has many problems associated with it in addition to emissions, including
land, water, soil, and competition with food issues. Clack et al. fail to show that biofuels
coupled with CCS will benefit air quality, climate, and energy security more than will WWS
options.

7) To demonstrate that a proposed energy system is technically and economically

feasibly, a study must, at a minimum, demonstrate through transparent analysis and
validated modeling that the required technologies have been commercially
demonstrated at scale at a cost comparable to alternatives; that the technologies can, at
scale, provide adequate and reliable energy; that such technologies and their associated
infrastructure can be deployed at a plausible rate with other historic examples in the
energy sector; that the deployment and operation of the technologies do not violate
environmental regulations. In this response, we demonstrate that Ref 11 and 12 fail to
meet these minimum criteria and accordingly, Jacobson et al. have failed to
demonstrate the technical, practical, and economic feasibility of a 100% wind-hydro-
solar energy vision.

False. This statement falsely implies that our analysis was not transparent. The entire
LOADMATCH model has been available on request since the original PNAS paper was
published, and multiple people have requested and obtained the model. Further, the 50s-state
paper spreadsheet to this day is posted on the internet, available for anyone to see. Every
number in both papers is transparent.

Second, these criteria were made up by Dr. Clack and colleagues. Even if true, this would
mean MacDonald et al. (2016) and Clarke et al. (2014) and all previous papers on energy
systems fail as papers, since the Jacobson et al. papers are by far the most detailed, time-
resolved, and transparent papers ever published on the subject of decarbonization. For
example, all previous papers failed to include all the storage options and demand response
treated in Jacobson et al. (2015b), failed to electrify all energy sectors state by state or
country by country, failed to examine changes in demand due to electrification, failed to
consider 100% WWS systems, and failed to solve prognostically in time over the 6.3 million
times steps treated here.

8) We note for example that the system posited by Jacobson et al. assumes the
availability of multi[week energy storage systems that are not yet demonstrated at scale
to be deployed at a capacity twice that of the entire U.S. power system today, with
underground thermal energy storage systems deployed in nearly every home, business,
office building, hospital, school, and factory in the United States.

False: Clack et al. fail to understand how UTES works or how widespread it already is or
how unobtrusive it is. First, UTES itself (i.e., the storage medium, which are rocks) is not
deployed in nearly every home UTES systems are centralized underground systems.
Only solar collectors are on the rooftops of buildings, just as PV systems are, and a solar-
heated glycol solution is piped to a single sub-building before the heat is passed to water then
piped underground, whereby it heats rocks. The UTES system in Drakes Landing, Okotoks
Canada has been operating among 52 homes successfully since 2005, where the storage cost
is less than 1/300th the cost of batteries. The grass-covered storage rocks serve as a
community park, and it is impossible to tell visually that the storage exists. As Clack et al.
acknowledge, other UTES systems exist.

Clack et al. also fail to recognize that our 100% WWS plans require electrifying all energy
sectors. They falsely compare how much storage is needed with the capacity of the U.S.
power sector today, not even recognizing the U.S. power sector is only one-fifth of all U.S.
energy. We are proposing a solution for 100% of all energy, not just electricity.

9) The conclusions overwhelming rely on: free non-modeled hydroelectric expansion;

False. The omitted cost of hydropower turbine expansion is minor, not overwhelming. In
Jacobson et al. (2015b), the cost of additional hydroelectric generators without increasing
hydropower capacity (e.g., dam size) was neglected. However, since then, the cost has been
calculated for the U.S. and, in fact, worldwide. The mean U.S. cost is 0.2 cents/kWh from
that new study, which is roughly 2% of the cost of overall energy. This cost is derived from
the fact that the cost of electrical equipment (turbines, generators, and transformers) in a
hydropower plant ranges from ~$560/kW for 500 MW plants to ~$200-$300/kW for 1000
MW plants (Figs. 4.5 and 4.7 of IRENA, 2012a). We assume large 1000-MW plants but
also assume construction costs are generally higher than anticipated, so we assume the
additional cost per MW of hydropower turbines is 16% of the hydropower capital cost, or
$468 (387-548) / kW. When this cost is multiplied by the fraction of total end use energy
from hydro, the additional hydropower turbine portion of total energy cost is less than 2%.

