Double-Checking The Facts on Amory Lovins

After giving an interview with the Toronto Star, Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute is starting to kick up some dust again. And as any reader of NEI Nuclear Notes remembers, whenever Lovins makes his case against nuclear energy, we warn folks to double-check his data.

Below I've listed a selection of entries from our archives where we've dealt with his claims in detail:

Rod Adams vs. Amory Lovins
Bad Data Leads to Bad Conclusions
More Bad Data From Amory Lovins
Revisiting RMI's Bad Data
Revisiting RMI and Amory Lovins

I'd also suggest you take a closer look at some of the more recent work by Rod Adams of Atomic Insights.

Lovins math continues to confuse me
Are these examples of the "micro" power that Lovins likes?

And here's a doozy you shouldn't miss:

Amory Lovins' Academic Career

Happy reading!

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Electricity, Carbon Emissions, Rocky Mountain Institute, Amory Lovins

Comments

Randal Leavitt said…

In the middle of all the confusion that Lovins causes there is a message that tne pronuclear people should hear: Big Is Slow. The nuclear industry needs to revitalize its thinking by developing much smaller systems that can be put into position quickly. The regulatory regime used today stifles this kind of innovation.

October 24, 2006 at 11:09 PM

Wednesday Update

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...

Fluor Invests in NuScale

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...

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog