|
Post by Barry Brook on Sept 10, 2012 18:49:25 GMT 9.5
A new post has been published on BraveNewClimate. Link here: bravenewclimate.com/lovins-reinventing-fire-critiqueIn this post, Ted Trainer of UNSW provides a detailed critique of the energy chapters in Amory Lovins' new book, Reinventing Fire: Bold Business Solutions for the New Energy Era. Ted is seeking feedback, on his appraisal, or on your own thoughts of Lovins' prose. This BNC Discussion Forum thread is for the comments related to this BNC post.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on Sept 10, 2012 21:25:24 GMT 9.5
I wonder whether taking a rational stance is appropriate in this instance.
Mr Lovins has, as demonstrated, failed to justify the foundations, whether technical, performance or cost. These are his modus operandi, established over four decades. previous rational dissection of his work has resulted in (a) clear demonstration that, as in this case, it is founded on meaningless aspirational nonsense, and (b) the author doesn't give a hoot, because his target audience is prepared to be as irrational as he is.
I suggest that this dichotomy is at the heart of the failure of the debate about anthropogenic climate change: those who don't want to listen to facts are certainly not going to be impressed by more facts. Those who want, deep in their hearts, to believe that the current trends can continue without incurring a future cost will hang onto opinion, whether factually sound or not, which promises to give them the future that they desire without pain either now or later.
So, while on one hand I value the work done by Ted Trainer, I am sure that it will not strike at the core of the two constituencies to which Lovins appeals.
These are: (1) Climate science denying, do-nothing, hope merchants who are along for the ride; and (2) Well intented optimists who really, really want to avoid the pain of climate change but are seeking to avoid the emotional and financial pain of facing up to the true costs and magnitude of a renewables-only energy future. These folk are not making decisions on the basis of facts: they have used emotional and aspirational filters to cherry-pick their way to a vision of an energy future which, though enticing, can never be within reach.
My greatest fear is that, by giving this book oxygen in the form of critical review, its author and its contents both are afforded credibility which is not deserved.
In conclusion: I'm coming to the opinion that it is worse than useless to argue with such as Lovins. He should be banished, ignored and sidelined until such time as he offers detailed, rational and critically reviewed responses to the many criticisms of his previous work.
|
|
|
Post by Edward Greisch on Sept 11, 2012 0:37:10 GMT 9.5
BATTERIES ARE NOT INCLUDED in renewable systems. See: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner - "GVEA s Fairbanks battery bank keeps lights on" newsminer.com/view/full_story/12739242/article-GVEA-s-Fairbanks-battery-bank-keeps-lights-on?Fairbanks, AK spent $35 million in 2003 for a battery backup that can keep the power on in Fairbanks for 7 or 15 minutes, depending on how bad the blackout is. That is enough time to start up their diesel backup. Diesel fuel is fossil fuel. To go with renewables only, you need a whole week's worth of battery power for the whole world. How much does that cost? Hint: You run out of the things you need to make batteries very quickly. BraveNewClimate addressed that question for 2 kinds of batteries. bravenewclimate.com/2011/11/13/energy-storage-dt/ What to do: Get some city to try to get all of their power from renewables. Portland, Oregon would be the city to choose since they have written books on the subject. www.thedirt.org/node/5433transitionculture.org/shop/the-transition-handbook/The Transition Handbook: from oil dependency to local resilience
by Rob Hopkins Watch Watch happens when they try.
|
|
|
Post by David Lewis on Sept 11, 2012 1:19:36 GMT 9.5
Lovins gave an interview published in The Mother Earth, i.e. Plowboy interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p.22. Quote:
"It'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it"
I got this from Robin Mills, author of The Myth of the Oil Crisis, who used it in his book on page 234. Mills noted that the context for Lovins in the interview was nuclear fusion.
|
|
AA
Quark
Posts: 2
|
Post by AA on Sept 11, 2012 4:03:21 GMT 9.5
I'm confused as to how Mr. Trainer's gets 20%. In primary energy terms, it's twice that.
From a technical perspective, there's nothing terribly implausible about 30% PV. There's enough resource and there are no technological miracles required. The hard part about getting to 30% solar is the combination of back-up generation, storage and new transmission that is required ($$$).
The fundamental problem with Lovins is that he is stuck in the world of E.F. Schumacher and therefore dismisses anything "big" out of hand. He has to construct a system where every component is small and distributed, even if that isn't necessarily the right choice.
Lightweight EVs or PHEVs are great. It also makes a lot of sense to use them with nuclear power, charging during off-peak times. But Lovins can't accept nuclear, no matter its technical merits, because it "breaks" his worldview.
