THE PURPOSELY CONFUSING WORLD OF ENERGY POLITICS - Afterburn: Society Beyond Fossil Fuels - page 28

However, there are indeed many documented instances of water pollution associated with frack-
ing, 2 though technically most of these have resulted from the improper disposal of wastewater
produced once hydraulic fracturing per se is finished, rather than from the process itself. Further,
industry-funded studies of fracking typically focus on sites where best practices are in place and
equipment is working as designed—the ideal scenario. In the messy real world, well casings some-
times fail, operators cut corners, and equipment occasionally malfunctions. (For their part, environ-
mentalists point to peer-reviewed studies showing air, water, and human health problems associated
with actual fracking operations.) 3
So, depending on your prior beliefs, you can often choose research findings to support
them—even if the studies you are citing are actually highly misleading.
Renewable energy is just as contentious. Mark Jacobson, professor of environmental engineer-
ing at Stanford University, has coauthored a series of reports and scientific papers arguing that solar,
wind, and hydropower could provide 100 percent of world energy by 2030. 4 Clearly, Jacobson's
work supports Politician B's political narrative by showing that the climate problem can be solved
with little or no economic sacrifice. If Jacobson is right, then it is only the fossil fuel companies and
their supporters that stand in the way of a solution to our environmental (and economic) problems.
The Sierra Club and prominent Hollywood stars have latched onto Jacobson's work and promote it
enthusiastically.
However, Jacobson's publications have provoked thoughtful criticism, some of it from support-
ers of renewable energy, who argue that his “100 percent renewables by 2030” scenario ignores
hidden costs, land use and environmental problems, and grid limits. 5 Jacobson has replied to his

critics, well, energetically. 6
At the other end of the opinion spectrum on renewable energy is Gail Tverberg, an actuary by
training and profession (and no shill for the fossil fuel industry), whose analysis suggests that the
more solar and wind generating capacity we build, the worse off we are from an economic point of
view. 7 Her conclusion flatly contradicts that of an influential report by Swiss think tank SolaVis,
which aims to show that the more renewables we build, the more money we'll save. 8 Ecologist
Charles Hall has determined that the ratio of energy returned to energy invested in capturing solar
energy with photovoltaic (PV) panels is too low to support an industrial economy. 9 Meanwhile the
solar industry claims that PV can provide all of society's power needs. 10 An article in the journal
Energy Policy claims global wind capacity may have been seriously overestimated. 11 An article in
the journal Nature says this may not be the case. 12
In sum, if you're looking for quick and simple answers to questions about how much renewables
can do for us, at what price, and over what time frame, forget it! These questions are far from being
settled.
There's a saying: For every PhD, there is an equal and opposite PhD. Does this mean science
is useless, and objective reality is whatever you want it to be? Of course not. However, politics and
cultural bias can and do muddy the process and results of scientific research.
All of this is inevitable; it's human nature. We'll sort through the confusion, given time and the
hard knocks that inevitably come when preconceptions veer too far from the facts. However, if the
more worrisome implications of climate science are right, we may not have a lot of time for sorting,
and our knocks may be very hard indeed.