...you may want to consider taking a remedial course in logic.
You say "the only reason European countries can have greater for their countries" (by which I presume you mean, "can have greater renewable capacity for their countries"
, "is that they lean on French nukes."
But whatever traditional energy source they are leaning on at present for the remainder of their power -- and for 24/7 capability -- it is still the case that relative to the US, the countries I mentioned have a large part of their demand being addressed RIGHT NOW by renewables -- and all the ones I noted are ABOVE the 20% that the NAS claims is the MOST we can hope to do. These are real, already-existing counterexamples to the NAS claim. Or are you claiming that the US gets less sunshine and wind per acre than Germany and Denmark?
As for Lovins, here is one paragraph from the RMI site:
"After two years at Harvard, Mr. Lovins transferred to Oxford, and two years later became a don at 21, receiving in consequence an Oxford ma by Special Resolution (1971) and, later, 12 honorary doctorates of various U.S. and U.K. universities. He has been Regents’ Lecturer at the U. of California both in Energy and Resources and in Economics; Grauer Lecturer at the University of British Columbia; Luce Visiting Professor at Dartmouth; Distinguished Visiting Scholar at the University of Oklahoma; Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of Colorado; Oikos Visiting Professor of Business, University of St. Gallen; an engineering visiting professor at Peking U.; 2007 MAP/Ming Professor at Stanford’s School of Engineering; and 2011– Professor of Practice at the Naval Postgraduate School."
(...)
"An $18-million utility experiment he cofounded and -steered in the 1990s, PG&E’s “ACT2,” validated his claim that very large energy savings could cost less than small or no savings, e.g. in houses comfortable with no air conditioner at up to +46ºC (+115°F) yet costing less to build."
(highlights mine)
I presume you must hold more credentials than Lovins, given your obvious contempt for him? Have you been invited to lecture at UC, Dartmouth, Stanford, University of BC, University of Oklahoma -- well let's just simplify, please let us in on your own illustrious career so we can compare and contrast. Have you worked with real companies and helped them to garner real energy efficiencies, saving them millions of dollars?
I note that you did not REFUTE one single factual bit of information presented in his very information- and detail-filled video. I also note you do not address the FACT that these energy efficiency gains and use of renewables are ALREADY BEING DONE. Because it's hard to refute REALITY, isn't it?
We have some very important choices facing us. We can invest heavily in nuke plants, shale oil drilling and so-called "clean coal"; or we can implement systems solutions that rely on more efficient usage, renewable generation, and distributed power grids. Your shrill polemics notwithstanding, there are real and viable alternatives to nuclear energy.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