I think there's merit to having people like RMI advocating a more pastoral "back to the land" distributed sustainability, but we need to have the flexibility to draw solutions from the technological "big" worldview when they are more appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by frankj on Sept 11, 2012 5:29:47 GMT 9.5
singletonengineer -
IMO,Lovins' analyses needs to be confronted, as they tend to be mostly unsupported and entirely inconsistent with full consideration of the relevant data (the plural of anecdotes, even spectacular ones, is not "data"), but nonetheless very popular.
Many people, and institutions (institutional "mainstream" environmentalists) who accept the general consensus on climate change, and whose support is direly needed to advance nuclear energy, and in particular to advance the development of nuclear energy systems such as the IFR and LFTR, accept what Lovins says because they deem him an authority, and because his familiar songs sound sweet to ears that long to hear them.
As a consequence, books like his latest make it difficult to gain traction for nuclear energy from a constituency (institutional environmentalists) that, in my view, should "naturally" be generally supportive. Thus, progress on climate and clean air become more and more delayed and difficult.
When facts and logic are patiently applied, the shortcomings of Lovins' analyses are readily exposed. It has been done over and over again. For a portion of the observers and participants in discussion forums where these challenges develop, the result can be educational.
Thus, I disagree about the value of analyses like Ted Trainer's. They are necessary.
They are more likely to advance general knowledge, however, when they are made in forums that are pre-disposed to accept what Lovins says. That would not include Brave New Climate, which is more rigorous about logic and science.
Were Ted to post at one of those alternative forums, he would have to be ready to deal with the slings and arrows that are usually in evidence when a guru (google "Lovins guru" and see what I mean) is challenged. However, I hope he does so anyway, and lets us all know where the fireworks are taking place, so we can help throw some cold water on the allegedly reinvented fire.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Sept 11, 2012 9:40:34 GMT 9.5
As best as I can determine, everybody [except those actually writing contracts] is currently underestimating the cost of new construction for electric utilities in the United States.
|
|
|
Post by Graham Palmer on Sept 11, 2012 10:39:34 GMT 9.5
Ted provides a similar critique of other proposals for energy revolutions (Greenpeace, BZE, Jacobson etc) and does a great job in elaborating on the challenges without rubbishing renewables. I share Ted's views in having a pro-renewables bias as a starting point, but having reached the conclusion that for a host of reasons, renewables-only are going to come up a long-long way short of maintaining a modern society. The success of portraying modern fossil and nuclear technologies as old-world has been a stunning success, in part due to Lovins' (and others) articulation of an appealing narrative of "forward looking" efficiency, technology and distributed power. Yet, in terms of sheer science and technology, modern fossil and nuclear is orders-of-magnitude more advanced than solar panels.
The way in which modern wind power has avoided the perils of being classified into the evil-multi-national-corporation box by the environmental movement is also due in part to Lovins (and others) success of the portrayal of wind as one of a suite of virtuous technologies providing clean-distributed energy (despite rural controversy, wind retains a very high approval rating) . Perhaps Lovins has something to teach us about narratives and marketing?
Although Lovins has been a passionate advocate for the laudable, and essential, goal of reducing per-capita energy use, in the cruelest of ironies, he has done more to re-establish coal's supremacy since the 1980s as most coal executives.
|
|
|
Post by stevedarden on Sept 11, 2012 11:35:09 GMT 9.5
?.., he has done more to re-establish coal's supremacy since the 1980s as most coal executives. Indeed. Lovins is featured on my "Dirty Dozen" list of NGOs, gurus who are the most responsible for coal's dominance.
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Meyerson on Sept 12, 2012 3:00:47 GMT 9.5
why is Ted so anti nuclear? if renewable energy is compatible with "the simpler way," why not nuclear energy?
Nuclear avoids the intermittency problems, the overbuild problems, and the suite of problems connected to these.
It seems to me that an advanced version of a steady state economy (at some point in future) could be achieved with generation three and four NPPs. I do not understand Ted's position here. I won't go so far as to call it a blindspot, but that's what it looks like. Just for purposes of argument, all you free marketeers, let's take a steady state society as a given. so the choice (for purposes of argument now so calm down) is between low energy and higher, much higher, energy. But the latter depends upon NPPs. what's the argument against this?
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Sept 12, 2012 12:09:22 GMT 9.5
And then there are the difficulties and ever increasing expenses associated with running new transmission lines. For example, the Boardman OR to Hemmingway ID B2H 500 kV single circuit line seems to having finally finished the planning phase with construction to start next spring. Originally estimated in 2002 at about US$1.6--2 million per mile, the estimate is now US$2.733 million per mile. The approximately 500 km route will require 3 years to construct after 10+ years of planning.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Sept 12, 2012 15:46:24 GMT 9.5
why is Ted so anti nuclear? if renewable energy is compatible with "the simpler way," why not nuclear energy? Because nuclear is also compatible with not following a simpler way. Once you understand that the majority doesn't want a simpler way but instead wants a high energy society (regardless of what they may say to the contrary) you realise that there's just no way those who want to force everyone to return to what they imagine was a past golden age to get their way. It seems to me that an advanced version of a steady state economy (at some point in future) could be achieved with generation three and four NPPs. If a steady state economy is even possible (which we should not just assume) nuclear would be a better power source to power it than renewable energy but nuclear could also handle a growing economy and a growing economy is what the majority really wants.