10) The conclusions overwhelming rely on:cheap and ubiquitous underground

thermal energy storage..

This is correct. UTES is both cheap and ubiquitous. It costs less than 1/300th the cost of
batteries, and rocks are ubiquitous.

11) The conclusions overwhelming rely on:massive scale-up of hydrogen production

and use

Highly misleading. Clack et al. hypocritically state this as if it is not possible to scale up
electrolysis to produce hydrogen. This is hypocritical because they claim that nuclear, CCS,
and biofuels can be scaled up but hydrogen cant.

12) The conclusions overwhelming rely on:nonmodeled transmission expansion

False. Jacobson et al. (2015a) and (2015b) both included a cost of both short and long-
distance HVDC transmission and in particular new HVDC lines (e.g., Table 2 of Jacobson et
al., 2015).

13) At a minimum, the costs would be substantially higher than claimed and, more
importantly, the system would fail to deliver reliable energy.

False and unsubstantiated. The only relevant cost omitted was the hydropower turbine
expansion, and that cost is less than 2% the cost of overall electricity.

14) We note several glaring modeling errors presented in Jacobson et al. that invalidate
the results in the studies.

False. Clack et al. show not a single modeling error, and Clack is aware of this.

15) Lastly, we argue that the climate/weather model used for estimates of wind and
solar energy production has not been sufficiently peer-reviewed and has not
demonstrated the ability to accurately simulate wind speeds or solar insolation at the
scales need to ensure the technical reliability of an energy system relying on
intermittent energy sources.

False. Zhang (2008), who reviewed coupled climate-air quality models, determined GATOR-
GCMOM to be the first fully-coupled online model in the history that accounts for all
major feedbacks among major atmospheric processes based on first principles.
Further, GATOR-GCMOM is the most tested and rigorous model worldwide, and virtually
every weather-climate model has copied or adopted some or many its techniques, including
interactively coupling aerosols, clouds, radiation, and meteorology with feedback. In one
example, the NCAR WRF-CHEM model started using the GATOR-GCMOM technique of
online coupling between gases, aerosols, and meteorology 11 years after GATOR-GCMOM
developed that technique (Jacobson, 2005). GATOR-GCMOM also contains hundreds of
processes still not treated in any other global model.

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/GATOR/GATOR-GCMOMHist.pdf

It has been validated at high and low resolution for paired-in-time-and-space wind and solar
data as well as global cloud, humidity, stability, and fields in multiple studies, not only by
Jacobson et al. (1996, 2007, 2014) and Jacobson and Kaufman (2006), Jacobson and Archer
(2012), and Jacobson (1997, 1998, 1999a,b, 2001a,b, 2002, 2004, 2010, 2012, 2014), but also
others (e.g., Whitt et al., 2011; Ten Hoeve et al., 2012). In addition, over 1000 researchers
have used algorithms from GATOR-GCMOM and dozens have either used or seen the inner
workings of the code. Further a textbook was written describing many algorithms and all
other algorithms are described in over 50 peer-reviewed papers where the model has been
developed, evaluated, and/or applied.

16) Jacobson et al. include several modeling mistakes. For example, the numbers
given in the Supporting Information of ref. 11 imply that maximum output from
hydroelectric facilities cannot exceed 145.26 GW (see our Section S1.1), about 50%
more than exists in the U.S. today, yet in Jacobson et al. Figure 4(b) shows hydroelectric
output exceeding 1,300 GW.

