The American Spectator : Unscientific American

Text Size

Unscientific American

By William Tucker on 10.28.09 @ 6:08AM

Scientific American used to be a great magazine -- before it became intellectually unsustainable.

(Page 2 of 3)

• 1.7 billion solar rooftop systems. With only 6 billion people in the world, there may not be enough rooftops to house all these. We'll have to put up some more buildings just to accommodate them.

• 89,000 solar thermal and voltaic plants, 300 MW apiece. It takes about 15 square miles to generate 1000 MW with either system. There is little room for improvement, since the limits are set by the sun's energy. That amounts 450,000 square miles, about the size of Texas and California combined. Solar mirrors and panels must be washed once a week or they collect too much dust and lose their efficiency. That's a lot of water.

Oh well, this isn't really a serious exercise, is it? The authors are just doing some creative thinking so the U.S. delegation at Copenhagen in December can have something to wave in front of the cameras. The lead editorial praises the authors' "hard-headed pragmatism," saying they show "step by step… that more than enough sustainable energy exists [and] the needed technologies are available now."

What is truly remarkable is that the authors' inventory of knowledge seems to include nothing about nuclear power, the one technology that can truly provide "green energy." To begin with, they barely make any distinction between nuclear and fossil fuels, lumping together as the old way of doing things:

Most recently, a 2009 Stanford University study ranked energy systems according to their impacts on global warming, pollution, water supply, land use, wildlife and other concerns. The very best options were wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and hydroelectric power -- all of which are driven by wind, water or sunlight (referred to as WWS). [This statement is incorrect. Geothermal energy is driven by the radioactive heat of the earth due to the breakdown of uranium and thorium. That's why I called my book "Terrestrial Energy."] Nuclear power, coal with carbon capture, and ethanol were all poorer options, as were oil and natural gas.… Nuclear power results in up to 25 times more carbon emissions than wind energy, when reactor construction and uranium refining and transport are considered. Carbon capture and sequestration technology can reduce carbon dioxide emission from coal-fired power plants but will increase air pollutants and will extend all the other deleterious effects of coal mining, transport and processing, because more coal must be burned to power the capture and storage steps. Similarly, we consider only technologies that do not present significant waste disposal or terrorism risks.

Where the authors get the notion that nuclear will emit 25 times as much carbon as wind is anybody's guess. A reactor contains about 500,000 cubic yards of concrete and 120 million pounds of steel. Yet a single 45-story windmill stands on a base of 500 cubic yards of concrete and contains as much metal as 120 automobiles. Since you need 2000 of these to equal one nuclear reactor (a very generous estimate), that adds up to twice as much concrete and steel.

Then there's the business of uranium enrichment. Environmentalists love to argue that nuclear is actually more carbon-intensive because uranium enrichment requires such huge amount of electricity. This is true in one respect. The country's only operating uranium enrichment plant in Paducah, Kentucky requires 2,000 MW of electricity -- supplied by two full-fledged coal plants. But the plant employs World War II gas-diffusion technology. The United States Enrichment Corporation's new laser enrichment plant in Ohio would consume only 5 percent as much electricity- except that the Obama Administration has mysteriously rejected its application for a $2 billion loan guarantee and work has been temporarily suspended. In any case, uranium enrichment produces carbon emissions only if the electricity is supplied by coal. If enrichment were powered by nuclear power, carbon emissions would be zero.

Then there's the business of "transporting uranium fuel." It's hard to tell what the authors are talking about here. A nuclear reactor requires a new shipment of fuel rods once every 18 months. They are delivered by about six tractor trailers. There is probably more energy expended in hauling a single giant windmill to a remote farm location than is spent in refueling an entire 1000-MW reactor.

Where the authors lose all contact with reality, however, is in talking about "reliability." Here is what they have to say:

WWS [wind, water, solar] technologies generally suffer less downtime than traditional sources. The average U.S. coal plant is offline 12.5 percent of the year for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance. Modern wind turbines have a down time of less than 2 percent on land and less than 5 percent at sea. Photovoltaic systems are also at less than 2 percent. Moreover, when an individual wind, solar or save device is down, only a small fraction of production is affected; when a coal, nuclear or natural gas plant goes offline, a large chunk of generation is lost.

Here are the facts. Every form of electrical generation is rated by what is called its "capacity factor," meaning the percentage of time, on average, it is up and running. Plants go on- or off-line for many reasons – maintenance, refueling, high costs, or simple unavailability. Coal plants are generally shut down once every two weeks to perform routine maintenance and "give the boiler a rest." Natural gas is often taken off-line because the fuel is so expensive. Hydroelectric dams shut down because of fish migrations or seasonal variations in reservoir capacity.

The generally accepted capacity factors for the various forms of generation are as follows:

• Nuclear -- >90 percent

• Coal -- ~80 percent

• Geothermal -- 75 percent

Page: < 12 3 >

About the Author

William Tucker is the author of Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (107) | Leave a comment

Sue| 10.28.09 @ 7:58AM

Yea. I picked up some of these from the library where you can place your old magazines on a rack for anybody to take. I took about six of them; read two and threw the rest into the trash can where they belonged.

Useless magazine for fact gathering.