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Meyerson on Sept 13, 2012 22:55:08 GMT 9.5
of course most people want a growing economy. The arguments for a steady state economy are almost entirely based on ecological constraints.
For some, perhaps what started as a response to ecological crisis turned into advocacy of a "life style" for other reasons, not so much ecological as philosophical, aesthetic, etc--Thoreau.
But if there are ecological boundaries (perhaps there are not) that a growth imperative would breach, then it might plausibly be viewed as a moral imperative not to breach these boundaries.
I suppose I should read Ted's website, but it would seem from his understanding of sustainability that the simpler way is not primarily an aesthetic choice but rather a rational response to sustainability constraints. But if Ted's simpler way is to be understood in this latter sense, then he has a responsibility to answer the "why not nuclear" question.
As far as a steady state economy being possible, that's not the question. It's not only possible, it has existed, even dominated, in the past and still exists (subsistence economies). The question is whether it's necessary and desireable and whether it's unpleasant features can be significantly mitigated.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Sept 14, 2012 0:43:24 GMT 9.5
of course most people want a growing economy. The arguments for a steady state economy are almost entirely based on ecological constraints. Yes, but I suspect that a lot of the people who advance those arguments care more about a steady state economy than about the environment. Their ideal seems to be a small simple village in the country where not much changes. At the very least that explains why there is hostility about ways of continuing to grow our economy without running into the ecological limits (in the long term this means moving our civilisation to space, just like in Sim Earth). But if there are ecological boundaries (perhaps there are not) that a growth imperative would breach, then it might plausibly be viewed as a moral imperative not to breach these boundaries. Of course you'd need to find those boundaries and agree on them (and they change based on your technology level). Personally I think finding a way around the boundaries would be an alternative moral imperative at least as justified as staying within them. I suppose I should read Ted's website, but it would seem from his understanding of sustainability that the simpler way is not primarily an aesthetic choice but rather a rational response to sustainability constraints. But if Ted's simpler way is to be understood in this latter sense, then he has a responsibility to answer the "why not nuclear" question. From what I hear I don't think he's anti-nuclear (he is posting on BNC anyway) though I probably should clarify that many of my comments were more directed at the green movement and not him specifically. As far as a steady state economy being possible, that's not the question. It's not only possible, it has existed, even dominated, in the past and still exists (subsistence economies). The question is whether it's necessary and desireable and whether it's unpleasant features can be significantly mitigated. No, when a subsistence economy gets a bad season it shrinks, usually with loss of life.
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Meyerson on Sept 14, 2012 1:50:21 GMT 9.5
"Personally I think finding a way around the boundaries would be an alternative moral imperative at least as justified as staying within them." Right Anon. But you're just making a different point from mine (my claim was premised on "if" a growth imperative breached these boundaries we would need to agree on). our difference is that you seem to treat growth as a desire, one that outweighs steady state. My worry comes from the growth IMPERATIVE (different from people's diverse desires). My view is we should have as much growth as we need (and we would need a lot more on equity grounds and to accommodate population growth). but that is different from a structural imperative rooted in a mode of production. Read more: bravenewclimate.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=bncblogposts&thread=338#ixzz26MpTCr4e
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Sept 14, 2012 2:44:31 GMT 9.5
Growth means that things are getting better, people are able to be more comfortable, to have more choice, etc and that the average person can expect their kids to have a better life than they did steady state means things would be staying much the same. It's pretty clear that growth should be preferred as the default and that you'd need a pretty strong reason to override that.