False. Increasing the discharge rate was not a mistake but a model assumption, and Dr. Clack
is well aware that it was not a mistake yet falsely and intentionally calls it a mistake here. On
Monday, February 29, 2016, I informed Dr. Clack by email that we assumed an increase in
discharge rate while keeping annual energy output constant, as stated in Footnote 4 of Table
S.2 of Jacobson et al. (2015b). This is also obvious from the LOADMATCH code itself,
which was available to Dr. Clack or anyone else upon request. In fact, multiple people
requested the code. The only omission was including the cost of the additional turbines
needed to increase the discharge rate, and that has since been costed at about 2% the cost of
total energy (see earlier response), thus had no impact whatsoever on the conclusions of the
study. Further, additional simulations with LOADMATCH have indicated that it is possible
to keep a stable grid for the U.S. either using more CSP and without increasing the
hydropower discharge rate at all or with a hydropower discharge rate down to 700 GW
(rather than 1300 GW), without changing total annual hydropower energy use. In sum,
adding hydropower turbines without changing annual hydropower energy is only one way to
balance load at low cost, not the only way.

17) Similarly, as detailed in our Section S1.2, the total amount of load labeled as flexible
in Jacobson et al. figures is much greater than the amount of flexible load represented
in their supporting tabular data. In Fact, the flexible load used by LOADMATCH is
over double the maximum possible value from their Table 1. The maximum possible
from Table 1 is given as 1,064.16 GW, while in Fig. 3 of 11 shows flexible load (in green
used up to 1,944 GW (on day 912.6).

False. This statement indicates the failure of a single one of 21 co-authors to read carefully
even past the first page of Jacobson et al. (2015b), who they are criticizing. As clearly stated
on the second page (15,061) of Jacobson et al. (2015b), Table 1 is an annual-average load,
not a maximum load. As also clearly stated on page 15,061, the annual heating and cooling
loads are distributed every 30 seconds according to the number of heating and cooling degree
days, respectively, each year. Thus, the flexible load at any moment could be higher or lower
than the average load in Table 1. Figure 3 is perfectly fine. The LOADMATCH code also
contains this information, which the authors of the commentary could easily have requested
but failed to do so.

18) In Jacobson et al.s analysis, the flexible loads can be accumulated in eight-hour
blocks, which raises a serious issue of extreme excess capacity to utilize the high power
for short periods of time. Under these assumptions, there would need to be oversized
facilities on both the demand and generation sides to compensate for their respective
variabilities. These errors are critical, as the conclusions reached by Jacobson et al.
depend on the availability of large amounts of dispatchable energy and a large degree
of flexibility in demand.

False. Figure S14 of Jacobson et al. (2015b) shows a zero-load loss, low-cost solution with
zero hours of demand response.

Second, the cost of the high discharge rate required when load builds up over time was
accounted for in all costs, except for the additional hydropower turbines, which have since
been costed at less than 2% of the cost of total energy.

19) Jacobson et al. (11) assume a total of 2.604 GW of storage charging capacity, more
than double the entire current capacity of all power plants in the U.S.

Highly misleading. Clack et al. fail to recognize that our 100% WWS plans require
electrifying all energy sectors. They misleadingly compare the charging capacity for all
energy with the capacity of the U.S. power sector today, not even recognizing the U.S. power
sector is only one-fifth of all U.S. energy. We are proposing a solution for 100% of all
energy, not just electricity.

20) The energy storage capacity consists almost entirely of two technologies that remain
unproven at any significant scale: 514.6 TWh of underground thermal energy storage
(UTES, the largest UTES facility today is 0.0041 TWh) and 13.26 TWh of phase-change
material (PCM, effectively in research and demonstration phase) coupled to
concentrating solar powerAlthough both PCM and UTES are promising resources,
neither technology has reached the level of technological maturity to be confidently
employed as the main underpinning technology in a study aiming to demonstrate the
technical reliability and feasibility of an energy system.
False and exaggerated UTES has been demonstrated at the scale it needs to be deployed-
neighborhood and complex scale, and it has been tested in more extreme conditions (Canada
seasonally) than it would be needed for in the United States. Further, its cost is so low it has
already far surpassed more mature technologies. With regard to CSP, molten salt has been
used commercially in a number of plants, and PCM is only marginally better than molten
salt, so even if PCM didnt work well, the fallback works perfectly fine at only slightly
higher cost.