E. Patrick Mosman| 10.28.09 @ 8:03AM

Scientific American initiated a practice of scientific censorship when it attacked not only Mr.Bjorn Lomborg's "the skeptical environmentalist", but Mr. Lomborg personally and then refused to publish his letter defending himself and his work in the magazine and threatened to sue him if he put their attack on his website along side his reply.
The following is a excerpt frm a lettr to Mr. T. Boone Pickens on his proposal to have the government fund the power and natural gas lines for his proposed wind farms and gas wells.
"Those who oppose drilling for oil also oppose the use and development of coal, shale, dams, nuclear and even wind mill(NIMBY Liberals) as energy sources all of which would be provided by investments by corporations while preferring to place their hopes in investing tens of not hundreds of billions of dollars wrested from taxpayers in the hopes that sometime in the future energy sources will be developed that will not only replace the today's energy sources but will keep up with increasing demand of the future. The ultimate source for this future energy world be it sun, wind, crops or waves is dependent on the fickle whims and fancies of mother nature an often brutal and unforgiving taskmaster. Both Newton and Einstein used a 'thought' idea to set up and think through a problem and there doesn't see to have been much thought given to to possible problems and unintended consequences of an all electric world when hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, floods, droughts, hail, snow/ice storms or enemy actions wreck havoc on the power transmission systems.
At least today gasoline and diesel powered emergency vehicles, fire, police, power company trucks from all over the US, ambulances and peoples' own vehicles were operational. How will the power companies,governments and individuals cope when such necessary vehicles are dependent on electric power and transmission lines are brought down by weather occurrences, an extended blackout from overloads or possibly an enemy EMP attack?"

JAWilson| 10.28.09 @ 8:05AM

What would ever happen to those loons if the feds ever got out of the research funding business?

John Lockwood| 10.28.09 @ 8:05AM

It isn't just Scientific American either. The other popular-level science level magazines have long since been drifting into ultra-liberal politics, offering their leftist opinion as scientific fact.

Mitch| 10.28.09 @ 8:30AM

I used to subscribe to Discovery and Popular Mechanics, among other magazines, but didn't renew around the turn of the century because they were filled the the same crap as this Scientific American article. Discovery was way over my head with a lot of their magazine, BUT I'm not that stupid.

Jim Wilson| 10.28.09 @ 8:47AM

As a youngster I found science and mathematics within the pages of Scientific American. Several years ago I noticed the drift into the Unscientific American and stopped reading it. I thought I was the only one who was troubled by the decline of a once great publication. I'm relieved to know that I am not alone. Read American Scientist.

Ben Van Johnson| 10.31.09 @ 9:38PM

I subscribed to SA until about 1999. I noticed long before that, though, that something was going amiss with its contents. The articles with equations, diagrams and charts were replaced with pictures, the writing became simplistic, the attacks on Christians (in editorials and articles) via Darwinian evolutionary boosterism and "big-bang God is not necessaryism" became rampant, etc. When Ronald Reagan was president, the mag would constantly trot out a Dr. Kosta Tipsis, to deny that missile defense was, or ever would be, possible. The final straw was an issue with a center-fold of a man who had had himself mutilated via a "sex change" operation, with an accompanying store about the brutality and sexism of the scientific community.

Richard Hilson| 10.28.09 @ 8:47AM

In general, a good article.
I have to point out that Mr Tucker is way off on the diameter of a 5MW windmill. He assumes that the power has a linear relationship. He is incorrect. The fan laws state that everything being equal, the power is a function to the 5 power. So if a 3 MW windmill has a 300 ft diameter, a 5 MW windmill would have a 333 ft dia, everything else being equal, RPM, etc.

William Tucker| 10.28.09 @ 9:04AM

Richard,

Thanks very much. You are correct.

daveng43| 10.28.09 @ 9:36AM

The force of the wind being proportional to wind pressure and the area of the fan blades indicates that the fan laws are irrelevant in the diameter. A differently shaped fan blade (larger area) can produce the same power with a smaller diameter.

Bill Powell| 10.28.09 @ 11:10AM

Dave - don't you think they are probably using the most efficient blade design currently known? I mean, there must be a reason for the currently used design and size.

Ryan| 10.28.09 @ 3:40PM

Not necessarily - models and prototypes and math can only be reasonable predictors, but real-world behaviour can send all the calculations to the wind...as it were. What's practical on paper may not carry out in the field.

JeffT| 10.28.09 @ 8:49AM

Not to mention the fact that environmentalists will NOT allow any of this to be built. Just try getting anything built nowadays, and you'll wait years for the dreaded environmental impact statement to be drawn up. Never gonna happen. We're just SOL.

LtCol| 10.28.09 @ 9:23AM

ALL the popular mag's are in the same boat, and made that change in the late 1990s. National Geo is off the wall...every story this year had to have some comment, however slight, about global warming...I've stopped taking them and they keep sending me letters wanting to know why.

Flee| 10.28.09 @ 3:31PM

Me too. They went off the global warming cliff a few years back and refused to offer any space for differing viewpoints. I think that is what is missing most from this subject is the lack of presentation of alternative viewpoints. If you want to radically alter all of our lives at least have the common courtesy to allow for an alternate opinion.

John II| 10.29.09 @ 1:32AM

Me three. But my wife and I still get National Geo each month, not for the shabby writing and smug propaganda but for the fabulous photography and the intermittent maps. And we store them in the garage as usual, year after year, in the expectation that our grandkids and maybe even their kids will some day find good use for the great pictures in their school projects.

