All of us rational folks know this already - but watermelons gonna be watermelons. Just like the Paris accord, it seems more important to be seen as "trying" than to be seen as "realistic" or even "right"...


Article from National Review:

The idea that the U.S. economy can be run solely with renewable energy — a claim that leftist politicians, environmentalists, and climate activists have endlessly promoted — has always been a fool’s errand. And on Monday, the National Academy of Sciences published a blockbuster paper by an all-star group of American scientists that says exactly that.

The paper, by Chris Clack (see it here - http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...full?tab=author-info) formerly with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Colorado Boulder, and 20 other top scientists, appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It decimates the work of Mark Jacobson, the Stanford engineering professor whose wildly exaggerated claims about the economic and technical viability of a 100 percent renewable-energy system has made him a celebrity (he appeared on David Letterman’s show in 2013) and the hero of Sierra Clubbers, Bernie Sanders, and Hollywood movie stars, including Leonardo DiCaprio.

Jacobson became the darling of the green Left even though his work was based on Enron accounting, alternative facts, and technology hopium. Nevertheless, his claims were politically popular, and his academic papers routinely sailed through peer review. In 2015, Jacobson published a paper, co-written with Mark Delucchi, a research engineer at the University of California, Berkeley, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The paper, which claimed to offer “a low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem” with 100 percent renewables, went on to win the Cozzarelli Prize, an annual award handed out by the National Academy. A Stanford website said that Jacobson’s paper was one of six chosen by “the editorial board of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences from the more than 3,000 research articles published in the journal in 2015.” The fact that the National Academy would bestow such a prestigious award on such weak scholarship greatly embarrass the Academy, which gets 85 percent of its funding from the federal government.

In their scathing takedown of Jacobson, Clack and his co-authors — who include Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution, Dan Kammen of the University of California, Berkeley, former EPA Science Advisory Board chairman Granger Morgan, and Jane Long of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory — concluded that Jacobson’s 2015 paper contained “numerous shortcomings and errors.” The paper used “invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions.” Those errors “render it unreliable as a guide about the likely cost, technical reliability, or feasibility of a 100 percent wind, solar, and hydroelectric power system.”

Among the biggest errors — and one that should force the Academy to withdraw Jacobson’s 2015 paper — is that Jacobson and Delucchi overstated by roughly a factor of ten the ability of the United States to increase its hydropower output. Furthermore, the paper ignores two key issues: electricity storage and land use. Jacobson claimed that the U.S. can store energy underground or store it in the form of hydrogen. Clack and his co-authors wrote that “there are no electric storage systems available today that can affordably and dependably store the vast amounts of energy needed over weeks to reliably satisfy demand using expanded wind and solar power generation alone.”

But the most obvious flaw in Jacobson’s scheme involves his years-long refusal to admit the massive amount of land his proposal would require; his myriad acolytes have repeated his nonsensical claims. For instance, last year, Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org and one of America’s highest-profile climate activists, wrote an August 2016 cover story for The New Republic in which he lauded Jacobson’s work and repeated Jacobson’s erroneous claim that his all-renewable program would need only “about four-tenths of America’s landmass.”

Clack et al. correct the record by pointing out that Jacobson’s scheme would require “nearly 500,000 square kilometers, which is roughly 6 percent of the continental United States, and more than 1,500 square meters of land for wind turbines for each American.” In other words, Clack found that Jacobson understated the amount of land needed for his all-renewable dystopia by a factor of 15. But even that understates the amount of territory needed. Jacobson’s plan requires nearly 2.5 terawatts (2.5 trillion watts) of wind-energy capacity, with the majority of that amount onshore. The Department of Energy has repeatedly stated that the footprint of wind energy, known as its capacity density, is 3 watts per square meter. And so 2.5 trillion watts divided by 3 watts per square meter equals 833 billion square meters (or 833,000 square kilometers): That’s a territory nearly twice the size of California.

The idea of using two California-size pieces of territory — and covering them with hundreds of thousands of wind turbines — is absurd on its face. The idea of using two California-size pieces of territory — and covering them with hundreds of thousands of wind turbines — is absurd on its face. And yet, Jacobson’s 100 percent renewable scenario has become energy gospel among left-leaning politicians. For instance, in January, New York governor Andrew Cuomo touted his renewable-energy goals and declared that his state was not going to stop “until we reach 100 percent renewable because that’s what a sustainable New York is really all about.”

In February, 54 Massachusetts lawmakers — representing more than a quarter of the members of the state legislature — signed on to a bill that would require the Bay State to get 100 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2050. The bill (S. 1849) says that the goal is to “ultimately eliminate our use of fossil fuels and other polluting and dangerous forms of energy.” In April, U.S. Senators Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), Edward J. Markey (D., Mass.), and Cory Booker (D., N.J.) introduced the 100 by ’50 Act, which calls on the United States to be completely free of fossil fuels by 2050. The bill, available here, is a laundry list of terrible ideas, including a “carbon duty” on any foreign-made goods that are made by energy-intensive industries. And as is standard with all-renewable promoters, the bill doesn’t contain a single mention of the word “nuclear” even though some of the world’s highest-profile climate scientists, including James Hansen, have said nuclear must be included in any effort to reduce our greenhouse-gas emissions. The 100 by ’50 legislation was — of course — endorsed by a who’s who of all-renewable cultists, including actor Mark Ruffalo; Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club; and May Boeve, the executive director of 350.org.

