Yesterday I posted a comment that included the below quote from the NRDC’s review of Gwyneth Cravens’s new book “Power to Save the World”. I semi-promised to come back to the comment and poke some holes in the assertions.
If she’d driven north for a day from New Mexico, for instance, she could have spent some time with Amory Lovins, director of the Rocky Mountain Institute and longtime advocate of a different energy path. As charismatic in his way as Anderson is (though not as laconic), Lovins has been working with myriad Fortune 500 companies (and the Department of Defense) in recent years to plot a very different energy future. Instead of promoting the massive and centralized power system represented by nuclear energy, Lovins imagines a much more supple, decentralized electricity grid — “distributed power,” he calls it — taking advantage of everything from solar and wind to cogeneration and small-scale natural gas. And he’s been doing more than imagine it. He’s been watching it grow, much faster than nuclear power is growing.
Lovins is a gospel preacher, too. He’s been harping on energy conservation for two decades, and with increasing success (big companies like DuPont have managed to trim their energy budgets radically; Lovins’s own house high in the Rockies uses essentially no energy in the course of a year). While private capital is financing the growth in micropower, “only huge subsidies have kept the nuclear power industry alive,” Lovins says. Reactors, he notes, “are bought only by central planners.”
Let’s take these one at a time.
Lovins has been working with myriad Fortune 500 companies (and the Department of Defense) in recent years to plot a very different energy future.
The statement is true, but what should it make you think? Is Lovins obviously on the right path because the leaders of Fortune 500 companies like to hire him, or do they like to hire him because his message fits their existing world view? Is Lovins a preacher for a different way of thinking or is he a non-threatening apologist for the status quo of burning massive quantities of fossil fuel?
Instead of promoting the massive and centralized power system represented by nuclear energy, Lovins imagines a much more supple, decentralized electricity grid — “distributed power,” he calls it — taking advantage of everything from solar and wind to cogeneration and small-scale natural gas.
I have talked about the ideas in this statement before. Here are some numbers from the Energy Information Agency about solar and wind production.
Total solar energy production in Quadrillion BTU (US)
1989 – 0.055
2005 – 0.066
Growth rate – 1.25% per year
New annual production since 1989 – 0.011 Quads – about 0.011% of US energy demand
Total wind energy production in Quadrillion BTU (US)
1989 – 0.022
2005 – 0.178
Growth rate – 44% per year (7 fold increase)
New annual production since 1989 – 0.156 Quads – about 0.16% of US energy demand
Compare that to nuclear energy production in Quadrillion BTU (US)
1989 – 5.33
2005 – 7.88
Growth rate – 3% per year
New annual production since 1989 – 2.55 Quads – about 2.55% of US energy demand
It is only when Lovins includes “small-scale” natural gas plants – which includes plants as large as 50 MW by his definition – that any substantial increases in power generation occur. In addition, NO ONE has been building solar or wind generation without both production tax credits – direct subsidies – and renewable energy portfolio mandates which are indirect subsidies.
He’s been harping on energy conservation for two decades, and with increasing success (big companies like DuPont have managed to trim their energy budgets radically; Lovins’s own house high in the Rockies uses essentially no energy in the course of a year).
Actually, it has been almost exactly three decades since Lovins captured national attention with his publication in the November 1977 issue of Foreign Affairs titled Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken. I was a plebe at the Naval Academy at the time and I am now nearing the end of a rather long career as a commissioned officer.
During that time, the world’s consumption of coal has increased from 4 billion tons to nearly 6.5 billion tons. Its consumption of methane (aka natural gas) has increased from 50 Quadrillion BTU to 110 Quadrillion BTU. I cannot lay my hands immediately on a similar number for oil, but I think most sources agree that it has increased by a large fraction. In other words, the gospel according to Lovins is not working. Human beings keep thinking up new ways to make life more comfortable and easier by substituting energy consumption for other forms of work.
I am also tired of hearing about Lovins’s Rocky Mountain house. It is built into the south facing side of a mountain and costs far more than most American houses. The energy consumption numbers mentioned by RMI do not include things like washing machines, ovens, office equipment, or televisions. Besides, in the US only 21% of our energy use is in the residential sector; most of what we use falls into the category of transportation, commercial, or industrial use.
While private capital is financing the growth in micropower, “only huge subsidies have kept the nuclear power industry alive,” Lovins says. Reactors, he notes, “are bought only by central planners.”
There are NO subsidies in place for currently producing nuclear power plants. The truth is starkly different – each plant provides massive federal, state and local tax revenues and fee payments to all levels of government. I would love it if someone could point me to a concise source of all of the fees and taxes that nuclear plant owners pay.
Enough ranting. Have a good day. Go listen to my interview with Gwyneth Cravens and Rip Anderson on The Atomic Show Podcast; I think the server issues that made it difficult yesterday have been resolved.
