4 ms·

Mark Jacobson, the author of the study, files libel suits against people who disagree with him. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/

by sien 7y ago

Mark Jacobson, the author of the study, files libel suits against people who disagree with him. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/11/01/stanford-professor-files-libel-suit-against-leading-scientific-journal-over-clean-energy-claims/?utm_term=.204f291431f6 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...

lumberjack 7y ago
Not taking sides in this debate (which is over whether or not nuclear power should be used), however the paper has four authors and in the introduction they say: "The main purpose of this study is to explore whether low-cost mixes using 100% WWS can match energy demand with intermittent supply, not to prescribe the only possible future energy mix in each region. Indeed, many different future scenarios can be constructed depending on the objective. The objective here is to determine whether a 100% WWS system, which we believe maximizes air quality and climate change benefits while minimizing catastrophic risk relative to systems using other technologies, can deliver energy reliably at a reasonable business cost worldwide." So either way, if their modeling is good, it is still a useful assessment of options.
Dylan16807 7y ago
So at the core of it, the previous paper depended on adding a lot more turbines into existing dams so that they could be burstier, and didn't provide justification for, or even really mention the need for, the ability to add that many turbines. This got called a "modeling error", which among other things made him mad enough to sue for libel. Well, quality of legal decisions aside, one of the main points of the new paper is that it's "suggesting several different solutions for stabilizing energy produced with 100 percent clean, renewable sources, including solutions with no added hydropower turbines and no storage in water, ice or rocks."
- pfdietz 7y ago
  While that may be problematic, it's not nearly as bad as a video that's been making the rounds of a talk that purports to show that nuclear is cheaper than using renewables for 100% CO2-free power. What the talk actually claims is that nuclear is cheaper than renewables + short term storage (batteries, for example) for 100% CO2-free power. Long term storage, like hydrogen, changes this greatly, as the cost of the short term storage solution is dominated by foolishly using batteries for seasonal load leveling/very rare prolonged outages. It's fascinating to watch the guy in the talk dance around this.

by sien 7y ago

lumberjack 7y ago

Not taking sides in this debate (which is over whether or not nuclear power should be used), however the paper has four authors and in the introduction they say: "The main purpose of this study is to explore whether low-cost mixes using 100% WWS can match energy demand with intermittent supply, not to prescribe the only possible future energy mix in each region. Indeed, many different future scenarios can be constructed depending on the objective. The objective here is to determine whether a 100% WWS system, which we believe maximizes air quality and climate change benefits while minimizing catastrophic risk relative to systems using other technologies, can deliver energy reliably at a reasonable business cost worldwide." So either way, if their modeling is good, it is still a useful assessment of options.

Dylan16807 7y ago

So at the core of it, the previous paper depended on adding a lot more turbines into existing dams so that they could be burstier, and didn't provide justification for, or even really mention the need for, the ability to add that many turbines. This got called a "modeling error", which among other things made him mad enough to sue for libel. Well, quality of legal decisions aside, one of the main points of the new paper is that it's "suggesting several different solutions for stabilizing energy produced with 100 percent clean, renewable sources, including solutions with no added hydropower turbines and no storage in water, ice or rocks."

pfdietz 7y ago
While that may be problematic, it's not nearly as bad as a video that's been making the rounds of a talk that purports to show that nuclear is cheaper than using renewables for 100% CO2-free power. What the talk actually claims is that nuclear is cheaper than renewables + short term storage (batteries, for example) for 100% CO2-free power. Long term storage, like hydrogen, changes this greatly, as the cost of the short term storage solution is dominated by foolishly using batteries for seasonal load leveling/very rare prolonged outages. It's fascinating to watch the guy in the talk dance around this.