S&P reviews research on feasibility of 100% renewable electricity grid — results inconclusive
Energy. Africa. Future.
13

That I even needed to respond to accusations of financial conflict is disappointing and sadly typical of the way Jacobson interacts with critics. That they needed to provide no such response is sadly typical of the way media still interacts with this issue, presuming anyone expressing short of total condemnation of nuclear power is likely to be conflicted, as opposed to legitimately drawing different conclusions.That is despite the work in question being published in a reputable journal following blind peer review.

Meanwhile, the work Andrew Blakers refers to is NOT published in peer reviewed literature — it is a report that was hurried into the public domain and is replete with shortcomings which we discussed at length in a response. https://www.brightnewworld.org/media/pumpedhydroreview


(Very much larger) Clients of my (yes, now concluded) consulting work included local governments, non-governmental organisations, state government departments and small to medium enterprises (for example, assistance in grant writing to install commercial scale solar PV systems). All in all, a spread that is to be expected by anyone making an honest living. Some details here https://decarbonisesa.com/2014/06/20/am-i-an-environmentalist/

As long as media buys into this line of attack in a one-sided way by running pieces like this, researchers will keep making the accusation to avoid due scrutiny of their work.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.