Jacobson’s response to the Clack paper (and to the ensuing Twitter storm attacking his work) would have made Captain Queeg proud. He has claimed, among other things, that his paper contains no errors; that Clack and the other authors are simply shilling for the nuclear and hydrocarbon sectors; and that the Department of Energy’s capacity data on wind energy (3 watts per square meter) is wrong and that, instead, the figure should be 9 watts per square meter.

The late David J. C. MacKay, a physics professor at the University of Cambridge, would have been horrified. In 2008, MacKay published Sustainable Energy — without the Hot Air, one of the first academic books to look at the land-use impacts of renewables. MacKay, who recognized that nuclear must be part of any effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, also calculated that wind energy needs about 700 times more land to produce the same amount of energy as a fracking site. Three years ago, shortly before his death at age 46 from cancer, MacKay talked with British author and writer Mark Lynas about his work. During that interview, MacKay called the idea of relying solely on renewables an “appalling delusion.”

The punch line here is clear: The Clack paper proves that it’s well past time for the green Left and their political allies to quit claiming that we don’t need hydrocarbons or nuclear energy. Alas, it appears they prefer appalling delusions about renewables to real science and simple math.

READ MORE:

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/...efutes-mark-jacobson

This message has been edited. Last edited by: feersum dreadnaught,

quote:

In February, 54 Massachusetts lawmakers — representing more than a quarter of the members of the state legislature — signed on to a bill that would require the Bay State to get 100 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2050.

Didn't Massachusetts' enviromentalists attempt to put up a bunch of wind turbines a few years back - I think near Cape Cod, but were told by the Kennedy family that the structures would interfere with their view while sailing?

Oil is renewable.

Dead dinodaurs myth is total BS.

The earth has temendous carbon deep below and with heat, pressure and some good ol' physics, carbon chains are cracked and hydrocarbons oil and other things result.

Don't belive the hokey religious superstisions of the GDC's telling you that this ball of mud cannot handle a few billion tiny organisms no more than ugly bags of mostly water.

The Ivanpah solar power plant in SoCal promised massive amounts of clean cheap solar electricity. In reality, they can deliver only 2/3 of what was promised (meaning the power costs 50% more than promised). It runs on natural gas when there isn't any sun, but emits enough CO2 that it had to register as a gross polluter. And the 4K acres of mirrors have ruined the surrounding flora and fauna (ie, screwed up the environment). I think the US taxpayer put up $1.5B - $2.0B for the effort.

So much for promises v reality.

Sidenote, the numbers for the CA high speed rail will make Ivanpah look successful.

quote:

Originally posted by MRMATT:...Didn't Massachusetts' enviromentalists attempt to put up a bunch of wind turbines a few years back - I think near Cape Cod, but were told by the Kennedy family that the structures would interfere with their view while sailing?

Enviro for thee, but not for me. Clearly a typical liberal double standard.

I don't have the link but you need to fix your subject line re: cuss words.

quote:

The punch line here is clear: The Clack paper proves that it’s well past time for the green Left and their political allies to quit claiming that we don’t need hydrocarbons or nuclear energy. Alas, it appears they prefer appalling delusions about renewables to real science and simple math.

Yet more evidence that liberal/progressives suffer from severe mental illness. When reality cannot and will not be accepted as truth, mental illness seems the only viable reason.

Whenever a local gov't predicts 100% renewables by a given date, it's assume that's a goal - not an absolute. Feel good policy is usually derailed by economic reality.

A few years back the voters of LA (well, at least a majority of those who took the time to vote) voted to increase renewables by 2020. They were shocked when a few years later their utility rates increased dramatically (ditched coal power from Utah), in a market that already has some of the most expensive electrical power in the US.

In CA, refineries produced about 66M gallons of refined fuels.......each day! Where or how can you substitute that energy (BTUs, kW, whatever you want to call it) as cheaply as you do today? The CA legislature could outlaw the internal combustion engine (I'm sure some have thought of it) and you'd still need to come up with some type of power to substitute the loss of refined fuels. Not to mention the last in fuel taxes.

Hydrocarbons will play a role in the US power portfolio for decades to come.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
The Ivanpah solar power plant in SoCal promised massive amounts of clean cheap solar electricity. In reality, they can deliver only 2/3 of what was promised (meaning the power costs 50% more than promised). It runs on natural gas when there isn't any sun, but emits enough CO2 that it had to register as a gross polluter. And the 4K acres of mirrors have ruined the surrounding flora and fauna (ie, screwed up the environment).

The plant is responsible for 6,000 bird deaths a year.

