...and yells like a fool, he still will be clueless.
Hansen ripped him a new asshole - and let's face it, Jacobson's mostly asshole, wishing to bet the planetary atmosphere on a gas entrenching scheme that simply sucks money for no measurable result - in <em>Environmental Science and Technology</em> where he referred to the insipid remarks that Jacobson made with his fellow denialist anti-nuke, Sovacool.
Furthermore, Sovacool et al. provide no references for the
“prevailing scientific consensus” they allude to regarding Chernobyl deaths. The only relevant source they cite is a single-authored web posting from the Union of Concerned Scientists, an organization that is well-known for its long-held opposition to nuclear power. By contrast, the 2008 UNSCEAR report that we cite14 represents a rigorous scientific assessment performed by expert scientists from 27 countries (including the countries most affected by the accident).
On a broader note, essentially all credible energy projections from authoritative sources (e.g., refs 10, 12, 15) indicate that in order to achieve near-term climate change mitigation targets, nuclear power will need to make a substantial contribution to the near-term energy mixeven after factoring in large-scale energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy deployment. The objections to nuclear power raised by Sovacool et al. can readily be resolved by next-generation reactors, as we
described in ref 3. We fully acknowledge that renewables and energy efficiency must play an important role, but relying solely on them to provide all the required GHG emissions reductions
would seriously threaten our chances of success.
Much as Sovacool et al. would prefer to live in a world in which near-term mitigation targets can be fully realized without nuclear, in the real world the urgency and scale of the climate crisis require that we retain and expand all nonfossil electricity sources, especially those that can directly displace base load coal plants. The propagation of biased and misleading arguments against nuclear power by Sovacool et al. and others does a great disservice to the all-important goal of avoiding dangerous
anthropogenic climate change.
The bold is mine.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es402211m
I will state that personally I disagree with
Hansen on one point. Despite 60 years of cheering - expensive cheering that has sucked hundreds of billions of dollars, euros, trillions of yen and yaun for no result, the entire renewable energy industry built to date as represented by solar and wind still can't match the 20 exajoules of energy consumption
increase that took place between 2009 and 2010.
In fact, combined, the failed expensive and toxic solar and wind industry - the subject of so much bad science fiction - can't even produce 3 of the 538 exajoules humanity is now producing.
This is why 2013 is proving to be the worst year ever observed for the destruction of the atmosphere by humanity. Humanity, all of it, is suffering because too many people listen to the horseshit handed out by Jacobson and his very ignorant supporters.
It's time to stop throwing money at this pop fantasy called "renewable energy." It's killing us, choking us to death, quite literally.
Nuclear energy is the
only sustainable form of energy there is.
= new reply since forum marked as read