21) Jacobson et al. (11) also make unsubstantiated assumptions about widespread
adoption of hydrogen as an energy carrier, including the conversion of aviation and
steel industries to hydrogen and the ability to store hydrogen equivalent to more than a
month of current U.S. electricity consumption. Further, in Figure S6 of ref. 11,
hydrogen is being produced at a rate consuming nearly 2,000 GW of electricity, nearly
twice the current U.S. electricity generating capacity.

False. As stated on Page 2112 of Jacobson et al. (2015a), we dont expect to convert fully
short-haul aircraft until 2035 and long-haul aircraft until 2040. Given that a short-haul
hydrogen fuel cell aircraft that seats four and has a range of 1500 km already existed in 2016,
we think these goals are easily surpassable. With regard to using hydrogen in industry, our
latest U.S. and world studies do not consider that option; opting instead to electrify all
industry, so the issue is moot. The U.S. and world grid stays stable. The production rate of
hydrogen relative to the current U.S. electrical demand is irrelevant given that we propose to
electrify all energy sectors and electricity is currently only 20% of all energy.

22) References 11 and 12 cite each other about the values of capacity in a manner that
suggests that the capacities are the same; however, if one inspects Table S2 from 11 and
Table 2 from 12 it is obvious that the values are different for every single technology.
This discrepancy is not explained by the authors of either paper.

False. Table S2 from Jacobson et al. (2015b) clearly states that the capacity numbers are for
the CONUS (continental U.S., which is 48 states); Table 1 of Jacobson et al. (2015a) clearly
states in the caption that the capacity numbers are for the 50 U.S. states.

23) Additionally, Jacobson et al (11) assume that 63% of all-energy intensive industrial
demand is flexible, able to reschedule all energy inputs within an 8-hour window.

As shown in Figure S14, a low-cost, zero-load-loss solution was also obtained for 0 hours of
demand response. Nevertheless, Clack et al. fail to show why industrial processes need to run
during peak energy times day and cant be subject to demand response.

24) To illustrate the implausibility of the assumed increase in hydroelectric generation

in the fact of limited water supply, we plot in Fig. 3 the last 25 years of generation of
hydropower in the U.S. along with the average for Jacobson et al. (11, 12). Average
future generation assumed by Jacobson et al. (11,12) is 13% higher than the highest
peak year in the last 25 and 85% higher than the minimum year in the last 25.
False. Figure 3 of Clack et al. falsely shows that the Jacobson et al. (2015b) hydropower
output in 2050 is 402.2 TWh. In fact, they forgot to multiply by the transmission and
distribution efficiency, a mean of 0.925, so it is really 372.035 TWh, much closer to current
output.

Regardless, the current hydro output has nothing to do with what is possible. It is only based
on policy and the fact that many states use natural gas for peaking rather than hydropower.
Even competing water uses are policy decisions and in no way limit the potential for
hydropower to play a modestly larger role considering the health and climate benefits of
doing so. Clack et al. would lead us to believe that policy makers would say its okay to kill 4-
7 million people per year worldwide and 60,000 70,000 in the U.S. because we dont want
to use hydropower more frequently for peaking power.

25) From (12), it is stated that hydroelectric and geothermal increase capacity
because In addition to contradicting their statement that hydropower is used only as
a last resort (11) this explanation demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of
the operation of the electricity markets and the factors determining hydroelectric
supply.

False. It is impossible for (12) to contradict (11) because Reference (12) was published
before (11) and the result in 11 was a new finding

26) As discussed in Section S2.7 of our SI Appendix, the Jacobson et al. (11) baseline
value for cost of capital is one-half to one-third of that used by most other studies.

False. The only relevant studies are those that are recent and among those, Lazard (10.0)
(https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf) is the most
detailed and relied upon by the energy industry, and capital costs are consistent with that
study and other contemporary studies. To the contrary, the costs from Clack et al. are
uninformed and based on old data and inconsistent with facts on the ground. For example,
such studies pretend as if nuclear is cost competitive whereas, even nuclear advocates admit
that the costs for nuclear are prohibitive (Freed et al., 2017).

