Controversy Explodes over Renewable Energy Post Carbon Institute. A heated debate in the pages of one of the country’s most renowned scientific journals has gained national attention.

The debate is over whether a combination of wind, solar, and hydroelectricity could fully power the U. S. But both sides of the debate are completely missing half of the equation. In a series of papers published over the last few years, Mark Jacobson of Stanford University (along with co- authors) has offered a series of transition plans for achieving a 1. These include comprehensive blueprints for the United States, for each individual state, and for the world as a whole. Meet The Parents Full Movie.

His message is clear: such a transition is not only possible, it’s affordable—cheaper, in fact, than maintaining the current fossil fueled system. There is no technical or economic barrier to an all- renewable future—only a political one, resulting from the enormous influence of fossil fuel companies on Congress and the White House. Jacobson’s plans have been touted by celebrities (Leonardo Di. Caprio and Mark Ruffalo) and at least one prominent politician (Bernie Sanders). However, during the past two years a group of scientists unconvinced by Jacobson’s arguments has labored to craft a critical review of his plans, and to get it published in the same journal that printed Jacobson’s own most- cited paper. They voice a concern that the growing popularity of Jacobson’s plans could lead to critical mistakes in policy making and investment choices.

The lead author, Christopher Clack, and his 2. Jacobson’s assumptions and highlight what they call serious modeling errors. Much of their criticism has to do with Jacobson’s ways of getting around solar and wind power’s most notorious drawback—its intermittency.

Jacobson says we can deal with cloudy and windless days by storing energy in the forms of underground heat and hydrogen. Clack et al. point out that doing so on the scale Jacobson is proposing is unprecedented (therefore, we really don’t know if it can be done), and also argue that Jacobson made crucial errors in estimating how much storage would be needed and how much it would cost. The stakes in this controversy are high enough that the New York Times and other mainstream media have reported on it. One pro- renewables scientist friend of mine despairs not just because of bad press about solar and wind power, but also because the reputation of science itself is taking a beating. If these renowned energy experts can’t agree on whether solar and wind power are capable of powering the future, then what are the implications for the credibility of climate science? Jacobson and colleagues have published what can only be called a take- no- prisoners rebuttal to Clack et al. In it, they declare that, “The premise and all error claims by Clack et al.

Jacobson et al. . In a separate article, Jacobson has dismissed Clack and his co- authors as “nuclear and fossil fuel supporters,” though it’s clear that neither side in this debate is anti- renewables. However, Clack et al.

Jacobson’s line- by- line rebuttal, and it’s fairly devastating. This is probably a good place to point out that David Fridley, staff scientist in the energy analysis program at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, and I recently published a book, Our Renewable Future, exploring a hypothetical transition to a 1. While we don’t say so in the book, we were compelled to write it partly because of our misgivings about Mark Jacobson’s widely publicized plans. We did not attack those plans directly, as Clack et al. Our exploration of the subject revealed that source intermittency is indeed a serious problem, and solving it becomes more expensive and technically challenging as solar- wind generation approaches 1. A further challenge is that solar and wind yield electricity, but 8.

1. Hey! Who wants a grilling tip before summer’s over? This one’s great: for best results, when transporting your grill, make sure the gas is off and for the love of.
2. Watch One Piece Episodes English Subbed & Dubbed at WatchOP: WatchOP is now back! Our old URL (watchop.com,watchop.eu is not anymore available. please bookmark the.

Therefore the energy transition will entail enormous changes in the ways we use energy, and some of those changes will be technically difficult and expensive. Our core realization was that scale is the biggest transition hurdle. This has implications that both Jacobson et al., and Clack et al. Jacobson’s plan, for example, envisions building 1. And the plan’s assumed hydro expansion would require 1.

Mississippi River. If, instead, the United States were to aim for an energy system, say, a tenth the size of its current one, then the transition would be far easier to fund and design. When we start our transition planning by assuming that future Americans will use as much energy as we do now (or even more of it in the case of economic growth), then we have set up conditions that are nearly impossible to design for. And crucially, that conclusion still holds if we add nuclear power (which is expensive and risky) or fossil fuels (which are rapidly depleting) to the mix. The only realistic energy future that David Fridley and I were able to envision is one in which people in currently industrialized countries use far less energy per capita, use it much more efficiently, and use it when it’s available rather than demanding 2. That would mean not doing a lot of things we are currently doing (e. If powerdown—that is, focusing at least as much on the demand side of the energy equation as on the supply side—were combined with a deliberate and humanely guided policy of population decline, there would be abundant beneficial side effects.

From the Archives: The Making of Rebecca (9+ Minutes Long and full TV Size) ~ This is the first of some very raw old footage way before I ever joined Dreamnet. The internet is inherently deceptive. While I know most of you assume I write from a luxurious, sumptuously upholstered cabin in a perpetually globe-circling zeppelin.

The climate change crisis would be far easier to tackle, as would ongoing loss of biodiversity and the depletion of resources such as fresh water, topsoil, and minerals. Jacobson has not embraced a powerdown pathway, possibly because he assumes it would not appeal to film stars and politicians. Clack et al. do not discuss it either, mostly because their task at hand is simply to demolish Jacobson. But powerdown, the pathway about which it is seemingly not permissible for serious people to speak, is what we should all be talking about. That’s because it is the most realistic way to get to a sustainable, happy future.

