Skip to main content

The Debate with Amory Lovins Continues

Here's their rebuttal to my part two.

Comments

Charles Barton said…
David, you continue to point out the inconsistencies in Lovins work. It would appear that the RMI is in disarray over the Jevons Paradox issue.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/beating-energy-efficiency-paradox.php

Lovins will probably rest his case on the Calironia example, but this is a case where Lovins inspired government policy has created an energy shortage. The resulting price rise created a drive for energy efficiency.

Far from confounding Jevons Paradox the California case is an example of how shortage induces efficiencies.
Matthew B said…
As you note, high energy prices in California drive efficiency. But they also drive energy intensive industries out of the state. The energy consumption statistics of California ignore the consumption involved in that manufacturing that is no longer in California.
Charles Barton said…
matthew b The cost of California electricity and the consequences of that high cost, are problems to be laid at Lovins' feet.
Anonymous said…
Actually, I disagree with Charles. The real blame goes to the people who decided to believe in and act in accordance with Lovins and his disinformation. True, much culpability can be laid at Lovins' feet for the disinformation he has knowingly disseminated. But ultimately, you reap what you sow and, California has sown the whirlwind. The "peepul" deserve what they declared that they wanted. And so goes democracy - two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner.

I for one don't feel one bit of pity for the foolish "peepul" who placed their faith in Lovins. Rather, I feel sorry for those very few innocent individuals who opposed Lovins and now must reap what the majority of Californians wanted.

Fruits and nuts beget - well, fruits and nuts!
Anonymous said…
It's true that you reap what you sow. The voters in CA decided to ban nuclear construction, and now they are faced with shortages, high prices, importing electricity from surrounding states, dependence on unreliable sources that can't carry the load (wind), and using more carbon-based fuels like natural gas. The voters in SMUD decided to trash Rancho Seco, foolishly believing the liars who said they could make up the shortage by putting solar panels on the plant site, enacting efficiency measures, and believing in the vain and vapid promise of "negawatts". You see what happened. They couldn't carry the load. Anyone with any common sense could have foreseen that outcome. Well, they made their bed, let them lie in it.
Matthew66 said…
California may have a republican government, and some democratic looking institutions, but it is far from a democracy. In most states in this country, the state legislatures draw the state and federal congressional districts to ensure that the districts never change parties. I would consider governors, Federal Senators and Mayors to be democratically elected, but most federal and state representatives are elected by gerrymander so are hardly democratic.

I'm not convinced that the California energy policy is anything other than the views of social elite imposed upon the majority.
bw said…
I had posted to the first part of their rebuttal.

The Lovins paper declares nuclear to be a dieing for decades industry but nuclear increased power generation by 400% since the 70's when that claim was first made.

The Natural gas which is the bulk of the "micropower" generation, still kills 4 people per TWH. So 2000 TWH would be 8000 deaths per year. (Externe source)

Natural gas is not renewable.

All power source construction costs have gone up. Wind (more concrete and steel, turbine shortages and order backlog), solar (they have to make the plants and equipment to produce the solar).

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…