Skip to main content

Bad Data Leads to Bad Conclusions

By Eric McErlain
In Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle, author Mark Hertsgaard claimed that nuclear energy won't help much when it comes to curbing CO2 emissions:
But the truth is that nuclear power is a weakling in combatting global warming. Investing in a nuclear revival would make our global warming predicament worse, not better. The reasons have little to do with nuclear safety, which may be why environmentalists tend to overlook them.
This is a claim we've seen before, but as always when a claim like this is made, it's best to follow the data trail.
As Amory Lovins, the soft energy guru who directs the Rocky Mountain Institute, a Colorado think tank . . . The upshot is that nuclear power is seven times less cost-effective at displacing carbon than the cheapest, fastest alternative -- energy efficiency, according to studies by the Rocky Mountain Institute.
Amory Lovins? Now that's a name we've heard before, associated with a claim we've heard before. Unfortunately, as my colleague David Bradish stated a few weeks back, the data that RMI relies on to support its conclusions can't be trusted:
The Rocky Mountain Institute's summer newsletter "debunked" nuclear's theology and their press release "doused the hype about 'nuclear revival' in an icy bath of real-world data". Well, after checking out the data and doing some analyses, I was far from being doused. They argue that nuclear cannot help with climate change because it is too costly and is a "failed option". Their solution to climate change is cogeneration and renewables.
In this case, cogeneration that's powered by natural gas -- a commodity that costs more than oil when it comes to electricity generation. For more on Lovins from our archives, click here.

As I've written before, it's one thing to make a claim. It's another thing to back it up. And in a time when the Web is becoming the dominant form of mass communication, is it too much to ask an author to provide a link to the study he's referring to?

Over in the New York Times, columnist John Tierney (no supporter of nuclear energy), actually takes the time to list online sources that support the conclusions that he draws. Why can't the Chronicle's op-ed page to do the same? Or do the authors of these pieces know better than to actually site the flawed studies they rely on to draw their conclusions, and let the readers examine that data themselves?

Thanks to Environmental News Bits for the pointer.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Spin but no facts. A disappointing, unsatisfying criticism of RMI.
December 19, 2008 at 4:10 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
1 comment
Read more

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Nuclear Utility Moves Up in Credit Ratings, Bank is "Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy"

By
Some positive signs that nuclear utilities can continue to receive positive ratings even while they finance new nuclear plants for the first time in decades: Wells Fargo upgrades SCANA to Outperform from Market Perform Wells analyst says, "YTD, SCG shares have underperformed the Regulated Electrics (total return +2% vs. +9%). Shares trade at 11.3X our 10E EPS, a modest discount to the peer group median of 11.8X. We view the valuation as attractive given a comparatively constructive regulatory environment and potential for above-average long-term EPS growth prospects ... Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy. SCG plans to participate in the development of two regulated nuclear units at a cost of $6.3B, raising legitimate concerns regarding financing and construction. We have carefully considered the risks and are comfortable with SCG’s strategy based on a highly constructive political & regulatory environment, manageable financing needs stretched out over 10 years, strong partners...
Post a Comment
Read more