Skip to main content

Revisiting RMI's Bad Data

One of the things we try to do here at NEI Nuclear Notes is take a closer look at the claims made by many environmentalists and put them to the test. As I've mentioned several times before, my colleague David Bradish has taken the lead in this area and given a number of studies closer look. And one of the studies that David took apart was authored by the Rocky Mountain Institute, an organization run by Amory Lovins (for more on Lovins, click here).

Unfortunately, even if you debunk a study once, others with an ideological agenda will continue to use it to buttress their flawed arguments. Such was the case when the San Francisco Chronicle ran an op-ed piece by Mark Hertsgaard titled, "Nuclear Energy Can't Solve Global Warming." In that article, Hertsgaard dutifully mentioned RMI's flawed study as if it were fact -- something we made sure to mention right away.

But as we've seen before, it doesn't stop there. Hertsgaard has since re-posted the article on his personal Web site -- and made sure it was listed in such a way that nobody could leave a dissenting comment. Subsequently, it was picked up by another blogger who quoted it as if it were gospel.

Here at NEI Nuclear Notes, we don't ask for much, but if you're going to make claims about research and the data that they rely on, you should at least show the work -- we do that all the time. And in Hertsgaard's case, the re-print of his article ought to link back to the original RMI study -- something that would help folks come to a reasonable conclusion about its claims.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Matthew66 said…
The SFC opinion piece was fairly predictable and boring. The emphasis on energy efficiency contains a fundamental flaw. If the average person, whether American, British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealander, French, Indian, Chinese, Singaporean etc.) consumes 50% less electricity by insulating their home, using low energy fluorescent lightbulbs etc. what will they do? Chances are they'll go out and buy another air conditioner, another computer, another TV etc. The thirst for electrical appliances has so far proved unquenchable. It is better to recognize that fact and to generate electricity using the most environmentally sustainable means possible. Or do the green ideologues plan to prohibit the development of new appliances, or only allow a select few to access them? Come on, the world is increasingly a consumer driven democracy, not some kind of ideological autocracy.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…