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

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more