|
|
|
Post by amorylovins on Sept 30, 2012 15:51:22 GMT 9.5
Fair-minded and curious readers of Ted Trainer's "critique" of our 2011 book Reinventing Fire may wish to know the main differences between the book he described—but apparently neither read nor understood—and the book we actually wrote. The book we wrote reported, in a readable but meaty and graphics-rich format for business leaders, the findings of a rigorous and detailed analysis performed by 60 Rocky Mountain Institute colleagues and myself (pp. 258–262) during six quarters, with much help from industry on both content and peer review (pp. 252–257). If our $6-million analysis were summarized in slides, there'd be over a thousand; the most important are posted in the Knowledge Center at www.reinventingfire.com. That site and the book's back matter provide fully transparent access to our methodologies, sources, and calculations. Mr. Trainer apparently read none of this material, so he called the bits he did read "superficial", with "no detail and no derivation of conclusions." The book we wrote integrates three main parts: 17 pages of front matter explaining its context and structure, 252 pages of text organized into six topical chapters (an introduction, Transportation, Buildings, Industry, Electricity, and a synthesis), and then before the index, 71 pages of fine-print back matter including 759 notes and nearly a thousand references. To our knowledge, this study's level of integration across sectors, and between four kinds of innovation (technology, policy, design, and strategy), had not previously been attempted. Despite earnestly inviting substantive criticisms and corrections of our analysis, both in the book and in over a hundred lectures and briefs to expert audiences over the past year, we have received none (other than minor typographic errors, which we corrected). The book Mr. Trainer critiqued had just two chapters, "one on transport fuel" (actually it mainly shows how to save most of that fuel by technical means) "and one on power supply." He considered these "the energy chapters" and complained that he "can't find any evidence or reasoning supporting [our] claim" that efficient end-use can save about 70% of U.S. electricity, which is used roughly three-fourths in buildings and one-fourth in industry. Why couldn't he find this evidence and reasoning? Because it was in the chapters called "Buildings" and "Industry," which he apparently skipped as not being "energy chapters." In the two chapters he did read, he also missed their major additions to our Pentagon-sponsored 2004 Winning the Oil Endgame analysis (including vehicle electrification, emergence of the first mass-produced ultralight electric autos, and the whole electricity sector), overlooked our detailed production-cost analysis, confused oil with total mobility fuel, and thought smart growth accounted for half our mobility-fuel savings (actually it's a few percent). Our analysis did properly count all the issues Mr. Trainer thinks it didn't—except Energy Return on Investment, because having helped invent this concept and written a book about it, I knew it would add no useful insights to our empirically grounded economic analysis, which found private-internal-cost Internal Rates of Return averaging 33% for 3-4x higher energy productivity in buildings and 21% for doubled energy productivity in industry. These IRRs and the $5-trillion total net-present-value savings would rise if, as Mr. Trainer expects, future energy prices exceeded those in our EIA base-case. Mr. Trainer said he read our Chapter 5 (Electricity), but somehow he missed its full description of our detailed analysis, including the electricity system's net-present-value cost, which was about the same for renewable as for fossil-fueled and nuclear scenarios. The June 2012 National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Renewable Electricity Futures study (www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/) broadly corroborated our findings, though its 80–90%-renewable scenario needed more transmission because it assumed all-centralized rather than half-distributed renewables. Our Chapter 5 also explained how our 80%-renewable scenarios achieved full reliability without the vast storage and transmission burdens Mr. Trainer erroneously assumed. Both NREL's state-of-the-art national model and our own hourly dispatch model showed robust solutions for handling peak load, variability, and the other renewable-supply issues that Mr. Trainer strangely claims we missed. His poor grasp of this area's modern literature and experience is not uncommon and might be excusable, but his claim that we "do not discuss these issues" is again simply false. The book we wrote, now fourth printing, was introduced by Forewords by John W. Rowe, then Chairman of Exelon and dean of the nation's utility executives, and Marvin Odum, President of Shell Oil. Its jacket bears favorable comments by President Bill Clinton, Secretary George Shultz, former National Security Advisor Bud McFarlane, former CIA Director Jim Woolsey, business luminaries Gerald Hines, Bill Joy, and Paul Hawken, and Yale professor Dan Esty (see also www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/reinventing_fire:hardcover/praise/). The book has been warmly received by business leaders and energy experts. Might they know something Mr. Trainer doesn't? In short, the book we wrote presented abundant empirical evidence for its assumptions and conclusions, but Mr. Trainer read so little of what we wrote, and so uncomprehendingly, that he claimed it's simply not there. The book we wrote contains none of the errors or omissions he claims to have found in the book fragments he claims to have read. The obvious remedy would be for him to read and understand the book we wrote. Others do not seem to find this so difficult. Those wishing to check for themselves, at no cost, can visit www.reinventingfire.com, view my 27-minute TED talk at www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_a_50_year_plan_for_energy.html, and read my 13-page Foreign Affairs summary article at www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/2012-01_FarewellToFossilFuels. Those preferring the book's rich detail can find it at books.google.com/books/about/Reinventing_Fire.html?id=ZQVZxsGFjnAC or via any bookseller or the publisher (www.chelseagreen.com). Amory B. Lovins, Chairman and Chief Scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org), Old Snowmass, Colorado
|
|
|
Post by Bosch on Oct 6, 2012 3:41:01 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Oct 6, 2012 12:11:21 GMT 9.5
Bosch --- Thank you very much for the link.
|
|
|
Post by BNC Moderator on Jan 4, 2013 10:13:17 GMT 9.5
Galloping Camel - Your comment has been moved to Barry's new BNC post "Next Nukes" which seems more appropriate. If you disagree please let me know. Thankyou.
|
|