Reply #44: I have read it. [View All]

[NNadir]

They're local boys, Pacala and Socolow. Their 2004 Science paper is an example of what's wrong with the energy discussion in this country, which should not be glib but should be serious.

They have a really, really, really, really, really awful and delusional list of how to address climate change, with a breezy, "it's easy" kind of air.

Their "wedges" are horribly unrealistic, and include things, like um, "substitute wind power for coal power." (#10 in their list.)

It's 6 years later. It was dumb then, dumb now. Wind is not an alternative to coal, given that the capacity utilization of wind is lucky to be 25% and coal in this country comes in at 72%.

Only nuclear can displace coal.

# 11 is even worse: Substitute PV solar for coal. In this area of the country, and in Ohio where they burn the coal that poisons my air and land here in New Jersey, solar PV capacity utilization is 10%.

Worthless discussion, not even worth dignifying with a giggle.

#8. Capture CO₂ at coal to syn fuels plant.

It makes me want to vomit, and is essentially a clear cut case of extremely bad thinking.

#1 also makes me sick: Increase the fuel efficiency for 2 billion cars from 30 mpg to 60 mpg.

Where is the carbon to manufacture these cars going to come from?

# 12 "Wind based hydrogen fuel cells in cars" is pure Amory Lovins gunk, and comes, ironically 1 year before Amory the shithead said that "hydrogen HYPErcars" would be in showrooms.

Pacala and Socolow are delusional.

I don't favor 40% nuclear. I favor a much, much, much, much, much higher number than that.