Reply #58: You mean you've attempted to justify your unjustifiable position

[kristopher]

with baseless attacks like you just made instead of accepting the very, very clear results of the analysis.

Each energy source has a set of characteristics that are germane to determining the functional value of that technology. Nuclear and coal are virtually identical in their set of operational characteristics and those characteristics are distinctly different than those of hydro. Hydro allows stepped, incremental escalation or reduction of water flow and associated generation by using sets of generators that are far smaller than the typical coal/nuclear generator. That makes it a far more flexible generating source and, therefore, a far better fit with variability of the best low carbon technologies.

Let me repeat that the only criticism of Jacobson's paper is from 1) the nuclear lobby and 2) the ethanol lobby - both of which are seeking public funding for their technologies that perform poorly in the analysis. A strong indicator that those criticisms are fundamentally flawed is shown by the fact that none of those criticisms were able to make it past reviewers to be printed in the journal as a response to Jacobson.

Now, you've manufactured (or at least you are reciting) yet another misguided, ill-informed criticism of the facts in an attempt to preserve your sense of mental comfort against the otherwise overwhelming assault of cognitive dissonance that Jacobson's paper causes you to experience.

Grow up.