Text Size AAA Bookmark and Share

Search

Listed below are all documents and RMI.org site pages related to this topic.
Best of Amory Lovins 95 Items

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5  ... Next Last 

Response to "J.P."'s column "New numbers, same conclusion"

Journal or Magazine Article, Letter, 2014
http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/2014-21-JP_Rebuttal

Dr. Charles R. Frank, Jr.'s May 2014 Brookings Institution Working Paper claimed that new nuclear and gas-fired power plants can displace coal plants' carbon emissions far more cost-effectively than solar and windpower can. This claim was featured and endorsed in late July by a full-page "Free exchange" article in The Economist. Amory Lovins promptly rebutted Dr. Frank's paper in detail (www.rmi.org/frank_rebuttal). Three weeks later, an anonymous Economist writer posted a new essay called "New numbers, same conclusion" claiming that unpublished recalculations by Dr. Frank confirmed his original conclusions even if a few of the original errors asserted by Lovins were corrected to some unstated degree. This response by Lovins refutes that claim, describes 17 errors or misrepresentations in the new Economist essay, and encourages Dr. Frank to reply transparently and specifically to the original critique.

 

How Opposite Energy Policies Turned 3/11 into a loss for Japan and a Win for Germany

Journal or Magazine Article, 2014
http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/2014-14_AsahiShimbunOpEd_finalEngl_annotated

To revitalize its economy and politics, Japan needs an efficiency-and-renewable-energy hiyaku that enables the new energy economy, not protects the old one. Japanese frogs jump too, says Bashō’s haiku “Furuike ya kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto”. But we’re still waiting for mizu no oto.

 

Urgent Memo to Biotech Pioneers: Life is More Than a DNA Sequence

Journal or Magazine Article, 2014
http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/2014-17_UrgentMemotoBiotechPioneersLifeIsMoreThanADNASequence

Adapted and updated from the noted 1999 essay “A Tale of Two Botanies” (http://www.rmi.org/biotechnology/twobotanies.html) Amory Lovins’s Huffington Post invited commentary on some remarks by Dr. Craig Venter summarizes the limitations and risks of genomics, transgenics, and artificial life.

 

Micropower Database 2014 (July)

Guide, 2014
http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/2014-18_MicropowerDatabase

2014 (July) Edition: The purpose of the micropower database is to present a clear, rigorous, and independent assessment of the global capacity and electrical output of micropower (all renewables, except large hydro, and cogeneration), showing its development over time and documenting all data and assumptions. With minor exceptions, this information is based on bottom-up, transaction-by-transaction equipment counts reported by the relevant suppliers and operators, cross-checked against assessments by reputable governmental and intergovernmental technical agencies. For most technologies, historic data runs from 1990 through 2013. Available information includes installed capacity (GW) and electricity generation (TWh/y) per generating technology. The Micropower Database Methodology is also included in this ZIP-file. For previous versions, please see the 2008 Micropower Database (RMI ID E05-04) and the 2010 (May) Edition (RMI ID 2010-06).

 

An initial critique of Dr. Charles R. Frank, Jr.’s working paper “The Net Benefits of Low and No-Carbon Electricity Technologies,” summarized in The Economist as “Free exchange: Sun, wind and drain”

Journal or Magazine Article, Letter, 2014
http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/2014-21_Frank-Rebuttal

A May 2014 working paper by nonresident Brookings Institute fellow Dr. Charles Frank, highlighted in The Economist, claims that wind and solar power are the least, while nuclear power and combined-cycle gas generation are the most, cost-effective ways to displace coal-fired power. (He didn't assess efficiency.) This detailed twelve-page critique by RMI's Amory Lovins shows that those priorities are artifacts of Dr. Frank's obsolete data. Replacing nine of his wrong numbers with up-to-date empirical ones, even without correcting his methodology, reverses his priorities to the ones most energy experts would expect: after efficiency, the best buys are hydropower (on his purely economic assumptions), then windpower, photovoltaics, gas combined-cycle (assuming 1.5% methane leakage and medium price volatility—assuming zero price volatility would put gas ahead of solar), and last of all nuclear power. Dr. Frank argued that the way most investors pick power-sector investments—lowest long-run economic cost—is wrong, or at least incomplete, because different technologies generate power at different times, creating different amounts of value. He's right that value as well as cost should be considered. But interestingly, using correct data, the cost- and value-based calculations yield the same priorities, so adjusting for time of generation doesn't matter. Those priorities would probably be further reinforced (other than big and some small hydropower) if other kinds of hidden costs, risks, and benefits were also considered. The more obvious of Dr. Frank's data problems were assuming wind and solar power half as productive and twice as costly as they actually are, gas power twice as productive as it actually is but with no methane leakage or price volatility (let alone extractive side-effects of fracking), nuclear power at about half its actual cost and construction time and one-fifth its actual operating cost, a supposed need for new generating capacity and for bulk electricity storage, and no efficiency opportunities worth mentioning. His method of analyzing grid reliability was also unique and strange. These assumptions drove his unwarranted but, thanks to the Economist, widely publicized conclusions. Dr. Frank argued that the way most investors pick power-sector investments—lowest long-run economic cost—is wrong, or at least incomplete, because different technologies generate power at different times, creating different amounts of value. He's right that value as well as cost should be considered. But interestingly, using correct data, the cost- and value-based calculations yield the same priorities, so adjusting for time of generation doesn't matter. Those priorities would probably be further reinforced (other than big and some small hydropower) if other kinds of hidden costs, risks, and benefits were also considered.

