Skip to main content

Ausubel on Renewables Gets Traction Online

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:
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

Anonymous said…
We're surprised that FOX picked up this story?

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?
Eric McErlain said…
No it is not. NEI's position has always been that the nation needs to have a balanced energy portfolio.

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.
Anonymous said…
Ewww, using Miloy to support your position is a mistake in my opinion. Besides being a paid hack, his "science" is just as bad as some of the anit's, For example:

"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.
Eric McErlain said…
One more time: We don't have a problem with renewable sources of energy. What we do have a problem with is overselling the potential of any source of energy. When you do that, it engenders reactions much like you see above.

Remember, just because we link doesn't mean that we agree or endorse.
Ruth Sponsler said…
An email friend has found an error in Dr. Ausubel's paper at the bottom of p. 233 where he underestimated U.S. electricity production by a factor of 1,000.

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.
Anonymous said…
but you choose what quotes to highlight, like "renewables...should never be." That contradicts the stated position of saying they should be part of a "balanced" energy policy.
Anonymous said…
"The error actually lends strength to Dr. Ausubel's argument"

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?

Popular posts from this blog

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.

Huh?

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…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

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

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

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…