27) Using more realistic discount rates of 6-9%...

False. The current Federal Discount rate is 1.25%; the WSJ Prime rate is 3.75%. The failure
of Clack et al to even know what the discount rates are today speaks volumes to their work.
Regardless, discount rates are applied the same to all fossil, nuclear, WWS, and other
technologies.

28) According to NREL, maximum power densities achievable in land-based wind

farms is about 3 W/m2Even at these higher power densities, the scale of wind power
envisioned by Jacobson et al. would require nearly 500,000 km^2.

False. The NREL study says nothing of the sort. Section 4.3 of that reference says that the
maximum installed power density is 11.2 W/m2, not 3 W/m2.
29) Even at these power densities, the scale of wind power envisioned by Jacobson et al.
would require nearly 500,000 km2, which is roughly 6% of the continental U.S.

False. Clack et al. used an erroneous installed power density thus miscalculated areas by a
factor of 3.5.

30) Ref. 18 presents its own, very coarse assessments that differ in methods and
produce results that differ markedly from those generally accepted in scientific and
technical communities.

False. Reference 18 is consistent with the literature, including IPCC, in terms of quantities
that the literature has to provide. For example, IPCC estimates the range of lifecycle costs of
nuclear power as 4-110 g-CO2/kWh, which compares with 9-70 g-CO2/kWh from Jacobson
et al. (2009):

IPCC Working Group III, Chapter 7

Section 7.8.1. P. 540. The ranges of harmonized lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions
reported in the literature are 4-110 gCO2eq/kWh for nuclear power

31) Selective assessments of life-cycle emissions can be used to stack the deck for or
against specific technologies, for example, the lifecycle GHG-emissions for nuclear
power generation in ref 18 include the emissions of an equivalent sized coal power plant
during an assumed planning and construction period for up to 19 years per nuclear
plant.

False. The emissions are of the background grid, not a coal plant. Clack et al. pretends that
nuclear does not have planning to operation delays, misleading PNAS into thinking that
Jacobson et al. are stack(ing) the deck when in fact it is Clack et al. who are misleading the
public into thinking nuclear does not have opportunity cost emissions or costs associated
with nuclear weapons proliferation or meltdown risk although the international community
knows otherwise:

IPCC Working Group III, Chapter 7

Executive Summary. P. 517. Barriers to and risks associated with an increasing use of
nuclear energy include operational risks and the associated safety concerns, uranium
mining risks, financial and regulatory risks, unresolved waste management issues, nuclear
weapons proliferation concerns, and adverse public opinion (robust evidence, high
agreement).

32) Jacobson and colleagues do not consider emissions from coal plants associated with
permitting delays for offshore wind power.

False. Jacobson (2009) assumed 2-5 years between planning and operation of wind farms.
Based on the information at the time, that was the best estimate.
33) The model of Jacobson et al. (11) is spatially zero-dimensional

False. There are two models used in Jacobson et al (2015b), a 3-D global climate-air-
pollution-weather forecast model (GATOR-GCMOM) and the LOADMATCH grid
integration model. Only LOADMATCH is spatially 0 dimensional but it uses the aggregate
of 3-D wind fields. Despite the 0-dimensional spatial dimension of LOADMATCH, it
includes more variables and takes shorter times steps (30 s) than any grid integration model
used to study high penetrations of renewables. For example, MacDonald et al. (2016) took 1-
hour times steps, with 120 times lower resolution that LOADMATCH. It also considered
only 3 years rather than 6 years of data in Jacobson et al. (2015b). Further, that study failed to
include storage, allowing excess energy to be unrealistically shed. Further, it failed to
electrify all energy sectors, looking only at electric power. It also failed to treat realistic
placement of wind turbines or solar (Jacobson, 2016). In addition, it failed to electrify all
energy sectors state by state or country by country, and failed to examine changes in demand
due to electrification, failed to consider 100% WWS systems. In addition, MacDonald et al.
(2016) included nuclear, which entails greater catastrophic and/or health/ water/land risks
than 100% WWS, yet they failed to quantify costs of such risks, pretending as if they dont
exist. They further failed to consider the impossibility of planning plus building nuclear
plants in any reasonable time frame.