 

Unpublished letter to the Economist

Letter, 2013
http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/2014-17_UnpublishedEconomistLetter

Your lament for Europe's money-losing electric utilities (), pickled in their own brine, begs the question whether old, long-and often still-subsidized oligopolies should be bailed out or shielded from competition when they bet against innovation and lose.They were supposed, but failed, to prepare for renewables by reinvesting their hundreds of billions of Euros' windfall from billing customers for the first decade's tradeable carbon emission credits they'd been given for free. Now they're whingeing that disruptive technologies are upending their old models. Of course: should we reject mobile phones because they disrupt wire line telcos? A well-designed, technology-neutral electric capacity market is worthwhile, but botched investment strategy should not be rewarded, nor should shareholders be surprised that utility shares no longer perform like bonds when 21st-Century technology and speed collide with 20th- and 19th-Century institutions, rules, and cultures.

 

A Farewell to Fossil Fuels: Answering the Energy Challenge

Journal or Magazine Article, 2012
http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/2012-01_FarewellToFossilFuels

In this article published in Foreign Affairs, Amory Lovins describes a U.S. transition from fossil fuels--a blueprint detailed in Reinventing Fire-- that requires pursuing three agendas. First, radical automotive efficiency can make electrification affordable and save fuel in heavy vehicles; and all vehicles can be used more productively. Second, new designs can make buildings and factories several times more efficient than they are now. Third, modernizing the electric system to make it diverse, distributed, and renewable can also make it clean, reliable and secure. Getting the U.S. off fossil fuels would transform its foreign policy, and turbocharge global development. He argues that we don't have to wait for congress to seize these opportunities.

This article is also available to read at Foreign Affairs.

 

2010 Micropower Database (May)

Guide, 2010
http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/2010-06_MicropowerDatabase
2010 (May) Edition: The purpose of the micropower database is to present a clear, rigorous, and independent assessment of the global capacity and electrical output of micropower (all renewables, except large hydro, and cogeneration), showing its development over time and documenting all data and assumptions. With minor exceptions, this information is based on bottom-up, transaction-by-transaction equipment counts reported by the relevant suppliers and operators, cross-checked against assessments by reputable governmental and intergovernmental technical agencies. For most technologies, historic data from 1990 through 2008 or 2009 is available, as well as forecasts through 2013. Available information includes global annual capacity additions and output, global cumulative capacity, and capacity factor. The Micropower Database Methodology is also included here. The 2008 Micropower Database (RMI ID E05-04) is also available.

Note: A more recent version of The Micropower Database from September 2010 (RMI ID 2010-14) is now available. This update to the database incorporates recently released data that change the total installed micropower capacity by 2.9%.

 

2008 Micropower Database: How Distributed Renewables and Cogeneration are Beating Nuclear Power Stations — Supporting Data, Methodology, and Graphs

Guide, 2008
http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/E05-04_MicropowerDatabase
2008 Edition: The purpose of the micropower database is to present a clear, rigorous, and independent assessment of the global capacity and electrical output of micropower (all renewables, except large hydro, and cogeneration), showing its development over time and documenting all data and assumptions. With minor exceptions, this information is based on bottom-up, transaction-by-transaction equipment counts reported by the relevant suppliers and operators, cross-checked against assessments by reputable governmental and intergovernmental technical agencies. For most technologies, historic data from 1990 through 2005 or 2006 is available, as well as forecasts through 2010. Available information includes global annual capacity additions and output, global cumulative capacity, and capacity factor. The Micropower Database Methodology is also included here. The 2010 Micropower Database (September) (2010-14) contains the most recent data.

 

Applied Hope

Journal or Magazine Article, 2008
http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/2008-19_AppliedHope
This article was written for RMI's 2008 Annual Report. In it, Amory Lovins outlines RMI's fundamental concept of "Applied Hope".

 

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5  ... Next Last