The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Note to National Review: A 100% Renewable Future Is Alive and Well
This is a response to Robert Bryce's article in National Review on June 24, "Appalling Delusion of 100% Renewables Exposed: National Academy of Science Refutes Mark Jacobson's Dream That Our Economy Can Run Exclusively on 'Green' Energy."
Bryce's article describes a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by Chris Clack and coauthors on June 19, criticizing a paper colleagues and I authored in the same journal in 2015. Our original paper showed that the U.S. can transition to 100% clean, renewable energy in all energy sectors without coal, nuclear power, or biofuels. This response demonstrates that Bryce was negligent by not reporting our simultaneously published response in PNAS and by inaccurately reporting the facts.
First, PNAS did not "refute" our article as Bryce's title claims. To the contrary, PNAS published our response to Clack equally and simultaneously, giving us the last words by not allowing Clack to respond to us. Our main conclusion, which PNAS published, was "The premise and all error claims by Clack et al. about Jacobson et al. are demonstrably false. We reaffirm Jacobson et al.'s conclusions."
Second, Bryce lauds the fact that the Clack et al. article had 21 coauthors. However, Clack and coauthors' own disclosure as published in the author contribution section of their paper indicates that only 3 out of 21 coauthors performed any type of research for the article. The remaining 18 merely contributed to writing the paper with admittedly no research contribution. Of the 3 authors who did perform research, one has admitted publicly, "I am not an energy expert" (see 15 minutes and 32 seconds into this UCLA debate. On the other hand, our 100% clean, renewable energy peer-reviewed papers have collectively had over 85 researcher-coauthors and over 35 anonymous peer reviewers.
Third, as pointed out in our published response, there were zero mathematical modeling errors in our underlying model as claimed by Clack. In one instance, Clack falsely claimed we had a model error because he believed that a number in a table of ours was a maximum value when, in fact, the text clearly indicated that the number was an annual average number that varied in time, not a maximum number. Nowhere in the text was the word "maximum" used to describe that number. Thus, Clack made up out of thin air the claim that the number was a maximum. Clack and all coauthors were informed their claim was an error through a document sent to him by us through PNAS prior to publication of their article but still refused to correct it. One must wonder what the motivation is of authors who are informed of an error before it is printed yet refuse to correct it.
In a second case, referred to by Bryce, Clack claimed we made a model error by mistakenly increasing the maximum discharge rate of hydroelectric power from reservoirs by a factor of 10. However, Clack was told in writing 16 months earlier and a second time just before publication of his article that we intentionally increased the maximum discharge rate without increasing the annual hydropower energy output (thus no change in the amount of water in any reservoir). Despite Clack being told the full truth twice and all co-authors, once, all refused to acknowledge this information, going so far as to pretend they were not aware of it by publishing in their PNAS paper, "…we hope there is another explanation…" although all were informed before publication that there was. Why would 21 authors diligently cross-checking an article do this – namely claim, "we hope there is another explanation" when all had been informed of one?
Our only mistakes were not to be clear in our original paper that we assumed an increase in the hydropower discharge rate while holding annual energy constant and to not account for the cost of the additional turbines, which we subsequently calculated as ~3% of the total energy cost. However, omissions in writing the article are not errors in the underlying model as Clack claimed. Further, the concept of adding turbines to the outside of existing hydropower dams to increase the maximum discharge rate while keeping annual hydropower energy constant was a new idea that works. The legitimate question is, what is the maximum discharge rate that is feasible by 2050 among all U.S. dams, not whether it is possible to increase the discharge rate.
Regardless, an alternate solution to increasing the hydropower discharge rate is to increase the discharge rate of concentrated solar power (CSP) and/or adding batteries. Both methods results in low-cost solutions as illustrated for the United States and Canada here. These results contradict Clack's premise that our nation's energy can't run 100% on wind, water, and solar power at low cost.
Bryce further criticizes underground storage in rocks, but the storage itself is inexpensive (less than 1/300th the cost per unit energy stored than batteries) and a form of district heat. Sixty percent of Denmark's heat is from district heating using water rather than rocks. Underground rocks are a less-expensive substitute for water tanks.
Finally, Bryce continues to misstate the land requirements of wind. He quotes Clack as stating our wind turbine proposal would require 500,000 square kilometers without realizing that Clack's number relies entirely on a single number from a Department of Energy study that makes no sense because (1) the author of the study admits he includes land for future project expansion and double counts land where projects overlap and (2) it suggests only one 3-megawatt turbine every one square kilometers, which would be a waste of windy land. When data from 12 actual European and Australian wind farms with multi-megawatt turbines that have been analyzed in detail as part of an ongoing research project by Peter Enevoldsen of Aarhus University and co-workers, are used, the aggregate area required is less than one-third of what Bryce claims. Bryce further forgets that 31% of our wind turbines are offshore so use zero land.