34) Further, the model is fully deterministic, implying perfect foresight about electricity
demand and the variability of wind and solar energy resources.

False. As clearly stated in Section S1.M of Jacobson et al. (2015), LOADMATCH

simulations here are similar to those of a pure stochastic model Thus, it is not a
deterministic model. In addition, unlike optimization models such as in MacDonald et al.
(2016), LOADMATCH is entirely prognostic. It marches forward in time with no knowledge
of the wind or solar fields or load the next time step. This is why it requires trial and error.

35) The climate model used to generate weather data used by Jacobson et al (11) has
never been adequately evaluated. For example, results from this model have not been
made available to the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (23) or been open to
public inspection in ways similar for major reanalysis projects.

False. Zhang (2008), who reviewed coupled climate-air quality models, determined GATOR-
GCMOM to be the first fully-coupled online model in the history that accounts for all
major feedbacks among major atmospheric processes based on first principles.

Further, GATOR-GCMOM is the most tested and rigorous model worldwide, and virtually
every weather-climate model has copied or adopted some or many its techniques, including
interactively coupling aerosols, clouds, radiation, and meteorology with feedback. In one
example, the NCAR WRF-CHEM model started using the GATOR-GCMOM technique of
online coupling between gases, aerosols, and meteorology 11 years after GATOR-GCMOM
developed that technique (Jacobson, 2005). GATOR-GCMOM also contains hundreds of
processes still not treated in any other global model.
http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/GATOR/GATOR-GCMOMHist.pdf

It has been validated at high and low resolution for paired-in-time-and-space wind and solar
data as well as global cloud, humidity, stability, and fields in multiple studies, not only by
Jacobson et al. (1996, 2007, 2014) and Jacobson and Kaufman (2006), Jacobson and Archer
(2012), and Jacobson (1997, 1998, 1999a,b, 2001a,b, 2002, 2004, 2010, 2012, 2014), but also
others (e.g., Whitt et al., 2011; Ten Hoeve et al., 2012). In addition, over 1000 researchers
have used algorithms from GATOR-GCMOM and dozens have either used or seen the inner
workings of the code. Further a textbook was written describing many algorithms and all
other algorithms are described in over 50 peer-reviewed papers where the model has been
developed, evaluated, and/or applied.

