Why don’t the numbers make any impression?

William Tucker says “Scientific American used to be a great magazine but like any publishing venture headquartered in New York, it has gradually drifted into liberal never-never-land” and uses for an example this month’s cover story “A Plan for a Sustainable Future: How to get all energy from wind, water and solar power by 2030” by Mark Z. Jacobsen and Mark A. Delucchi. The observation about Scientific American is nothing new. The cover story is indeed a good example about where ‘green’ thinking has colored more than just the topic. Besides the long list of needed ‘green’ energy sources that currently supply almost negligable amounts of the power demand, the cover story also hits the nuclear knee jerk opposition.

What is truly remarkable is that the authors’ inventory of knowledge seems to include nothing about nuclear power, the one technology that can truly provide “green energy.” To begin with, they barely make any distinction between nuclear and fossil fuels, lumping together as the old way of doing things … Where the authors lose all contact with reality, however, is in talking about “reliability.”

There are reasons why wind, solar, and other esoteric power production means provide so little of the demand and why several countries use nuclear to provide 80% or more of it. Until and unless there is an honest coming to grips with these reasons, some will spend inordinate amounts of money, often other people’s money via government subsidies, trying to pretend they can create a fantasy world.

Comments are closed.