How To Uncover Online Car Escrow Scams. The internet is inherently deceptive. While I know most of you assume I write from a luxurious, sumptuously upholstered cabin in a perpetually globe- circling zeppelin, the truth is that I’m usually stationed on a damp mattress crammed into the back of a wrecked Econoline. In much the same way, a car buying website with a name you trust may, in fact, be a total scam.

Like this fake Edmunds site is. Neither the scam nor many of these sites are new, exactly, but they’re still very much around and many are designed well enough that they can be deceptive to many car buyers. What’s the scam? The basic scam is pretty simple; the site claims to be a respected escrow service, to add a layer of security when you’re paying a lot of money for a car to a stranger. Here’s how a site that seems to be part of the respected Edmunds. Buyer and Seller agree to term.

Buyer submits payment to Edmunds. Seller or Edmunds delivers the vehicle to buyer. Buyer approves the vehicle. Edmunds releases payment to seller. The scam here is that the escrow site is first, not associated with Edmunds, and second, the escrow site isn’t an escrow site at all, just some jackass who will take your money and keep it.

A reader sent us the link to this particular site, the one that claims to be part of Edmunds so that’s the one we’ll focus on now, but remember, there’s more of these sites. Looking at the site, it apes the look and feel of the normal Edmunds site pretty well: As you can see, the fake site mimics the Edmunds logo, top navigation bar design, typography, and overall look and feel.

It’s not quite perfect, but to a great many car buyers, it’s more than close enough. Even the URL of the site is deceptive. The real Edmunds is www. Edmunds escrow site is www.

To many users, seeing the edmunds. Edmunds. It’s not, of course. The actual web domain is the inv- sll. WHOIS on that domain, we find this: Last we checked, Edmunds is not owned and operated by a Manchester woman named Samantha. I went on the fake Edmunds escrow site to see what I could find out from the online tech support there, and decided to ask them if the site was affiliated with Edmunds. Since I’m a suspicious bastard, that actually wasn’t good enough for me, so I contacted Edmunds.

Edmunds- affiliated escrow site with the URL I was visiting. Here was my response: Hi Jason, Thanks for bringing this to my attention. No, Edmunds has no affiliation with this site - unfortunately, this is a fairly common scam that impacts many third party shopping sites. When these pop up, we work with our legal team to notify the appropriate authorities, but the best prevention is consumer education.

We regularly update consumer advice articles warning consumers of the red flags, and our shopper support team also posts updates as well (links below). I’ll be sure to forward this over to our Legal team. Hope this helps, Nicole Shocking, right? Of course, the whole thing is a scam to take your money and keep you from getting the cars you wanted with that money, possibly one of the worst crimes a human can commit. Nicole of Edmunds had a good point about consumer education, which is exactly why I’m writing this now: these sites exist, and we should all be aware of them, and not let them get away with this shit. Adding another layer of deception, the fake site provides a section where you can see their ‘licenses.’ This is part of the website that, with cruel, cold irony, seeks to warn the buyer that this sort of escrow service is necessary because the internet is an uncertain, dangerous place: At Edmunds, we know uncertainty doesn’t feel good. You can rely on us to ensure your vehicle or payment is protected with every transaction.

When your transaction happens behind the Edmunds shield, you can be certain your funds will be safeguarded by our simple payment steps. It’s our job to sweat the small stuff. We’ll make sure your sale is safeguarded from fraud while you focus on your business. Oh, you fuckers. They do give some plausible- looking licenses and credentials.. The California Department of Business Oversight license is absolutely a real thing. In fact, the license number, 9.

The problem is that it’s not issued to this site. That’s actually the license number of Escrow.

Edmunds site says it will do, just without all the lying and crime. That means you can google the license number and find it’s valid, and related to an escrow company, which this Edmunds site claims to be. For many people, this could seem like a plausible validation of the site. So, how do you know what’s real? If you want to use an escrow site when buying a car, making sure the one you’re working with is real can be tricky, but I think the best bets are to be a bit skeptical, and keep an eye open for details. Specifically, here’s some tips: Check that URL.

Look at the domain name. Really look at it. Remember that a URL can have a lot of other characters that look like URLs in the string of characters that makes up the address. Take the case of this site; here, the actual URL was at the end, before the final . URL is just there to confuse and make it look like a real Edmunds site: www.

A real Edmunds site would have separated other parts of the URL with slashes, like this : edmunds. Weird- looking, long, or confusing URLs can be a tipoff that something is up. How’s it look? Almost all major, genuine companies that are in this business have money to spend on making their websites look just right.

If things look weird or sloppy, that’s usually a sign something’s up. Here’s an example from this site: See the sort of clumsy overlap of the semi- transparent navigation window and the text box on the lower left? Also, note the awkward look of that center- justified paragraph in the window? None of that would pass muster at the real Edmunds site, and sites with design that looks bit short of professional should be suspect. Be a grammar national- socialist.

Are there misspellings, misused punctuation, foreign spellings, or other errors? Real companies don’t allow that shit. I mean, we sometimes do, but that’s different. On a reputable car- buying site, details like this..

Be wary. Play it safe. Look, this isn’t buying locally- brewed beer or eating bacon from the farm just outside of town. Stick with the big companies that do this sort of thing all the time. Of course, Edmunds is such a company, and this site exists, so don’t be afraid to reach out.

Call or email companies and ask about sites or URLs or anything you’re uncomfortable with. I reached out to the owner of this fake Edmunds URL via phone and email, and have yet to receive a response. Once again, I’m stunned. Be careful out there.