References

Clarke LE, et al. (2014) Technology and U.S. emissions reductions goals: Results of the
EMF 24 modeling exercise. Energy Journal 35: 931.
IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency) (2012a) Renewable energy technologies:
Cost analysis series, Vol. 1,
http://www.irena.org/documentdownloads/publications/re_technologies_cost_analysis-
hydropower.pdf, Accessed February 10, 2014.
Freed, J., T. Allen, T. Nordhaus, and J. Lovering (2017) Is nuclear too innovative, Third
Way, https://medium.com/third-way/is-nuclear-too-innovative-
a14fb4fef41a#.qag59xnk0, Accessed Feb. 28, 2017.
Jacobson, M. Z., R. Lu, R. P. Turco, and O. B. Toon, Development and application of a
new air pollution modeling system. Part I: Gas-phase simulations, Atmos. Environ.,
30B, 19391963, 1996
Jacobson, M. Z., Development and application of a new air pollution modeling system. Part
III: Aerosol-phase simulations, Atmos. Environ., 31A, 587608, 1997
Jacobson, M. Z., Studying the effects of aerosols on vertical photolysis rate coefficient and
temperature profiles over an urban airshed, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 10,593-10,604, 1998
Jacobson, M. Z., Isolating nitrated and aromatic aerosols and nitrated aromatic gases as
sources of ultraviolet light absorption, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 3527-3542, 1999a,
Jacobson, M. Z., Effects of soil moisture on temperatures, winds, and pollutant
concentrations in Los Angeles, J. Appl. Meteorol., 38, 607-616, 1999b.
Jacobson, M.Z. (2001a) Global direct radiative forcing due to multicomponent
anthropogenic and natural aerosols, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 1551-1568.
Jacobson, M. Z. (2001b) GATOR-GCMM: 2. A study of day- and nighttime ozone layers
aloft, ozone in national parks, and weather during the SARMAP field campaign, J.
Geophys. Res., 106, 5403-5420.
Jacobson, M. Z. (2002) Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon plus organic matter,
possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming, J. Geophys. Res., 107
(D19), 4410, doi:10.1029/ 2001JD001376.
Jacobson, M.Z. (2004) The climate response of fossil-fuel and biofuel soot, accounting for
soots feedback to snow and sea ice albedo and emissivity, J. Geophys. Res., 109,
D21201, doi:10.1029/2004JD004945.
Jacobson, M.Z. (2006) Comment on fully coupled online chemistry within the WRF
model, by Grell et al. 2005. Atmos. Environ, 39, 6957-6975, Atmos. Environ. 40, 4646-
4648.
Jacobson, M.Z., and Y.J. Kaufmann (2006) Wind reduction by aerosol particles, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 33, L24814, doi:10.1029/2006GL027838.
Jacobson, M.Z., Y.J. Kaufmann, Y. Rudich, Examining feedbacks of aerosols to urban
climate with a model that treats 3-D clouds with aerosol inclusions, J. Geophys. Res.,
112, D24205, doi:10.1029/2007JD008922, 2007
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, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D14209,
doi:10.1029/2009JD013795, 2010
Jacobson, M.Z., Investigating cloud absorption effects: Global absorption properties of black
carbon, tar balls, and soil dust in clouds and aerosols, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D06205,
doi:10.1029/2011JD017218, 2012
Jacobson, M.Z., and C.L. Archer, Saturation wind power potential and its implications for
wind energy, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 109, 15,679-15,684, doi:10.1073/pnas.1208993109,
2012.
Jacobson, M.Z., C.L. Archer, and W. Kempton, Taming hurricanes with arrays of offshore
wind turbines, Nature Climate Change, 4, 195-200, doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2120,
2014,
Jacobson, M.Z., Effects of biomass burning on climate, accounting for heat and moisture
fluxes, black and brown carbon, and cloud absorption effects, J. Geophys. Res., 119,
8980-9002, doi:10.1002/2014JD021861, 2014.
Jacobson MZ, et al. (2015a) 100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight (WWS)
all-sector energy roadmaps for the 50 United States. Energy Environ Sci 8: 2093-2117.
Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA, Cameron MA, Frew BA (2015b). A low-cost solution to the
grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for
all purposes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci 112: 15,060-15,065.
Jacobson, M.Z. (2016) Clean grids with current technology, Nature Climate Change, 6, 441-
442.
MacDonald A.E., C.T.M. Clack, A. Alexander, A. Dunbar, J. Wilczak, Y. Xie (2016) Future
cost competitive electricity systems and their impact on U.S. CO2. Emissions. Nature
Climate Change, 6, 526-531.
Ten Hoeve, J.E., M.Z. Jacobson, and L. Remer (2012) Comparing results from a physical
model with satellite and in situ observations to determine whether biomass burning
aerosols over the Amazon brighten or burn off clouds, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D08203,
doi:10.1029/2011JD016856.
Whitt, D.B., J.T. Wilkerson, M.Z. Jacobson, A.D. Naiman, and S.K. Lele (2011) Vertical
mixing of commercial aviation emissions from cruise altitude to the surface, Journal of
Geophysical Research., 116, D14109, doi:1029/2010JD015532.
Zhang, Y., Online coupled meteorological and chemistry models: history, current status, and
outlook (2008), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 2895-2932.