In a readers letter to the WSJ recently, Professor Mark Jacobson of Stanford University writes—
In a readers letter to the WSJ recently, Professor Mark Jacobson of Stanford University writes—
"Sen. JD Vance states, “The net-zero project is already stifling investment in the coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants that Americans rely on for reliable, affordable ‘base load’ electricity.”
South Dakota, Montana, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and North Dakota missed that problem. They are, aside from Montana, powered primarily by wind and are among the 12 states with the highest percentage of their electricity demand produced by clean, renewable sources.
How do the 12 highly renewable states rank in terms of electricity prices? Ten of them are among the 19 states with the lowest electricity prices. Seven are among the 10 states with the lowest prices. South Dakota, with renewables supplying 95% of demand, has the ninth-lowest electricity price. North Dakota (52% renewables) has the lowest. More renewables mean lower prices...
More renewable electricity generators and batteries reduce energy prices. Even in states with high electricity prices caused by other factors, renewables and battery storage keep prices lower than they otherwise would be. Many Republican-leaning states know this. Mr. Vance’s push for more coal, gas and nuclear will drive up electricity prices for everyone."
Our Take 1: What a total lightweight argument. Jacobson appears to have simply looked at lists of state rankings based on various renewables and power metrics and then cherry-picked certain findings that support the conclusion he wants. A great example of the kind of inch-deep "proof" green advocates traffic in.
Our Take 2: There's a trick working with state and national data that many climate activists like to employ—pretend that tiny states and nations with very special circumstances are the same as the entire population of a country or the world. For example, Wyoming is a rural state with fewer than 600,000 people. It's total power consumption is 17 TWhr per year—about what Texas consumes every ten days. Are we really supposed to turn our entire energy system on its head because of what Jacobson says might be happening in Wyoming and other tiny markets?
Our Take 3: Unbelievably, Jacobson's a full (presumably tenured) professor at Stanford. As far as we can tell, he's never really left the state of California—which appears to have shaped his world view materially. Many of the arguments he makes on behalf of renewables aren't just half-baked, they are... as we've noted before... totally BANANAS. Don't buy his loopy fruit.
Our Take 4: Many of Jacobson's fellow academics are duly embarrassed by him. But don't expect them to call out his distortions. That's a kind of accountability today's academic community fails at... miserably.