But the reliable techie quality of the mag always puts me in mind of Michael Oakshott's famous characterization of the current era: we live in a time when technical proficiency trumps reason.

KyMouse| 10.29.09 @ 11:36AM

LtCol (thank you for your service), I've noticed for years that National Geographic has had that slant. Many articles give the impression that the world would be a better place if humans died off altogether -- that's especially true in articles about the deforestation of the "rain forest," which I still call "jungle." (I say "swamp" instead of "wetlands," too -- sue me, NatGeo!)

Peter C.| 10.28.09 @ 9:44AM

I unsubscribed to Unscientific American years ago over their constant harping over "global warming". I'm glad to see others are catching on.

Doug Crockett| 10.28.09 @ 12:31PM

I subscribed to Scientific American for almost 30 years, from junior high school until it decomposed about the time Martin Gardiner left (in the late 1980's I think). At that time, a new publisher came on and the content started loading up with liberal political nostrums. I quit when the editor started urging readers to contact a state school system that was trying to evaluate science courses that included non-Darwinian material. I figured that if I wanted to read something like Time magazine, I could do it by reading Time magazine.

chaynes| 10.28.09 @ 9:53AM

Dear Messrs Hilson and Tucker

Very respectfully, your figures on windmill sizes are incorrect. To be correct, the wind speed must somehow increase when you make the windmill bigger.

With a fixed wind speed, available windpower depends on the amount of air flowing through the windmill, much like hydroelectric dams, whose power depends on tthe amount of water, for a fixed height. For that reason, the power depends on the square of the diameter. If a 3 mw windmill is 300 feet in diameter, a 5 mw windmill would be 390 ft in diamter. Big windmills turn slower than small ones, much the way a big boat propeller turns slower than a small one.

On a separate subject, Federally funded scientific research indicates that wind may not blow continuosly, nor the sun shine at night, at least in certain locations. Did Drs. Jacobsen and Delucchi have any figures on how many baterreries would be needed to store the power, in the event that the output of the windmills and solar panels happens to drop off?

Dave| 10.28.09 @ 12:43PM

Chaynes,

Haven't you heard. The used (up) batteries from the Chevy Volt will be used to store solar power. When you have tyo swap out the batteries, the old ones go to the solar plant. LOL

Scott Nelson| 10.29.09 @ 5:38PM

Actually, the most promising energy storage method doesn't ruse batteries. It uses the intermittent power source to pump water uphill to a reservoir and then release it when needed to run a turbine. It's sort of an artificial hydroelectric concept.

JoshInHB| 10.28.09 @ 10:03AM

Last year there was a large solar reflector project, I think around 100mw, that was ready to be built in the mohave desert in ca that was killed by an environmental lawsuit. Everything was ready to go on it, planning was done, financing was in place etc. and the enviros killed it to "save" a tortoise.

JoshInHB| 10.28.09 @ 10:06AM

Actually it was a 500mw project

http://ceoworld.biz/ceo/2009/0.....ve-desert/

Teflon93| 10.28.09 @ 10:17AM

I stopped taking SciAm years ago as well when it became clear the magazine was firmly rooted to the left wing agenda of the global warming hoax, science be damned.

L. Ross| 10.28.09 @ 10:29AM

I took SciAm for years and years. Had to give it up because they basically dropped the science and just sell liberalism.

On a different point, I like windmills. I live close to Palm Springs, and I think they are simply beautiful. I would have no problems with millions of winmills dotting the landscape. I have always wondered why they don't replace the high tension towers with windmills. They could have electrical generation and transmission co-located.

Appleby| 10.28.09 @ 10:48AM

Our dear leader in Ontario (Canada, not California) has decided to go full speed ahead with windmills despite the fact that people who live as near them as he plans to place them have reported medical problems caused by the low-level continuous noise they make, and environmentalists point out that they are effective bird-and-bee-shredders.

Dear Leader Dalton refers to these complaints as "NIMBYism" and brushes them aside.

Fortunately Ontario is beyond bankrupt and none of this stuff can possibly be built; it's just a feint to try to fulfill a campaign promise to close down all our coal fired plants by 2005, leaving us here in a cold Northern country (Al Gore was wrong, it's not warming up here) to freeze in the dark.

Currently we have a group of hysterical Marching Mommies protesting the idea of running trains from downtown to the airport, plastering signs on their baby strollers shrieking SAVE MY LITTLE LUNGS! Their claim is that the line would be running 400 trains per day, which is impossible because we don't even have 400 trains in the whole system, and if you ran them that close together they'd never be able to stop for passengers.

But logic never stopped a Marching Mommy.

Otis, my man| 10.28.09 @ 8:06PM

I hate the windmills. I think they are a blot on the landscape. They wrecked a perfectly beautiful view of the eastern side of the coastal range near San Francisco. Driving on I-80 through that pass I get nauseous from the spinning blades all along the horizon. The many non-spinning ones look like wilted flowers. What a mess.

Tim| 10.28.09 @ 10:35AM

There's a hole in the ozone Dear Leader, Dear Leader...

Kim| 10.28.09 @ 11:49PM

Then fix it, Silly Milly, Silly Milly...

