Stanford's 100 percent renewables a roadmap to nowhere (James Conca) USofA

Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/12/12/stanfords-100renewables-a-roadmap-to-nowhere/#4e0168437e25 Please see link above for original article, embedded hotlinks, and comments.

Stanford's 100% Renewables A Roadmap To Nowhere James Conca December 12, 2017 I write about nuclear, energy and the environment. Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

I have been a scientist in the field of the earth and environmental sciences for 33 years, specializing in geologic disposal of nuclear waste, energy-related research, planetary surface processes, radiobiology and shielding for space colonies, subsurface transport and environmental clean-up of heavy metals. I am a Trustee of the Herbert M. Parker Foundation, Adjunct at WSU, an Affiliate Scientist at LANL and consult on strategic planning for the DOE, EPA/State environmental agencies, and industry including companies that own nuclear, hydro, wind farms, large solar arrays, coal and gas plants. I also consult for EPA/State environmental agencies and industry on clean-up of heavy metals from soil and water. For over 25 years I have been a member of Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the NRDC, the Environmental Defense Fund and many others, as well as professional societies including the America Nuclear Society, the American Chemical Society, the Geological Society of America and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

1

Smart Energy Today Can solar cover the world?

2

Stanford University Professor Mark Jacobson has become the prophet of a religion that claims the world can be fueled by 100% renewable energy. And according to Joshua Rhodes, you cannot question him without being excommunicated.

And by excommunicated, I mean sued in court.

In a bizarre and completely unscientific move, Jacobson filed a $10 million libel suit in Washington, D.C. Superior Court against another scientist, Dr. Christopher Clack, who dared to criticize him.

Along with 20 other prominent scientists, Clack was the lead author of a paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that pointed out the scientific flaws in Jacobson’s thesis. Flaws that Jacobson refused to address during the normal scientific peer-review process.

And there were many.

Jacobson also filed against the Academy as publisher, to force them to retract the critique.

Yes, Jacobson has become the Trump of the scientific world, casting off all norms and rules of scientific research, discourse and publishing, and legally attacking other scientists who disagree with him scientifically.

Recommended by Forbes This form of harassment rarely occurs in science. We get into heated arguments, orally and in writing, but lawsuits over scientific papers? It’s the opposite of science.

The underlying controversy that began this suit is covered in an easy-to-read and comprehensive new free online book, Roadmap to Nowhere, by Mike Conley and Tim Maloney that also challenges everything you thought you knew about renewable and nuclear energy.

This dispute is not just an academic issue. Local, state, and national policies are being actively shaped around Jacobson’s proposal, even though his claim is at complete odds with serious analyses and assessments, including those of the world’s leading climate scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the International Energy Agency, and most of academia. All say we need all of the lowcarbon sources – renewables, hydro, and nuclear.

It’s not that most of us don’t want renewables, it’s that renewables alone cannot do it fast enough to affect global warming.

3

Legally, a libel suit requires that the published statements be demonstrably false. But if so many leading scientists and scientific organizations agree with the critique, libel probably doesn’t apply.

Jacobson’s paper was full of obvious scientific errors but Jacobson refused to correct them in the normal peer-review process that scientists use to resolve scientific disputes.

So it was inevitable that scientists in the scientific community would come out with a response. That it was led by Clack was just fortuitous. Many of his co-authors even come from Stanford.

Since Jacobson’s paper was awful and Clack’s critique so spot-on, most of us laughed that he would sue another scientist. But then we realized that Jacobson is only suing the one scientist of the authors that really can’t fight back.

Danny Cullenward pointed this out in the Stanford Daily. Rather than bring claims against all 21 of the authors, Jacobson only sued Dr. Clack.

Dr. Clack is a former NOAA researcher and founder of Vibrant Clean Energy, but unlike his co-authors, Dr. Clack does not work for an institution with a legal team that defends their employees in court. The National Academy as publisher is unlikely to defend him either, although they should in order to stop a dangerous precedent that will have a chilling effect on science and on their own publications.

Instead, Cullenward notes, Dr. Clack has to ‘hire his own attorney, a major expense that can financially devastate anyone without a trust fund [or without a rich University like Stanford to back them] – even if the case is quickly dismissed.’

Ironically, Clack is a strong proponent of renewables and alternative energy systems and has more bonafides in renewables and climate change than Jacobson.

Unfortunately, Jacobson’s paper has become the bible of renewable energy and is the most referenced paper on the subject used by policymakers and activist groups pushing a renewable-only agenda.

Jacobson has even formed a non-science advocacy group with celebrity board members like Mark Ruffalo, Leonardo DiCaprio and Van Jones, supported by weighty politicians like Bernie Sanders, that have embraced Jacobson’s ideological mix and push it blindly.

Which would be OK if it were correct. But it’s not.

Given the anti-science sentiment flooding America, it’s frightening when a scientist enters the political arena to push an agenda regardless of whether it's backed-up by science or not.

But it’s even scarier when a scientist enters the court arena to destroy another scientist who happens to disagree with him.

4

Dr. James Conca is an expert on energy, nuclear and dirty bombs, a planetary geologist, and a professional speaker. Follow him on Twitter @jimconca and see his book at Amazon.com

5