Home > Questions énergétiques > Déconstructions > Déconstruction du scénario mondial de Mark Z jacobson > What did Mark Z Jacobson do in front of the evidence of the failure of his (...)
What did Mark Z Jacobson do in front of the evidence of the failure of his scenario and how he considers a french democratic agreement
Scientist or Guru ?
Thursday 20 October 2016, by
The reactions of Mark Z Jacobson
On september the 5, we published a simulation of the production of the WWS scenario electrical mix and the huge number of onshore wind parks required for it
First Mark Z Jacobson replyed on october the 15  on Twitter, denying the number of wincrafts required : “His numbers are wrong. We propose 49 GW onshore and 41 GW offshore wind for France, not 177 and 95”
Then on october the 17, Mark Z Jacobson to demonstrate that “100% clean, renewable energy in France [ is not ]a delusional project”, used the circular logic referring an article written by a antinuclear activist claiming that“ Mark Z Jacobson proved it”
Peer reviewed is not fan reviewed !
Mark Z Jacobson claims :“international transition to 100% wind, water, solar by 2050 technically and economically possible http://envirobeat.com/?p=6354” with the video of himself.
Peer reviewed is not self reviewed !
Finally Mark Z Jacobson qualify us as “nuclear proponent” while we are science proponents.
Mark Z Jacobson and Science
Mark Z Jacobson has proved that California can rely on an electric mix from wind , water and sun. Easy
Then he wrote a plan for the US  with hundreds of GW flux. Such huges flows are ridiculous but the plan is realistic.
But Mark Z Jacobson wants to design a world scenario for 139 countries including regions like Europe or the indian subcontinent.
Let ’s notice some data :
US48 4000 km large , 41 people/km2, until 31° latitude areas
European Union 2000 km large, 110 people/km2 major part above 44° latitude, scarce solar ressource in winter
India 2000 km large, 330 people/km2, poor wind ressource, solar ressource disrupted by the monsoon
Writing that the US48 plan can be extended to this areas and other ones, is a falsehood
Mark Z Jacobson and the democracy
In 2008, to satisfy the antinuclear minority, France decided to erect 19 GW onshore wind capacity. Then the regional authorities have worked on the windressource. The results was in the range 17-30 GW far under the meteorological maximum given by the french government antinuclear agency ADEME.
Then, a thousand of wind park have been built, it costs one billion euros every year and tens of thousands people suffer from the externalities and have seen the value of their homes impaired. Almost each new windpark is built against the the control of the architectural review board and with inhabitants within a kilometer.
Who think France can achieve 177 GW windpower onshore : a windpark every 6 kilometers ?
And the fundamental question : why is there electricity storage and thermic back-up in european antinculear scenarios (ADEME, SRU, Kombikraftwerk, etc.) and not in the WWS one ?
The advices of énergie-crise.fr to Mark Z Jacobson :
Stop Twitter and read bottom-up wind production analysis (Flocard, Wagner for instance)
Prevent relationship with undergraduate nuts
 cf porfolio