A few days ago we pointed to some of the coverage that Rockefeller University fellow Jesse Ausubel was getting for his take on how renewable sources of energy actually have the potential to harm the environment.
Since then, we've seen plenty of other folks pick up on Ausubel's conclusions. Here's Steven Miloy at Fox News:
Since then, we've seen plenty of other folks pick up on Ausubel's conclusions. Here's Steven Miloy at Fox News:
In a time when those who question the Green agenda are scurrilously defamed and routinely intimidated — just for the sin of expressing contrary opinions — the Green Ausubel should be applauded for having the courage to stand up and speak the truth: that renewable energy wasn’t, isn’t and ought not ever be.For more, see Investor's Business Daily.
Comments
The pull-quote is absolutely ludicrous. Where's this evil pro-renewable cabal that's intimidating the poor nuclear underdogs?
Renewable energy ought "never be"? Is that NEI and the nuclear industry position?
But what this does point out, however, is that many of the proponents of renewable sources of energy are guilty of overselling their potential benefits, such as those who continually claim that wind and solar can replace nuclear as a source of baseload generation.
"As photovoltaic cells are only 10 percent efficient and have seen no breakthroughs in 30 years..."
This is easily refuted by going to the NREL web page.
I also agree that using that quote is ludicrous. I've come to expect better from this site.
Remember, just because we link doesn't mean that we agree or endorse.
I've added a note at the bottom of my blog post about the error.
The error actually lends strength to Dr. Ausubel's argument, which was about the requirements for land use by renewable energy to meet U.S. electrical needs.
However, there is some concern in the community that the arguments used to support our fave power source should be checked numerically.
I did not access the text of Dr. Ausubel's paper until late last night. Although the paper is interesting, it has some problems. In addition to the error cited above, the major problem is that Dr. Ausubel does not cite sources for many of the numbers he uses. The paper is an entertaining read.
I think the fundamental argument of Dr. Ausubel's paper is correct. I believe that another author would do well to write another paper, that cites figures in a more accurate manner, to make the argument in a stronger fashion.
I'm definitely not crazy about Steven Milloy, but I don't have any problem with linking to his stuff, as long as it's clear that there's no endorsement intended.
Maybe, as it turns out. But what does it say about his credibility and reliability as an energy researcher, that he's off by three orders of magnitude on a fundamental data point but didn't even notice before his work was published?