Amory Lovins continues Sowing Confusion About Renewable and Nuclear Energy

On August 5, 2014, Amory Lovins published a commentary on Forbes.com titled Sowing Confusion About Renewable Energy. He was responding to an opinion piece published in the July 26, 2014 issue of The Economist that was based on a working paper titled The Net Benefits of Low and No-Carbon Electricity Technologies written by Charles R. Frank of the Brookings Institute.

Lovins so strongly rejected the conclusions of that paper that he wrote a 12-page critique of the paper that is available on this page of the Rocky Mountain Institute’s (RMI) web site. Here is a statement from Frank’s paper abstract that explains why it drew Lovins’s ire:

First–assuming reductions in carbon emissions are valued at $50 per metric ton and the price of natural gas is $16 per million Btu or less–nuclear, hydro, and natural gas combined cycle have far more net benefits than either wind or solar. This is the case because solar and wind facilities suffer from a very high capacity cost per megawatt, very low capacity factors and low reliability, which result in low avoided emissions and low avoided energy cost per dollar invested.

Lovins ridiculed Dr. Frank’s conclusions and the editorial decision by The Economist to publish its article about them as follows:

As soon as The Economist featured his paper, their inboxes and Twitter feeds lit up with incredulity: could his conclusions possibly be true?

They’re not (and yes, I’ve written The Economist a letter saying so). My detailed critique at www.rmi.org/frank_rebuttal explains why, and cites two other reviews and a podcast. But for anyone who knows the subject, Dr. Frank’s con­clu­sions don’t even pass the giggle test.

The diligent Dr. Frank has collected not just one wrong number but a flotilla, together driving a false conclusion that gained a prominent platform in The Econo­mist. The ana­lytic lesson: rapidly changing data quickly pass their sell-by date.

Lovins describes how he and members of his staff at RMI performed a new analysis using different input numbers that supposedly reflected more modern performance and cost numbers and came to their own conclusion.

Presto! The conclusions flipped. Instead of gas combined-cycle and nuclear plants’ offering the greatest net benefit from displacing coal plants, followed by hydro, wind, and last of all solar, the ranks reversed. The new, correct, story: first hydro (on his purely economic assumptions) and gas (only if we omit its price volatility), then wind, solar, and last of all nuclear—still omitting efficiency, which beats them all.

Though this piece is not going to be a point by point answer of the Lovins’s/RMI rebuttal of Frank’s paper, there is a particular section in that work that may help to illustrate the habit that Amory Lovins has for making statements that can be misinterpreted as indicating that he is erring on the conservative side by providing underestimates of the performance of unreliable energy collection systems like wind.

It would have been simpler and far more accurate to use modern data. The missing table is in the latest (30 July 2014) online EIA data, which for 2008–13 show 31.0% average wind capacity factor (and for the first five months of 2014, 38.2%);

An uncritical reader might think that wind performance is on a rapid rise with that substantial uptick in the most recently available data set, but people who pay careful attention to weather patterns might recall that the first five months of any year (late winter and spring months) will generally be windier than the next four months of June, July, August and September.

In the comment section following the article, Amory Lovins and I have engaged in a back and forth that I’d like to preserve in an area where I have editorial control. You may or may not find it interesting. I’ve tried to organize the comments together in conversations separated by solid lines.
Read more »

Atomic Show #217 – Michael Mariotte, President NIRS

At the suggestion of a long time Atomic Insights contributor and Atomic Show listener, I invited Michael Mariotte for a guest appearance on the Atomic Show. In the small world made up of active nuclear advocates and people adamantly opposed to nuclear energy, Mariotte and his organization are famous — or infamous, depending on one’s […]

Read more »

James Hansen is worried about CO2 and realistic about solutions

Dr. James Hansen is perhaps the world’s most famous and stubbornly insistent climate change activists. He bases his concerns on several decades worth of intensive research. During part of his career, he served as the director of a large laboratory at NASA Goddard Space Center, so it was not just his own research that he […]

Read more »

Where’s the Wind When You Need It?

The Bonneville Power Authority service area has more than 4,000 MW of wind energy capacity installed. They also provide a web-based information service that is updated every five minutes that reports on the service area load, thermal generation, hydro generation, and wind generation. Here is a picture reporting those numbers for the period from Jan […]

Read more »

Cape Wind scrambling to meet deadline to qualify for $780 million taxpayer gift

Cape Wind is the leading offshore wind energy project in the United States. In 2001, more than 12 years ago, Jim Gordon, the project founder, started the process of promoting his vision of a building a 430 MWe (peak capacity) field of 130 massive (rotor diameter – 110 m, hub height – 80 m, nacelle […]

Read more »

Energiewende – planned by industry and government without customer considerations

Jim Conca recently published a blog on Forbes titled European Economic Stability Threatened By Renewable Energy Subsidies. One of the earliest comments in the growing thread on that blog provided an interesting point of view about Germany’s decision to abandon nuclear energy in favor of unreliable power sources backed up by flexible lignite, coal and […]

Read more »

Distressingly elitist view from two “sustainability consultants”

Joris van Dorp is an HVAC and energy systems mechanical engineer at a building installations consultancy. His primary work is associated with projects intended to improve energy efficiency/sustainability within the field. Clients include medical centers, airports, data centers, laboratories, office buildngs and some industrial clients. On October 18, 2013, Joris submitted the following comment. It […]

Read more »

Talk of electric power grid demise is wrong

Someday, America is going to return to logic and reality. We may be making some progress as shown by the fact that there are an increasing number of people who no longer watch TV or trust the TV talking heads in the entertainment business called “television news.” However, we still have our issues. One irrational […]

Read more »

Explaining my dismissal of fossil fuel alternatives that are NOT nuclear fission

Windmills at the windmill farm Middelgrunden

I’ve been engaging in a discussion with several commenters who strongly disagree with my assertion that atomic fission is the ONLY technology that has the technical potential to beat hydrocarbon combustion in the market. It can provide cheaper, cleaner and more reliable heat that can be converted into useful power in almost exactly the same […]

Read more »

German solar photovoltaic performance – informative graphic site

A friend just posted a link to a site that everyone who wants effective energy decision making should bookmark. It is titled Performance of Photovoltaics (PV) in Germany. The site includes animation features that illustrate the modeled output of solar installations over the course of each day. The model used should provide a reasonably good […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #192 – Zero Carbon Options for South Australia

Ben Heard is one of the growing number of environmental professionals who have seriously evaluated all options for reducing mankind’s annual production rate of carbon dioxide and discovered that the best tool available is nuclear fission energy. As a part of his continuing journey of discovery, he worked with Brown and Pang to produce a […]

Read more »

Power cheaper than coal – thorium AND uranium make it possible

Bob Hargraves, the author of Thorium: Energy Cheaper than Coal, recently traveled to Shanghai to present a 30 minute talk summarizing the main points of discussion that he covered in his book. The occasion of the trip was Thorium Energy Conference 2012. Bob is a professor with a good facility for numbers and a talent […]

Read more »