Academic disputes and posturing politicians can’t stop clean energy
Sarah Shanley Hope
134

Very loyal of you Sarah. Unfortunately Jacobson’s 100% WWS studies are based on false premises. This is much more than a bunch of academics disagreeing with each other. It goes to the heart of what the basis should be for energy policy, planning, and funding by governments around the world.

Yes we need clean reliable energy. However by way of his now-debunked studies, Jacobson says we don’t need nuclear. He also says of course that nuclear is too dangerous. He’s wrong on both counts and the academic smackdown proves he’s wrong on the first count. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448846/renewable-energy-national-academy-sciences-christopher-t-m-clack-refutes-mark-jacobson Studies like Epidemiology Without Biology: False Paradigms, Unfounded Assumptions, and Specious Statistics in Radiation Science (with Commentaries by Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake and Christopher Busby and a Reply by the Authors) | SpringerLink prove he’s wrong on the second.

The bottom line is that we absolutely need nuclear power, the only means available to yield the needed energy; clean, reliable, and scaleable.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

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