Wind turbines have their own dangers. Last year in 26 days whales transiting the English Channel had 29 Strandings. It appears the noise related to the turbines interferes with the echo location and they seek shallow water.

In the United States bird deaths from wind turbines are estimated to be between 150,000 and 328,000 each year.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...Solar_Power_Facility
http://www.cfact.org/2016/03/0...bines-killing-whales
http://www.audubon.org/news/wi...s-ever-be-safe-birds

quote:

Originally posted by Icabod:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
The Ivanpah solar power plant in SoCal promised massive amounts of clean cheap solar electricity. In reality, they can deliver only 2/3 of what was promised (meaning the power costs 50% more than promised). It runs on natural gas when there isn't any sun, but emits enough CO2 that it had to register as a gross polluter. And the 4K acres of mirrors have ruined the surrounding flora and fauna (ie, screwed up the environment).

The plant is responsible for 6,000 bird deaths a year.

Wind turbines have their own dangers. Last year in 26 days whales transiting the English Channel had 29 Strandings. It appears the noise related to the turbines interferes with the echo location and they seek shallow water.

In the United States bird deaths from wind turbines are estimated to be between 150,000 and 328,000 each year.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...Solar_Power_Facility
http://www.cfact.org/2016/03/0...bines-killing-whales
http://www.audubon.org/news/wi...s-ever-be-safe-birds

But my good Mr Ichabod, it's all for a worthy cause, to save planet earth, and indeed, to save the entire universe. But still I wonder, underneath, is the real goal to provide money and power to liberal elites????

Math and economics capability (and often, some of the basic requirements of science - namely skepticism and rigor) are often in short supply for today's self-appointed guardians of the planet.

There has never been 'settled science' and never will be. Folks who think otherwise get their 'science' from journalism majors.

quote:

Oil is renewable.

Dead dinodaurs myth is total BS.

The earth has temendous carbon deep below and with heat, pressure and some good ol' physics, carbon chains are cracked and hydrocarbons oil and other things result.

Don't belive the hokey religious superstisions of the GDC's telling you that this ball of mud cannot handle a few billion tiny organisms no more than ugly bags of mostly water.

Sigmonkey, years back I looked into the Gold hypothesis and the drilling in Scandinavia to attempt to confirm or disprove it. My recollection is that they found natural gas miles down, but not oil.

Do you have more recent information?

quote:

"..repeated Jacobson’s erroneous claim that his all-renewable program would need only “about four-tenths of America’s landmass.”

I certainly hope that's erroneous. I'm not a mathmagician, but I believe 4/10 = 40%. Using 40% of America's landmass to produce energy can't possibly be.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:

quote:

Oil is renewable.

Dead dinodaurs myth is total BS.

The earth has temendous carbon deep below and with heat, pressure and some good ol' physics, carbon chains are cracked and hydrocarbons oil and other things result.

Don't belive the hokey religious superstisions of the GDC's telling you that this ball of mud cannot handle a few billion tiny organisms no more than ugly bags of mostly water.

Sigmonkey, years back I looked into the Gold hypothesis and the drilling in Scandinavia to attempt to confirm or disprove it. My recollection is that they found natural gas miles down, but not oil.

Do you have more recent information?

I spent considerable time researching the idea many years ago, (about 25) because I just could not accept that the amount of dead critters necessary to create "finite" oil deposits.

And since that time, many "new" deposits have been found, and even some existing have been realized to have vast reserves over the original estimates (such as nearly 2/3 of Texas in the past year).

I understand a great deal of this is due to newer technology in discovery as well as "re-evaluating" existing data or understanding what that older data contained.

My mind was satisfied that what I believe is correct, and had I been in the oil industry, I might have continued to pursue it.

I was just a bored monkey with a library card, and then the "newfangled internets" and access to libraries, when such things were easy to find.
And, yes, at the time, many people I talked with considered my thinking to be much like those hawking perpetual motion and other nonsense.

It is my belief that the "oily gun" exists, but that those looking, are not looking in the right place.


And to further step out and incur ridicule, I have always had a knack for sort of "knowing" or "understanding" things by some odd intuition.
(I am pretty much self taught on everything I know, so my methods and procedures are a bit unorthodox)

I think it is my ability to relate "one to many and many to one" with almost anything, so that I can go from a known to and unknown without knowing how I arrived.

Sometimes I just find my way to a solution of a problem subconsciously.

Or, I am never "lost", I am simply, "right here" in a sort of bendable way.

Oil is from three BILLION years of early life organic debris deposited on the sea floor and
Covered y silt and extreme pressure.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

"..repeated Jacobson’s erroneous claim that his all-renewable program would need only “about four-tenths of America’s landmass.”

I certainly hope that's erroneous. I'm not a mathmagician, but I believe 4/10 = 40%. Using 40% of America's landmass to produce energy can't possibly be.

Especially since it's 7 times the 6% mentioned in a later quote in the same post.

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
Oil is from three BILLION years of early life organic debris deposited on the sea floor and
Covered y silt and extreme pressure.

And it is important to realize that "organic" includes plant life in addition to creatures.

flashguy