Tuesday, July 8, 2008

David Bradish destroys Amory Lovins

This is a repost of a 2008 post.  Amory lovins was unable to answer David Bradish"s critique, of Lovins claims about nuclear power.  Scientific status would require that Lovins do so.  Alexander DiVolpi and Rod Adams have raiosed questions about loving's cradentials as a scientest, and as an expert on energy.

NEI Nuclear Notes' David Bradish has finished up his series of posts on Amory Lovins. By now Bradish had demonstrated that Lovins' anti-nuclear arguments are more sloppily constructed propaganda that carefully reasoned analysis. Bradish established that the “micropower” generation which Lovins touts so highly comes from fossil fuel - coal and natural gas - sources. Thus micropower is no solution to global warming. Further Bradish demonstrates that Lovins stipulates one definition of micropower in his text, but uses a different definition in constructing his data set. Bradish argued that Lovins had failed to repeal Jevons Paradox, and had not demonstrated that greater energy efficiency does not decrease energy demand. Bradish accused Lovins of not only :cherry picking data, but actually making it up. Bradish demolished Lovins absurd argument that nuclear power is unreliable. In his latest post Bradish demonstrates that we are entering a period of rapid expansion of nuclear power, and the effort to fight anthropogenic global warming can only lead to increased construction of nuclear power plants. Rather than link every post I linked to the last post in Bradish's series, which containslinks to the other posts.

Lovins and an associate attempted two rebuttals to Bradish's critiques on Gristmill. (Bradish has links to them.) Bradish and other made spirited rejoinders to Lovins, but Lovins refused to participate in further defenses of his arguments. Further, and curiously, since his second Gristmill response nearly three weeks ago, Lovins has failed to post any further responses to Bradish. Lovins had indicated that he would shortly post an argument intended to show that Jevons Paradox did not apply to his energy efficiency argument. That argument has not appeared. Thus it has become an open question whether Lovins has abandoned the field.

Not only has David Bradish done first rate work on Lovins, but he has also demonstrated his extreme good sense by mentioning several of my posts on Lovins which can be found on Nuclear Green and Energy from Thorium. He includes me along with the very esteemed company of Brian Wong (Next Big Future), Rod Adams, Luke Weston (Physical Insights), and the Sovietologist. These are a bunch of very bright people, and I am proud to be included in any list that contains their names.

4 comments:

David Bradish said...

Thanks, you're definitely a part of this debate so keep it up!

Charles Barton said...

Thank you David.

KLA said...

Charles, I posted this also on NEI (sorry for the double post):

"Charles, Lovins intended audience for his papers is IMHO not us, the public, but the media and politicians. That's why I am not surprised that he tucked tail and left in the debate on Gristmill. This intended audience is typically not as knowledgable as some members of the public as you or David and other pro-nuclear debaters. Lovins tries to influence the decision makers and public opinion through the back door, not through the democratic or peer review process. He acts, mybe intentionally, maybe not, like a 5th column lobbyist for the oil/gas industry. His intention is definitely NOT research to increase knowledge. With this intention it is not worth his time, and is even dangerous, for him to publicly debate. As some members of his intended audience might see the debate or debunking and start to ask questions themselves. He cannot risk that and therefore his best course is to end the debate by silence."

We have to be really on the lookout to see references to this latest Lovins paper in the media, or mentioned by politicians. When found, we should immediately point the reporter or politician to Davids debunking series. At least this way the damage Lovins does can be mitigated.

Charles Barton said...

KLA, Yes but internet debates are too important to loose by default. Eventually the MSM picts up the gist of the bloggers write.

Followers

Blog Archive

Some neat videos

Nuclear Advocacy Webring
Ring Owner: Nuclear is Our Future Site: Nuclear is Our Future
Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet
Get Your Free Web Ring
by Bravenet.com
Dr. Joe Bonometti speaking on thorium/LFTR technology at Georgia Tech David LeBlanc on LFTR/MSR technology Robert Hargraves on AIM High