Tesla and Puerto Rico.

Oct 2012
3,836
627
Louisville, Ky
#61
Not really the program was being wound down look at the number of missions scheduled and then compare the number cancelled "No Mission crew assigned"
Can you save us a bit of time and just move the goalpost to it's final spot. This is a bit silly now.
 
Likes: 1 person
Aug 2017
431
149
Medway Towns, Kent
#64
Not wishing to re-open old wounds but I thought this may be of interest to you insofar is it relates to what we have been discussing regards renewalbles and in particular the comments regarding alternative energy resources powering the US.

the following is a link to the article in question...
Stanford University Professor Mark Z. Jacobson Sues Prestigious Team of Scientists for Debunking 100% Renewables ? Environmental Progress

Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson has filed a lawsuit, demanding $10 million in damages, against the peer-reviewed scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and a group of eminent scientists (Clack et al.) for their study showing that Jacobson made improper assumptions in order to claim that he had demonstrated U.S. energy could be provided exclusively by renewable energy, primarily wind, water, and solar.
The issue for me is that rather than debating with the NAS or rebutting their review through the usual scientific discourse he has reached for the lawyers



IN the NAS review the abstract comments...
In contrast, Jacobson et al. [Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA, Cameron MA, Frew BA (2015) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(49):15060–15065] argue that it is feasible to provide “low-cost solutions to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of WWS [wind, water and solar power] across all energy sectors in the continental United States between 2050 and 2055”, with only electricity and hydrogen as energy carriers. In this paper, we evaluate that study and find significant shortcomings in the analysis. In particular, we point out that this work used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions. Policy makers should treat with caution any visions of a rapid, reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.
The full NAS review paper is linked here....
Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar


Kip Hanson summed it up for me
His paper was not regular science — it is that special kind of science that one sees in modern science controversies where the authors expect to get a free pass because of their paper is on the “right side” of the controversy. Jacobson is angry that the long-standing system didn’t work in his favor and protect him from scientific criticism — he felt it should have because he is a Green Energy Campaigner — has a badge and everything.
 
Oct 2012
3,836
627
Louisville, Ky
#65
Not wishing to re-open old wounds but I thought this may be of interest to you insofar is it relates to what we have been discussing regards renewalbles and in particular the comments regarding alternative energy resources powering the US.

the following is a link to the article in question...
Stanford University Professor Mark Z. Jacobson Sues Prestigious Team of Scientists for Debunking 100% Renewables ? Environmental Progress

The issue for me is that rather than debating with the NAS or rebutting their review through the usual scientific discourse he has reached for the lawyers



IN the NAS review the abstract comments...
The full NAS review paper is linked here....
Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar


Kip Hanson summed it up for me
So...A professor disputes the review of his paper by peers in the field and is upset that his complaints did not get addressed in the timeline he wanted. Of course now the paper is no longer even relevant due to real world implementation of alternate energy production across the globe.

....Neat....
 

Similar Discussions