Skip to main content

21 Experts Debunk a Radical Claim about Renewable Energy

Energy experts are at war over a radical assertion that by mid-century the United States will be able to meet all its energy needs with wind, solar and hydro power.

The claim was made in 2015 by four academic researchers, led by Mark Z. Jacobson, for the continental United States, and it asserts that those renewables will replace not just the coal and natural gas used to make electricity, but also the gasoline and diesel that run cars and trucks, and the gas used in home heating. The paper is regularly cited by environmentalists who claim that the current fleet of U.S. nuclear reactors could close without any consequences to grid reliability.

But last week, a group of prominent researchers, some from Stanford and UC-Berkeley, and others from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Carnegie Mellon and other mainstream organizations, published a second paper that said that while they support the expanded use of renewables, Professor Jacobson et al. were dreaming.

One of the authors of the second paper said that it was dangerous to rely on such a narrow strategy. “I had largely ignored the papers arguing that doing all with renewables was possible at negative costs because they struck me as obviously incorrect,” David Victor of the University of California, San Diego, told The New York Times. But, he said, “when policy makers started using this paper for scientific support, I thought, ‘this paper is dangerous.’”

The dangers, critics say, is that we could step away from other technologies that are essential to reducing air pollution. We have one in mind in particular: nuclear energy.

After the publication of the skeptical assessment, some non-academic behavior followed. Prof. Jacobson said that the new critique had deliberate falsehoods, and that it was “dangerous because virtually every sentence in it is inaccurate.”

The essential problem for advocates of a system based on solar and wind is that their production is not only intermittent, but to the extent it is predictable, it does not match the pattern of demand. Solar production is, by definition, best at noon, but electricity demand is higher when the sun is going down. In many regions, demand is high in winter, when there is less sun. Wind is also out of sync with seasonal demand. Even on a daily basis, it blows strongest late at night, not a peak period. With the limited deployment of solar and wind that we have now, often energy from those sources must be thrown away, because it comes at the wrong times.

Seasonal mismatch between supply and demand on grid
Wind and sun production don’t match demand patterns in any of the American electric markets. Credit: Jared Moore, Ph.D., of Meridian Energy Policy

Operators of hydroelectric generators can usually hoard their water until times when the electricity is most needed, but there are limits, and getting approval to build big new dams is exceptionally hard. Carbon capture and storage, which would reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of fossil fuel plants, is thus far very expensive. The other large scale no-carbon source is nuclear, but Professor Jacobson dislikes nuclear energy.

In any case, we’re cheered to see the “all of the above” strategy reaffirmed with scientific rigor.

The above is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.


Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…