Wee Willie| 10.28.09 @ 11:12AM

A recent Sunday story of Rumpke dump (Cincinnati, OH area main dump) stimulated me to do a bit of approximate arithmetic. Up to 10,000 tons of household trash a day is placed in Mount Rumpke. Assume on the conservative side that 60% of that trash is carbohydrate or carbohydrate equivalent which is 6,000 tons which is 12,000,000 pounds. A pint is pound so there is 12,000,000 pints of carbohydrate equivalent. At 8 pints to the gallon there is 1,500,000 gallons per day of carbohydrate equivalent At 42 gallons to the barrel there are 35,000 barrels per day X 365 days per year means 1.3 million gallons of fuel equivalent placed in the Rumpke dump per year. Note I am neglecting yards and tree waste , construction demolition waste, animal feed lots, and so forth.

This waste, which is collected anyway, should be transported to a nuclear plant. There using the waste heat that is now vented into the air to power the grinders, blowers, electromagnets and other equipment that is necessary to heat and process the waste into useful liquids such as methanol, ethanol and biodiesel. There are a number of pilot plants in the United States that are used to convert wood and other carbohydrate waste into biofuels. We need such pilot plants to be designed to be powered by waste heat from nuclear and cola plants.

Using waste that is now buried to produce fuel is carbon neutral and would significant lessen the amount of petroleum now used.

robert hord| 10.28.09 @ 11:20AM

There is a lubricant available that will lower starting speed of a wind turbine from 7.8 mph to perhaps 2 to 3 mph if used in place of what they now use. Try and get the builders to adopt it now.

Mark Murphy| 10.28.09 @ 11:23AM

I love reading Scientific American. But as a lay person its still fairly easy to spot the garbage. A couple of years ago they had an article proposing a scheme to return the west to the condition it was in before humans arrived. It involved importing large mammals like elephants to replace the mastadons, lions and other critters. They didn't think they could get the government to go for this, just wait a few years, so they suggested that rich people should set up private preserves for this purpose.
I read somewhere that the only real sciences are math and physics and everything else is somebody's opinion.

Mark Murphy

axbucxdu| 10.30.09 @ 1:19PM

Mark Murphy said: "I read somewhere that the only real sciences are math and physics and everything else is somebody's opinion. "

Math isn't a science, heaven forbid, nor can modern physics cannot escape the category of "somebody's opinion"...

Paul from SA| 10.28.09 @ 11:43AM

Scientific American, Discovery, Popular Mechanics, Poplular Science, Nature, Science, National Geographic are magazines I used to subscribe to. Now I will not even read them for free. It got so bad, where you could be reading a fine article and toward the end, it seemed like the author was required to trash Republicans, conservatives and George Bush and blame us for all the worlds problems (all conservatives are corrupt and inferior: Conservatives are against science. Conservatives are against the environment. Conservatives are against economics. Conservatives are against the truth.).

Meanwhile they have no evidence for what they are claiming. Whether its global warming or their hatred for conservatives.

Reader's Digest, Time, Newsweek and so many others were hijacked by leftist anti-conservatives.

I think they make all their money from office subscriptions.

Mark from WI| 10.28.09 @ 11:53AM

After a near 15 year subscription to Scientific American, I cancelled it two years ago for numerous issues matching those expressed in this column. When contacted by phone regarding the reason for my cancellation, I was told by the caller that others were cancelling for the same reason.

tj| 10.28.09 @ 12:08PM

Want to do something constructive... VOTE EM ALL OUT 2010/2012. I just donated to Marko Rubio of Florida, Doug Hoffman of NY, and David Harmer of California. "We the People" can win this if we all take up the mantle against corruption and take back our country. I will never send the GOP any money evuh again until or when they return to conservative values....they just don't get it!!! Duh! What part of you lost the last 2 elections does the GOP NOT UNDERSTAND???

Anneke| 10.28.09 @ 12:23PM

Not only does this say something about the state of the magazine, it also says a lot about the state of science, especially in Academia. Too many scientists have been co-opted by environmentalism and group think. Political, social, and private agendas say "think green" and objectivity goes out the window. I recently watched a biochemistry professor/researcher shed tears over the "grave danger" the planet is in due to climate change. When emotion and self-interest (grant funding) trump rationality, science becomes belief and a religion unto itself.

mujalan| 10.28.09 @ 12:33PM

Anneke, you have said it well. I used to subscribe to SA and eagerly looked forward to getting my hands on any issue I could. The last issue or two I have picked up have been major disappointments. But you are right that all this should be setting off warning bells in our scientific community. Observations of some of the other, populist, "scientific" publications seem to point in the same direction.

Bob Miller| 10.28.09 @ 12:34PM

Maybe, enough "researchers" of this type, added together, could supply enough wind and hot air to meet our energy needs.

Alan Brooks| 10.28.09 @ 12:37PM

You mentioned the year 2030. I was friends with FM 2030, formerly Esfandiary-- the most naive person who ever lived.

Read his books to see what scientific progress is generally NOT about.

Alan Brooks| 10.28.09 @ 12:40PM

... his main flaw?:
Being born in 1930 and becoming a progressive.
Which meant marxist-influenced at that time.
And don't write that it still is the case-- that is too depressing to think about.

cdc| 10.28.09 @ 12:41PM

The irony here is hilarious. The National Spectator, a publication that regularly espouses the pseudoscientific gibberish of the Discovery Institute, criticizing Scientific American for being insufficiently rigorous.
I'm all for nit picking SA's articles, exposing errors makes science stronger, but can you direct a modicum of this skepticism at the next Discovery institute press release (I'd say research article but they have never done any).

