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

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…

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 …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…