In Jacobson's view, that lobbying reach extends to PNAS, which published the relatively innocuous-sounding article "Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar" Monday. This paper is a rebuttal of Jacobson's plan by Christopher Clack, a former NOAA scientist and current CEO of Vibrant Clean Energy.
Jacobson says Clack's paper is "riddled with intentional misinformation," was written "by nuclear and fossil-fuel supporters," and is an "opinion" piece.
"The limitation of nearly 100 percent wind, solar, and water is their natural variability and covariability between hours, days, weeks, and seasons," Clack told us. "When you approach 100 percent these generation sources become increasingly expensive and difficult to guarantee supply and demand."Clack says that Jacobson's paper has erroneously been cited by policy experts as a roadmap forward; in 2015, Jacobson testified about his plan to Congress."The paper has been held as a rigorous scientific study to show that we can do this," Clack said. "The paper does, in fact not do this and moreover has mistakes that render it invalid. Therefore, we wanted to supply the literature with the scientific truths and give policymakers a correction to this misleading study."
Jacobson sent us a line-by-line rebuttal of Clack's paper, an Ecowatch article he'd written criticizing PNAS and Clack, and a paper titled "30 false and 5 highly misleading statements in the main text of [Clack's paper]."
PNAS allowed Jacobson to write a short, 500-word rebuttal to Clack's paper in this issue of the journal. Inder Verma, the journal's editor-in-chief, told us "the manuscript was reviewed by two Editorial Board Members prior to acceptance. The expert reviewers felt that the manuscript had sufficient novel information to appear as a Research Article" as opposed to a letter to the editor.
What we have are two scientific teams saying the other is categorically wrong