Michael Shellenberger has made a serious claim [1] that renewables cannot get us where we need to go. For that, he argues, we need to invest in nuclear power. Facebook censored Shellenberger even though he was deemed correct by researchers at Princeton and Bloomberg news. FB shut down the conversation on yet another critically important national issue. Shellenberger’s article is titled “Finally They Admit Renewables Are Terrible For The Environment: New research from Princeton University and Bloomberg confirms that renewables require 300 – 400 times more land than natural gas and nuclear plants.” [2]
Over the last few years, I have been pushing back against the idea that renewables are good for the environment. In 2019 I published, “Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet,” which was the most-read article of the year at Quillette, and gave a TEDx talk by the same name, which today has 2.5 million views. And last year, in Apocalypse Never, I pointed out that wind and solar projects require 300 to 400 times more land than nuclear or natural gas plants, and that 100% renewables would require increasing land used for energy from 0.5% today to 25% to 50%.
Needless to say, the renewable energy industry and its boosters haven’t liked what I’ve written, and have sought to cancel me. Last year, a group of activist scientists denounced me as factually wrong, and demanded that I be censored by Facebook. They drew on junk science to claim that solar required just 3.6 times more land and wind just 5.8 times more than nuclear and natural gas plants. In response, Facebook censored me and denied me the right to appeal their verdict.
But now researchers at Princeton University and Bloomberg News have admitted that I was right and my critics were wrong.
Print this post [3]
[4]