Big Leo| 10.28.09 @ 3:22PM

We're reading the American Spectator. I've never heard of the National Spectator. You must be confused and lost. Go away and try to find the National Spectator you are talking about.

Otis, my man| 10.28.09 @ 8:08PM

LOL!

cdc| 10.29.09 @ 10:38AM

yes, American spectator. A significant mistake helpfully pointed out by several of the keenly observant readers of my post. my apologies for the inadvertant confusion I might have caused

DBL| 10.28.09 @ 12:59PM

In 1986, Scientific American was sold to a German publisher, Verlasgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH. Some time after that, the old management left and the new owner installed new editors and a new publisher. The new crew obviously decided to chase circulation and ad dollars by dumbing down the magazine and pandering to the conventional, liberal biases of the Upper West Side. The result is plain to see.

By the way, Mr. CDC, the name of the magazine you are criticizing is the "American Spectator," not the "National Spectator." Your criticisim of the Discovery Institute is spot on, but irrelevant to what's happened to Scientific American over the years.

DBCooper| 10.30.09 @ 9:12PM

The actual date that SciAm went in the toilet was 1984 when Gerard Piel died and left his brainless son Jonathan as president and editor. Verlasgruppe simply carried on the existing tradition of using editors who were not scientists.

Thank you for encouraging me to research the year that I quit reading the magazine and my 30-year collection of issues went into the trash.

CraigZ| 10.28.09 @ 12:59PM

I actually am a big of solar power. My ideal collector would be in geo-stationary orbit over the Pacific Ocean, beaming its power down to floating collectors, and sent via undersea superconducting cable to the mainland. I despair at our civilization justifying its ongoing suicide. I truly believe that we should double down and invest in our future, especially space technology. X-Prizes and other ways to encourage private space efforts are the solution. Lots of innovation, and NOTHING spent until there is a practical device. Let’s say we give the first enterprise with a 1000 MW orbital power station a check for 200 Billion dollars tax-free. Use the Stimulus. Then sit back and watch. And remember, NOTHING is spent until the power is actually coming down from the sky. This is the twenty-first century. It’s about damn time we acted like it.

Brian Mays| 10.28.09 @ 2:13PM

Jon:
Those 5 MW and 7 MW turbines to which you refer are designed to be offshore turbines. These turbines cannot be placed just anywhere. Nobody has placed a wind turbine in deep water yet. They have to be located fairly close to shore.

So where are we going to place 3.8 million of these turbines?

If we lined the entire coastline of the continental US end to end (including the shores of the Great Lakes) with these turbines packed as tightly as we can get them (spaced three diameters apart), we'd have to stack them in 90 rows of turbines to get them all in. These turbines, row after row, would stretch a distance of 34 miles out to sea!

Obviously, a significant portion of these millions of wind turbines would need to be located on land, and the 5 MW onshore turbine has not been developed yet, as far as I know.

This illustrates just how ridiculous Jacobsen and Delucchi's article is.

Mark Owen| 10.28.09 @ 1:22PM

As a geology grad student in the 1970's, the Scientific American was my Bible for factual science. Sadly I have not read one for many years because they have become a politically correct pseudo-science publication of politics. The same goes for all other "Science" publications that I have subscribed to over the years. Are there any truly scientific journals left out there? I still love factual science from many different fields but can't find an honest publication anymore. Can anyone suggest one?

David Govett| 10.28.09 @ 1:59PM

Years ago, used to read the excellent magazine regularly. Haven't bought a copy since it was politicized by the Left.
A metaphor for America.

weirdone | 10.28.09 @ 2:06PM

At some time I subscribed to most of the magazines listed by other comments. The only one I still get is National Geographic, have for about 45 years, I told my wife that I would not be renewing my subscription as I am tired of the Global Warming lectures every time I open the magazine.

Neo| 10.28.09 @ 2:36PM

Scientific American descended into "vanity" status (i.e. the authors like to see their name in print) decades ago.

Big Leo| 10.28.09 @ 3:26PM

I've been on the same course with magazines mentioned by many here. The magazines I used to get have become tiresome propaganda mouthpieces instead of merely informational. I finally dropped my subscription to the National Geographic which my family has maintained for ninety years because it had ceased to be anything but an AGW journal. Sad.

Nick| 10.28.09 @ 3:44PM

This is what is so great about the internet.

I have found several sites that treat science as something that must be provable and repeatable. And when I find new ones, I stick them in my "science" folder.

Sites like MichealChichton.com, JunkScience.com, and Watts Up With That are great on the global warming hoax, as well as other subjects.

Numbers Watch is a good site for showing how statistics are abused by scientists and the media alike.

Nick| 10.28.09 @ 3:46PM

That should be: MichaelCrichton.com

PolishKnight| 10.28.09 @ 4:10PM

This reminds me of a childhood experience that I remember. I was about 11 at the time and it was in the mid 70's.

