A Stanford professor drops his ridiculous defamation lawsuit against his scientific critics

[turbinetree]

Stanford environmental professor Mark Z. Jacobson made a big splash in 2015 with a paper predicting that renewable sources could provide 100% of the energy needed in the 48 contiguous states by 2050.

But he made an even bigger splash last September, when he responded to a critique of his claim published in a leading scientific journal by filing a $10-million defamation lawsuit.

After taking months of flak for what seemed to be an effort to stifle legitimate scientific debate by bringing it into the courtroom, Jacobson withdrew the lawsuit Thursday.

A quick primer on the case: After Jacobson's paper appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and got taken up as a rallying cry by climate activists such as Bernie Sanders, the journal published a lengthy critique by environmental scientist Christopher Clack and 20 co-authors. Their paper, which questioned Jacobson's assumptions and methodology, appeared Feb. 24, 2017. PNAS gave Jacobson and his own co-authors space in the very same issue to rebut the criticism.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-jacobson-lawsuit-20180223-story.html

[Exotica]

1. more background

Landmark 100 Percent Renewable Energy Study Flawed, Say 21 Leading Experts

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/landmark-100-percent-renewable-energy-study-flawed-say-21-leading-experts/

On Monday, the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) published a scathing critique of Stanford Professor Mark Jacobson’s analysis, which claims a full transition of all sectors of the U.S. energy system to wind, water, and solar power by 2050 is “technically and economically feasible with little downside.”

The article, authored by 21 leading energy researchers from institutions including U.C. Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon University, Columbia University, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Jacobson’s own Stanford University, found that Jacobson’s analysis “used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions.” Thus, they conclude, Jacobson’s findings on the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of a full transition to wind, water, and solar “are not supported by adequate and realistic analysis and do not provide a reliable guide to whether and at what cost such a transition might be achieved. In contrast, the weight of the evidence suggests that a broad portfolio of energy options will help facilitate an affordable transition to a near-zero emission energy system.”

The controversy over Jacobson’s work has drawn significant attention from the popular media, because Jacobson’s work is seen as the justification for several state-level renewable energy plans and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders’ 100 percent clean energy bill (Sanders and Jacobson announced the bill in a co-authored Guardian op-ed). Pieces published in the Washington Post and MIT Technology Review summarize the major shortcomings of Jacobson’s work identified in the PNAS paper. The most glaring of which is the assumption that U.S. hydroelectric dams could add turbines and transformers to produce 1,300 gigawatts of electricity instantaneously — equivalent to over 16 times the current U.S. hydroelectric capacity of 80 gigawatts. A previous study by the U.S. Department of Energy found the maximum capacity that could be added is just 12 gigawatts — leaving a 1,288 gigawatt deficit, or the equivalent of about 1000 large nuclear or coal power plants running at full power.

For a complete rundown of the issues with Jacobson’s analysis, I suggest you read the full PNAS paper, which is clearly written and open access. Looking past the methodological minutia of Jacobson’s work and the PNAS rebuttal, I think there are two main takeaways from this controversy: (1) the research community is rigorously assessing itself in pursuit of a fully decarbonized energy system; and (2) achieving full decarbonization of the energy sector will be more challenging than Jacobson’s work implies, and downplaying those challenges does a disservice to decarbonization efforts.

snip