Skip to main content

Amory Lovins and His Nuclear Illusion – Intro

Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) just released a 52 page paper (pdf) ranting that nuclear power is “not all it’s cracked up to be”. The report claims that the nuclear industry is misleading people that nuclear power is “competitive, necessary, reliable, secure, and vital for fuel security and climate protection.”

I’ve read and studied RMI’s claims and their “methodology”. From my examination of Lovins’ sources, it appears that many of his conclusions and claims are based on selective readings. When those readings are taken in context, they lead to very different conclusions than are presented by Mr. Lovins.

Over the next two weeks I will explain why I believe the RMI paper adds little value to the current public debate about energy policy. In the blog posts to follow, I will also show you the overall picture of how much energy we consume, how much efficiency can contribute, which energies are really making a difference, what RMI’s “solutions” really supply, and what’s up with their favorite, “micropower.”

While I disagree with much of the paper, I have gained a new appreciation for some of Amory Lovins’ and RMI’s ideas. I am a big fan of energy efficiency and I think decentralized sources of energy and cogeneration provide some great benefits. With that being said, I want to ensure that you understand the errors and limitations I found in Mr. Lovins’ latest proposals so that you can decide for yourself how seriously to take his “Nuclear Illusion”.

Comments

ken said…
Looking forward to reading your posts.
Anonymous said…
Indeed. I'm also looking forward to a look back at your archives, where we'll be able to see a clear pattern on behalf of RMI and Amory Lovins when it comes to cooking the books with their "research".
Joseph Somsel said…
While I too am a supporter of energy conservation (who isn't?) but let's differentiate between voluntary conservation and legal mandates, either direct or hidden.

The first category is both a rational calculation based on individual situations and a moral virtue ("waste not, want not.") Free markets are good at this - watch as GM shifts productions from big SUVs and trucks to smaller cars in response to cutomers' demands.

The second category is more difficult to defend, based as it is on government coercion. The hated 55 mph speed limit was enforced on the highways by men with guns on the government payroll.

A subset of that second category exists and may be justified where the one making decisions affecting operating energy costs is not the one paying for the operating energy costs. My prime example of this is the new California Energy Commission rule in Title 24 that limits the water velocity in swimming pool filter and heating systems. A pool salesman is motivated to cut the first costs of installation by using smaller pipes yet a little extra money spent in bigger pipes saves the ultimate owner a lot on electric costs of operation.

This is a useful arena for building codes. Unfortunately, we've seen this relatively hidden avenue abused by devotees of people like Lovins and government bureaucrats.
miggs said…
As you finish your posts on this subject, I'd ask you to make sure you give sufficient attention to energy efficiency and cogeneration, as you mention. Whether nuclear power should be a bigger part of our energy mix is a fine question, with good arguments on both sides. Whether current power plants should continue their gross inefficiency -- throwing out two-thirds of their fuel before the electricity even hits the grid -- should not be. I'm associated with Recycled Energy Development (recycled-energy.com), a company that does cogeneration and waste heat recovery for manufacturers. The fact is that the current system is inexcusable, with regulations protecting monopoly electric utilities and making it difficult for more efficient options to emerge. The market must become more free; the result would be lower energy costs AND greenhouse emissions, since that's what cogeneration does.

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…