We had a poster contest for alternative power. Mine was, in retrospect, not so good. I think it was a carefully designed plan to use bicycles to generate electrical power. I lovingly gave it to the teacher who took it politely. I later walked by and found it in the trash. It must have had a significant emotional impact upon me since I remember it.

Looking back, it was tough love. It taught me that many of my ideas were crocks and that just because they were noble, didn't entitle them to display even in an elementary school alternative power exhibit.

I suppose the other kids are all victims of their own far fledged balderdash schemes never getting the proper criticism they deserved. They included, as I remember, solar panel generators and windmills...

Otis. my man| 10.28.09 @ 8:15PM

The authors Jacobsen and Delucchi are what unemployed grad students morph into when you throw Federal Grant money at them.

The money gives them the freedom to cook up these crock ideas you refer to while sitting around campus somewhere smoking a bong.

Marc Jeric| 10.28.09 @ 4:17PM

Here is another proud "denier" - one of the over 31,000 independent professionals and scientists (including over 9,000 with PhD's, including me) who signed the "Global Warming Petition" (see Internet) stating that there is no anthropogenic global warming.
This windmill talk reminded me of a visit to La Castilla Vieja in Spain - with those ancient windmills still pumping water from undergroung wells, and remining one of Don Quijote's exploits.

Paul Kotik| 10.28.09 @ 4:33PM

This may be a silly question, but it trouble me.

Let's assume we magically come to get all of our energy requirements from wind, solar, geothermal and other so-called 'sustainable' sources, and that the total energy employed is the same as it is now.

Why should I suppose that this moving-around of energy would have total physical and chemical consequences of lesser magnitude than the ones caused by the way we currently move this much energy around? I can easily imagine the effects being different, but it seems to me that the magnitude must be exactly the same.

Not so?

envirogy| 10.28.09 @ 4:44PM

great article explaining the absurdity of sole investment in Renewables. Also great points about nuclear. Where did you get your information?
http://envirogy.wordpress.com

RAMC| 10.28.09 @ 5:23PM

Stanford University should be embarrassed to allow such a study to even be published. This a bunch of folks that need to get a strong dose of reality – just ain’t possible in the world we live in. The renewables may be out there, but the lack of political will and economics won’t let it happen. Did these characters just figure out that fossil fuels are inefficient? Most people I’ve run into over the last 50 years seemed to already know that. You also have to wonder if they know anything about arithmetic. They propose 3.8 million large wind turbines by 2030. That means we have to build, erect, and integrate into the power networks 520 wind units a day – yes each day! The plan also requires 490,000 tidal turbines (67 per day); 5,350 geothermal plants (about 3 every 4 days); 720,000 wave converters (almost 100 every day); and 1.7 billion rooftop photovoltaic systems (almost 233,000 every day) –Huh!!!!!!!!) Who are these so-called professors. It's scary to think that they're teaching people about energy, a subject about which they obviously have little understanding and to whcih they bring no common sense.

Avitar| 10.28.09 @ 5:44PM

The magazine Scientific American wwass sold to a German publisher mor than a decade ago. The tone of the magazine changed to Social Democrat and has never improved.

DaveS| 10.28.09 @ 6:32PM

Anything but nuke; anything but market; anything but 'natural;' pulleeeeezzzzze! U-235 is natural - and so is the fission process (thank you, Lord.) Delusion is not remedied by an academic credential. The anti-nuke stance is a child of the anti-war 60s and 70s crowd.

Richard Baker| 10.28.09 @ 7:45PM

Have read copies of "Scientific American" from 60-70+ years ago and the recent editions are pale, in comparison. Hard to imagine that a magazine that wrote about the Wright brothers, Edison, Tesla, and so many others has reduced itself to birdcage flooring.

Pingback| 10.28.09 @ 8:21PM

The American Spectator : Unscientific American | Solar General links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…: Unscientific American I suppose the other kids are all victims of their own far fledged balderdash schemes never getting the proper criticism they deserved. Read the rest here: The American Spectator : Unscientific American This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 28th, 2009 at 4:08 am and is filed under Solar generators. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave…

Kevin| 10.28.09 @ 8:28PM

American Scientist is a magazine comparable in level to the old Scientific American. It is published by a technical society, but is available at bookstores and by subscription.

I have not read it regularly enough to know how steeped in the global warming tea it is, but it is worth a good look.

Joseph Hertzlinger| 10.28.09 @ 8:48PM

Leftist propaganda in Scientific American is nothing new. Doesn't anybody here recall their hatchet job on Herman Kahn?

On the other hand, it used to be segregated in just a few articles. You could ignore the first article, "Science and the Citizen", and the book reviews and the rest would be a safe zone. That is no longer the case.

Raoul Ortega| 10.28.09 @ 10:41PM

Exactly. I started subscribing in high school, and even I noticed back in the 70s/early 80s that the first article was always something that would fit right in with the agitprop in "The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" when it wasn't some sort of social science drivel. But it was when they stopped having the covers with the single illustration with a large white border that things went downhill.

philfl63| 10.28.09 @ 9:28PM

God's sake people. Just tell those pot-head, liberal hippies to STFUP.

Tony in Central PA| 10.28.09 @ 9:46PM

Scientific American is now like something out of the movie " Idiocracy ". I used to subscribe twenty years ago. I picked one up at a newsstand earlier this year and saw that things had changed. Lots of big, brightly colored pictures covered the pages with far simpler explanations than I was used to seeing. The article titles were sensationalistic and the articles themselves short on , well, science. Ugh.
I want to say something about windmills as well. We've got a lot of them near my town, and most of the time at the biggest nearby farm, most of them aren't turning. I don't think this is due to maintenance. I talked to a guy who recently retired from Penelec and got the sense that many of them are only activated when demand goes up because wind energy is unreliable in terms of providing base power generation. This probably means the authors underestimated the number of windmills we'd be needing.

SteveBrooklineMA| 10.28.09 @ 11:34PM

SA did have a nice article in December 2005 about the potential of nuclear fuel recycling. It is here:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/.....SA1205.pdf

yesIsaid FBO| 10.29.09 @ 12:20AM

The dirty little secrect the fanboys don't like to talk about is embodied energy (the total amount of energy required to build a working windmill). Rarely will the device return the embodied energy investment in less than 10 years (about the standard lifespan of a windmill turbine).
God put oil, gas, coal and uranium in the ground becuase he loves us. We should be gracious and accept the gift responsibly.
Windmills are an eyesore.

DBCooper| 10.30.09 @ 9:39PM

A Google search turns up estimates ranging from 2 monthe to 12 months. Nothing close to ten tears.

Clark Hicks| 10.29.09 @ 12:29AM

I took the magazine for years, starting in 1970, and loved it. Then they started with the PC articles and I dropped them like a hot potato. I refuse to give my money to a PC company. They will go the way of the newspapers. How's that liberalism working for your balance sheet now SA?

JohnWesternMass| 10.29.09 @ 3:33AM

I've not seen anyone mention biomass as an alternative to fossil fuels for generation electricity. Several writers have noted that wind and solar can only provide "peak" power (when the wind is blowing and/or the sun is shining). Biomass and hydro are the only two major renewables capable of providing "baseload power" (a constant flow of electritiy 24/7).

Environmentalists claim that biomass will denude our public and private forests but the fact is that every state creates what is called clean waste wood in the form of roadside clearing debris, old broken wood pallets, stump removal, and the "slash" created by commercial logging operations which leaves 40% of the tree on the forest floor. NIMBYs are theoretically correct in their fears of laying waste to our forestlands but only if too many biomass plants would be built.

Futher, market conditions would mitigate against clear cutting forestlands. Here in Massachusetts, more forestland is owned by private parties than by the state. No forestland owner in his right mind would sell a tree worth plus or minus $1,000 as a saw log for as little as $25 a ton as wood chips. And no investor is going to risk his investment unless it is clearly demonstrated that there is a sustainable wood fuel supply.

Unlike a lot of other readers of the American Spectator, I don't think that global warming is a hoax. I think we're in deep doo doo, primarily because an ever-expanding global population places strains on the environment in many ways including the need for more electric power and the consequences of that need.

Nick| 10.29.09 @ 11:42AM

John,

Instead of THINKING that "we're in deep doo doo", is it not better to base your conclusions on facts?

Go to MichaelCrichton.com and read his speeches on AGW.

Jim O'Brien| 10.29.09 @ 7:37AM

Ask the average American if "greenhouse gases" are bad, and he will say Yes. The public doesn't even know that the earth would be much too cold for humans if we did not have greenhouse gases. The public doesn't even know that water vapor is a major "greenhouse gas". The public doesn't know that CO2 is essential for life, doesn't realize that CO2 is merely a trace element in the atmosphere (about 380 ppm), and doesn't understand that climate is so complex that even our best scientists don't understand it. The weatherman can't tell us for sure if Hurricane K will hit Florida or Louisiana in 48 hours, but the "climate scientists" of academia claim to know that the average sea level in NYC in 2075 will be 13 inches higher than now. Boy, are they smart or what?

I notice in my local public library that there are about 20 rows of novels, but just two rows of science and math books ...........

Thinknt| 10.29.09 @ 11:37AM

Why is there so little discussion about the energy savings that can be achieved with conversion to L .E.D lighting ? Not only the energy, but the ongoing maintenance, initial installation [ less copper all the way back to the power source! ] Another considerable benefit could be the flexibility of directing the light to what you intend to illuminate [ not outer space or your eyes ]. If you do the math, even retro-fitting with still costly bulbs compelling.

JOHN ROLIN| 10.29.09 @ 5:00PM

When I was in high school and college, I used to love the Science and Mathematics in SA. Now that I am retired, I find that the magazine has devolved into a social -cultural screed for the liberals. It is not only the magazine, but this unfortunate state of affairs in many scientific endeavors today. Just look into what is happening in the GW debate.

It is a sad day when scientists pervert science in the service of polical and social causes.

Blane Burns| 10.30.09 @ 3:45PM

The basis of all serious breackthroughs in science are the result of philosophy. Wild hair (Hare?) ideas and flights of fantasy. That is how Einstein and company did it. Talking math and 'what if's'. The problem now is tht we have small minds with too much education and too narrow an education. People educated beyond their intelligence. We meet them every day. They are blinded by their own diplomas. They get where they are by telling folks what they want to hear. Science has been that way for years.