In sum, debate about our energy future can be constructive and is certainly encouraged. But inaccurate statements about scientific work and amplifications of those inaccuracies help no one. Had Bryce read our PNAS response at all, he would not have made the errors he did. Nevertheless, my colleagues and I are always seeking to improve our methods and calculations. Our goals are to better the quality of life of everyone by determining the best ways to provide clean, renewable, and reliable energy while creating jobs and improving people's health and reducing costs. Hopefully others share these goals, regardless of political party affiliation.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Global Banks, Led by JPMorgan Chase, Invested $1.9 Trillion in Fossil Fuels Since Paris Climate Pact
By Sharon Kelly
A report published Wednesday names the banks that have played the biggest recent role in funding fossil fuel projects, finding that since 2016, immediately following the Paris agreement's adoption, 33 global banks have poured $1.9 trillion into financing climate-changing projects worldwide.
By Patti Lynn
2018 was a groundbreaking year in the public conversation about climate change. Last February, The New York Times reported that a record percentage of Americans now believe that climate change is caused by humans, and there was a 20 percentage point rise in "the number of Americans who say they worry 'a great deal' about climate change."
England faces an "existential threat" if it does not change how it manages its water, the head of the country's Environment Agency warned Tuesday.
By Jessica Corbett
A new analysis revealed Tuesday that over the past two decades heat records across the U.S. have been broken twice as often as cold ones—underscoring experts' warnings about the increasingly dangerous consequences of failing to dramatically curb planet-warming emissions.
By Madison Dapcevich
Ask any resident of San Francisco about the waterfront parrots, and they will surely tell you a story of red-faced conures squawking or dive-bombing between building peaks. Ask a team of researchers from the University of Georgia, however, and they will tell you of a mysterious string of neurological poisonings impacting the naturalized flock for decades.
The initial cause of the fire was not yet known, but it has been driven by the strong wind and jumped the North Santiam River, The Salem Statesman Journal reported. As of Tuesday night, it threatened around 35 homes and 30 buildings, and was 20 percent contained.
The unanimous verdict was announced Tuesday in San Francisco in the first federal case to be brought against Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, alleging that repeated use of the company's glyphosate-containing weedkiller caused the plaintiff's cancer. Seventy-year-old Edwin Hardeman of Santa Rosa, California said he used Roundup for almost 30 years on his properties before developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
"Today's verdict reinforces what another jury found last year, and what scientists with the state of California and the World Health Organization have concluded: Glyphosate causes cancer in people," Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook said in a statement. "As similar lawsuits mount, the evidence will grow that Roundup is not safe, and that the company has tried to cover it up."
Judge Vince Chhabria has split Hardeman's trial into two phases. The first, decided Tuesday, focused exclusively on whether or not Roundup use caused the plaintiff's cancer. The second, to begin Wednesday, will assess if Bayer is liable for damages.
"We are disappointed with the jury's initial decision, but we continue to believe firmly that the science confirms glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer," Bayer spokesman Dan Childs said in a statement reported by The Guardian. "We are confident the evidence in phase two will show that Monsanto's conduct has been appropriate and the company should not be liable for Mr. Hardeman's cancer."
Some legal experts said that Chhabria's decision to split the trial was beneficial to Bayer, Reuters reported. The company had complained that the jury in Johnson's case had been distracted by the lawyers' claims that Monsanto had sought to mislead scientists and the public about Roundup's safety.
However, a remark made by Chhabria during the trial and reported by The Guardian was blatantly critical of the company.
"Although the evidence that Roundup causes cancer is quite equivocal, there is strong evidence from which a jury could conclude that Monsanto does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue," he said.
Many regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have ruled that glyphosate is safe for humans, but the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer found it was "probably carcinogenic to humans" in 2015. A university study earlier this year found that glyphosate use increased cancer risk by as much as 41 percent.
Hardeman's lawyers Jennifer Moore and Aimee Wagstaff said they would now reveal Monsanto's efforts to mislead the public about the safety of its product.
"Now we can focus on the evidence that Monsanto has not taken a responsible, objective approach to the safety of Roundup," they wrote in a statement reported by The Guardian.
Hardeman's case is considered a "bellwether" trial for the more than 760 glyphosate cases Chhabria is hearing. In total, there are around 11,200 such lawsuits pending in the U.S., according to Reuters.
University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias told Reuters that Tuesday's decision showed that the verdict in Johnson's case was not "an aberration," and could possibly predict how future juries in the thousands of pending cases would respond.