The Appalling Delusion of 100 Percent Renewables (Reblog National Review)


The National Academy of Science refutes Mark Jacobson’s dream that our economy can run exclusively on ‘green’ energy.

Sehen Sie sich zuerst die Ausführungen von Prof. Mark Jacobson im folgenden Video an:


7 thoughts on “The Appalling Delusion of 100 Percent Renewables (Reblog National Review)”

  1. Utopia is a virtual World that cannot have reality on this Earth.
    A distinguished professor of one of the top academic institutions in the World, located in the Silicon Valley, says: “this will be reality between 2030 and 2050”.
    He cannot be wrong!
    Because he can only be right.
    Whatever the quality of the refutation, on technical or economic ground, such delusory publication sets the stage.
    He is on the good side, together with the deplorable Di Caprio; all critiques are on the defensive, conservatives, slaughters of the Planet, bad.
    Such personage can only be debunked by personal attacks, conflicts of interest or other scandal. To engage in reasoned arguments is a loss of time and of … energy.

  2. Wenn aber des Erwachen aus diesen unmöglichen Träumereien erst durch grosse Misserfolge in der Realität erfolgt, dann werden die Verluste an Zeit, Energie und weiteren Ressourcen – irregeleitete Inventionen, Innovationen und Investitionen noch viel grösser sein.
    Die argumentative Entlarvung der Träumer oder schon eher Scharlatane ist schwierig, aber nicht unmöglich, wie m.E. auch das Bsp. der NAS im Post zeigt.

    Also bleiben wir dran…

  3. Zitat :
    [quote][/quote] Providing worldwide energy for all purposes (electric power, transportation, heating/cooling, etc.) from wind, water, and sunlight Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi estimate that [b]3,800,000[/b] 5 MW wind turbines, [b]49,000[/b] 300 MW concentrated solar plants, [b]40,000[/b] 300 MW solar PV power plants, [b]1.7 billio[/b]n 3 kW rooftop PV systems, [b]5350[/b] 100 MW geothermal power plants, and [b]270[/b] new 1300 MW hydroelectric power plants will be needed. … [quote][/quote]

  4. …und dazu noch Facilitäten, um ein paar TW speichern zu können…. da läppert sich ja ganz schön was zusammen.

  5. … I can just sum up what I learned as follows: Professorships and even at famous schools are no guarantee for personal charcteristics such as honesty or modesty nor objectivity or transparency. What ist different in science compared to religion, ideology or fake news ist the systematically inherent and freely promoted criticsism and falsification in a way which in the end will prevail. But almost nothing is settled for ever, except some basic laws of physics.

  6. In a 2007 statement, the American Physical Society (APS), declared man-made climate change as “incontrovertible”, i.e. within APS, there is no (scientific) controversy pursuable (or allowed) on this topic. There is no other topic “incontrovertible” within physical sciences, any fundamental cornerstone in physical theory can be controversially discussed (mass of proton, energy conservation, etc), just not climate science dogma of man-made climate change. After several prominent physicists such as noble prize winners left APS, a committee was gathered in 2014-15. After disputes, the word “incontrovertible” was not explicitly used anymore in their 2015 statement, instead, man-made declared as the dominant factor in climate change, beside some “not well understood” natural factors. Thus, pursuing science on “not well understood” factors remains “unwanted” within the scientific organization APS.

Schreiben Sie einen Kommentar

Bitte beachten Sie: Kommentare sind auf 2000 Zeichen begrenzt.