Pingback| 11.1.09 @ 11:40AM

Steynian 394 « Free Canuckistan! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…by James Bowman …. (newcriterion) ~ ADVICE FROM A Hollywood Fairy Who Should Have Stuck to Getting Wooden Boys Out of Scrapes and Stayed Out of Moral Philosophy …. (merecomments) ~ SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN used to be a great magazine but like any publishing venture headquartered in New York, it has gradually drifted into liberal never-never-land …. (spectator) ~ HATEFUL ATHEISTS Do It Again, Nix…

injection machine| 11.2.09 @ 2:41AM

Hangzhou Atech Machinery Co,.Ltd:injection machine
plastic injection machine

injection machine| 11.2.09 @ 2:42AM

Injection Molding Machine Vertical Injection Molding Machine

Lazy Jack| 11.4.09 @ 11:14AM

With the possible exception of the chief Skeptic himself, Michael Shermer, genuine skepticism appears to be as scarce at Scientific American as evolution is in Kansas’ public schools. Even Michael, when it comes to economics and the impact of science on our economic systems, appears to be a SINO (Skeptic In Name Only). As a longtime subscriber and fan of the men and women working to advance our understanding of the universe around us, I have seen a noticeable trend in support of left-of-center-only (LOCO) opinion related to climate change, economics, healthcare, and other issues. My perception may be incorrect but it seems the direction of editorial opinion, for example, in perspective and sustainable developments is clearly tilted in a direction supported less by facts than ideology. Mr. Tucker’s point is also well taken that “A Plan for a Sustainable Future….” appears long on wishful thinking and short on real world applicability.

http://thanksforthelaughs.word.....-skeptics/

Pingback| 11.25.09 @ 5:45AM

Climate Fraud and the Environmental Agenda | Holeinthehull links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…0.003 MW 49,000 300 megawatt solar thermal plants 40,000 300 megawatt photovoltaic power plants This makes for an impressive picture. Unfortunately, it’s almost completely empty. Writing in The American Spectator , William Tucker completely demolishes the argument in his customary thoroughgoing fashion. (Anyone dealing with detailed tech policy questions would do well to study how Tucker handles it.) Tucker…

Jonathan| 11.25.09 @ 2:51PM

I've been reading Scientific American for 30 years and I, too, am dismayed by its recent leftward drift. There are far too many articles on "climate change" and the superiority of liberal thinking. The magazine has adopted the same snotty, condescending tone as most of the other magazines that cater to liberal elites. Very sad.

ItsMe| 11.25.09 @ 3:44PM

I can't wait to spend a day on the beach with the wind turbines & tidal generators. Just pull out the latest SA and enjoy the day.

Unfortunately, we are doomed in Coppenhagen. Our Greenie-In-Chief supports anything that will make leftists $ at the expense of the AMerican taxpayer.

Sad. :(

Pingback| 11.26.09 @ 12:33AM

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming - Page 6 links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…asses in it. It also does a rather good job of rebutting your much ado about nothing comment with regard to the leaked emails (albeit in a rather technical manner). And while we're on the subject, THIS article has an interesting take on the whole sustainable energy push (which is part and parcel of the global warming blitzkrieg carried out by the left). Jim Remove Advertisements Sponsored Links…

chris| 11.26.09 @ 5:23PM

Are there any windmill manufacturers that rely only on wind and solar power to build their windmills? Are there any solar panel makers that rely solely on wind and solar to build their solar panels? I doubt it. If climate change can cause temperatures to go up (see Gore, Al) or down (see "The Day After Tomorrow"), can cause floods and also droughts, etc, etc, how will we be able to tell that we've finally solved the diabolical problem of AGW? I am a real scientist (Ph.D. in organic chemistry) and I am truly ashamed at the state of science today. The first casuality of progressivism is always the truth. Human caused global warming is to science today what bloodletting was to medicine centuries ago. AGW is nothing more than an elaborate hoax funded by generous taxpayer subsidies and its real purpose is as a rationale for raising taxes and bringing about world governance. Even if it is all a lie. For progressives, the end always justifies the means. As for SI, I haven't read it in years, and it used to be my favorite magazine. Rationality will return someday. But that day will have to wait until liberals are out of political power.

Pingback| 12.1.09 @ 3:31PM

Cooler Heads Digest 30 October 2009 | GlobalWarming.org links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…28 October 2009 Poll: Cap-and-Trade Losing Support Keith Johnson, WSJ Environmental Capital, 28 October 2009 The Cap-and-Trade Folly Senator David Vitter, Heritage Foundry blog, 28 October 2009 Unscientific America William Tucker, American Spectator, 28 October 2009 UN Signals Delay on a Climate Treaty Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press, 27 October 2009 Kerry-Boxer: Its Bite Is Worse than Its Bark Marlo Lewis,…

Perry Curling-Hope| 12.10.09 @ 7:21AM

"U of Mass. Biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we presently burn in one year were produced from stores of organic matter "containing 44Å~10 to the 18 grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet's current biota." In plain and simple English, this means that every year we use four centuries' worth of planetary plant and animal matter that were converted into fossil fuel over many millions of years. Every single barrel of oil replaces 25,000 man hours of human labor energy. The idea that we can simply replace fossil fuel and the extraordinary power density it provides with a fast market shift to “green” energy is the stuff of wild science fiction. "

A Biofuel Reality Check; A Sane Voice from Iowa Farm Country By Michael Richards

aa| 4.3.10 @ 9:01PM

www.us-chloeoutlet.com