New magnetic fusion technology could be ready in 5 years

[kristopher]

40. I don't agree with your characterization of peer review.

So I ask (for what, the 4th time) what peer reviewed articles support your claim? I'm not asking for opinion pieces, I'm asking for technical analysis; so it shouldn't matter what journal it is in.

What convinced me was study of the problem from the ground up. I can point you to a couple of authoritative samples that go to the conclusions of what I've studied if you like, but I'd appreciate your admitting that there is no peer reviewed material that supports your view.

I gave you a sample of one nuclear advocacy study (MIT) that couldn't make the case, now let me share another with you. You might or might not have heard of David McKay's "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air".

It is about the only high level publication (it's a book) that makes a claim similar to yours, but it is a regional not a global analysis. Nonetheless it serves as another example of how the results are not easy to come by.

McKay is a respected researcher. His book that purports to make a numbers based study of the energy alternatives available to the UK. He lays out estimated "numbers" for all of the alternatives including demand in the first section. Next he has a section where there is a discussion of the meaning of the numbers, then, to support the first section, the final section gives hard data from reliable sources.

Here is how he fudges it.

...Let’s talk about energy consumption and energy production. At the moment, most of the energy the developed world consumes is produced from fossil fuels; that’s not sustainable. Exactly how long we could keep living on fossil fuels is an interesting question, but it’s not the question we’ll address in this book. I want to think about living without fossil fuels.

We’re going to make two stacks. In the left-hand, red stack we will add up our energy consumption, and in the right-hand, green stack, we’ll add up sustainable energy production. We’ll assemble the two stacks gradually, adding items one at a time as we discuss them.

The question addressed in this book is “can we conceivably live sustainably?” So, we will add up all conceivable sustainable energy sources and put them in the right-hand, green stack.

In the left-hand, red stack, we’ll estimate the consumption of a “typical moderately-affluent person;” I encourage you to tot up an estimate of your own consumption, creating your own personalized left-hand stack too. Later on we’ll also find out the current average energy consumption of Europeans and Americans. (pg 22)

Section one, where he is "estimating", proves conclusively that renewables cannot do the job.

Section three, which contains the real data, shows his "estimates" to be pure fiction.

Look for yourself. It will take some time, but it's right here http://www.withouthotair.com/

That is, I'm afraid, about as good as it gets in the area of supporting the claim you've made.

On the flip side, everyone from the IPCC, to the UN, to the IEA, to the National Academy of Sciences to the California Energy Commission, to the National Labs to Greenpeace has produced a work that validates the belief that we can and will move into the future with renewables.

The best thing they say about nuclear (there are two analysis that agree) is that if we move away from it sooner rather than later, it would have a nearly unnoticeable impact.