Mark Jacobson’s famous 100% renewables study a LIE!

As Environment Progress explains:

Earlier this week an all-star group of energy and climate scholars published a scientific article in a prestigious journal pointing out that a Stanford professor’s proposal for powering the United States entirely on renewable energy sources rests upon a gigantic lie.

Over the last several years, Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo and many politicians have pointed to Stanford scientist Mark Jacobson’s modeling as proof that we can quickly and cheaply transition to 100 percent renewables.

What is the lie? That we can increase the amount of power from U.S. hydroelectric dams ten-fold. According to the U.S. Department of Energy and all major studies, the real potential increase is just one percent of that.

Without all that additional hydroelectricity, Jacobson’s entire house of cards falls apart. That’s because there’s no other way to store all of that unreliable solar and wind energy, given the shortcomings of current battery technologies.

The authors diplomatically call Jacobson’s lie an “error,” but it is in fact a lie and everyone — Jacobson included — knows it.

In his response, Jacobson writes, “Increasing hydropower’s peak instantaneous discharge rate was not a ‘modeling mistake’ but an assumption.”

What is an assumption? It is “a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof” [emphasis added].

But what have Jacobson, Gore, DiCaprio and politicians around the world been insisting for years? That Jacobson’s study proves not only that we can power the world with renewables-alone, but also that doing so would be cheaper and more environmentally friendly.

The actual study can be read here.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/16/1610381114.full

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

UNESCO: reefs are stuffed

UNESCO: stop at 1.5 degrees or coral reefs will die. When planning your holidays over the next decade, please see the reefs before they’re gone. It’s inevitable now — this 3 minute video explains the maths.
Posted in Global Warming, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

2018 mayhem for the North West of Sydney

SEVENTY-FOUR extra buses between 8 and 9am on already congested roads.
MORE than 5000 people boarding buses at Macquarie University Station in the evening peak hour.
FIFTY-EIGHT extra buses on Waterloo Rd, Macquarie Park, between 8 and 9am.

It’s a major interruption to Sydney’s second largest CBD area.
Unbelievable. For what? The Metro line does not make statistical sense. The arguments for a Metro are that as a mostly standing single deck train, it creates faster unloading and reloading, which in turn allows more single-decker trains one after the other. But statistically more single deckers does not offset the loss of the double deckers that carry 50% more people. The math doesn’t work. Not only that, but they are vandalising the current tunnels to make reverting back to double-decker trains impossible. The tunnel is going to be 40cm narrower than double-deckers require. This is permanent vandalism of the line, locking us into what might turn out to be an inferior service.
Again, this SMH article has more statistics showing that a single decker is just not as good as a double-decker, despite the slightly faster boarding times on the single decker. It’s madness.
Posted in Rail, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fantastic summary video of robot-cars

Everything I’ve been saying about robot cars for years now, all in one brilliant 10 minute report!

Posted in Robot Cars, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Vox news 8 minute summary of new nukes!

I love this piece: reactors that *eat* nuclear waste, and where the law of gravity kicks in to shut down a reactor in a power failure.

Posted in Nuclear | Leave a comment

China should have a full MSR by 2031

  • China are putting $300 million a year into researching MSR’s
  • Full scale prototype in just 15 years.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The end of the chicken and egg Catch22!

I just added the following point to my Robot-Car summary page.

3. The end of the ‘chicken and egg’ Catch-22.

You know the ‘chicken and egg’ problem — no company wants to build a hydrogen highway because there are no hydrogen customers, and no customers want to buy a hydrogen car because they is no hydrogen highway yet. The companies don’t want to lose a billion dollars building infrastructure that may not get used, and the customer doesn’t want to invest $25,000 in a car that may not have fuel. The robot-cab-as-service solves all this. The car company already has guaranteed customers hiring their vehicles on an as-needs basis. The company just needs to figure out the most efficient technology to supply this, and can change car systems over gradually. Robot cars on the new charging or filling system will do what they can within the allowable range of their charging or fuelling infrastructure. If cars are limited one afternoon, they may even drive someone to the edge of their filling range, and then let the person swap robot-cabs into one on the established filling system. There would probably be an established discount if you have to car-swap on a trip. It will be that flexible.

Consumers are not making a decision about what car they’re buying for the next 14 years, but what car they are hiring for the next 14 minutes! Because we will just spot-hire the latest state of the art robot car, we will not care what the car runs on or how it was recharged. Think about what that means. Robot cars are expected to clock up so many miles they only last a year or two. They’ll always be running on the latest tech, and we’ll always be hiring the latest thing! So what kind of robot-electric will you hire? Will you care, as long as it is clean and gets you there on time, allowing a short nap in the meantime?  You’ll be too busy reading, talking, or snoozing. This is an essential point: if a robot-cab company decides to change their charging infrastructure over to some new plug or gizmo (or even hydrogen hose), does it mean all the car charging ports in America have to change? I can’t see any reason it has to. They can test it on a small fraction of their customers in one city. They’ll have plenty of cars on the existing network to pick up any problems. You’ll just jump in and hire that car that day, and may not notice anything different. If there was a charging problem and the new robot-cab breaks down, another will be along to serve you. Indeed, one city might have dozens of different companies running dozens of different charging systems or hydrogen hoses, and we just would not care one way or the other. We’re just hiring that car for that trip. Even the hypothetical hydrogen economy actually becomes easier when a company decides they’re going to wean off expensive lithium in a (hypothetical future) world approaching lithium limits. They’ll move to a model where they just produce the hydrogen they require in their warehouses the night before they need it. After all, all a hydrogen fuelling station needs is water and a power source! Nuclear has the EROEI to drive all this.

 

Posted in Robot Cars | Leave a comment