Mark Jacobson is a crackpot! He's famous for larding the carbon footprint of nuclear power with soot from future nuclear wars. His original Scientific American study proposes hydrogen for transportation. He's now touting cryogenic airplanes. He's clueless about how impractical actually using hydrogen is. He also appears to be cherrypicking capacity numbers over generation ones. And Amory Lovins is being very disingenuous touting Germany's renewable generation. Bjorn Lomborg sucinctly [sic] demolishes their wind and solar claims:
Well, I called Jacobson a crackpot and accused Amory lovins of being disingenuous. Is this ample justification for canning my comment? I think I provided plenty of examples to back up my claims. There are seven comments that all pretty much fawn over Jacobson. Here's a ridiculous quote by commenter Freddy D:
Mark Jacobsen shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that all the worlds primary energy needs can be met with wind, water, and solar.