Difference between revisions of "Who's who"

From ScienceForSustainability
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 158: Line 158:
 
This publication makes many claims, but for now we will focus only on one specific item.
 
This publication makes many claims, but for now we will focus only on one specific item.
  
Sovacool uses the aforementioned emissions analysis to argue that renewable energy is "two to seven times more effective" at combating global warming than nuclear power, because the values he cited for wind are around 10 g/kWh, or around 6 times lower, than what he calculated for nuclear power.<ref>Benjamin K. Sovacool, [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00472331003798350 A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia], ''Journal of Contemporary Asia'', 2010, 40(3), pp. 369-400</ref> However what really counts in the case of {{CO2}} emissions is the change with respect to the sources replaced by new generation. Nuclear energy displaces other base load power, mainly coal, whereas wind displaces mainly natural gas and hydro since gas turbines and dams can vary output much more quickly to respond to wind's variability than coal power plants can do.<ref>[http://www.powerworks.com/healthandclimate.aspx Pacific Winds: The health and climate benefits of Altamont Pass wind power]: "The clean, renewable power generation from the Altamont wind farms displaces natural gas generation..."</ref><ref>[http://www.awea.org/newsroom/pressreleases/111025_Wind_energy_driving.cfm American Wind Energy Association: Wind energy driving down consumer electric rates]: "Since wind energy primarily displaces natural gas generated energy, reducing the quantity of natural gas purchases..."</ref> For the moment, we'll assume that only natural gas is displaced by wind and hydro is unchanged. Sovacool's article quotes the emissions for coal and gas as 960 g/kWh and 443 g/kWh, respectively. Generating 1{{sp}}kWh of nuclear electricity saves the need to generate 1{{sp}}kWh from coal, saving 894{{sp}}g of {{CO2}}. Generating 1{{sp}}kWh from wind removes the need to generate 1{{sp}}kWh from gas, saving 433{{sp}}g of {{CO2}}. Therefore, nuclear is at least twice as effective at reducing emissions. If the existing grid is almost 100% natural gas, as is the case in some Arab countries, then each kWh from nuclear would save 367{{sp}}g, while each kWh from wind would save 433{{sp}g. In this rather extreme scenario, nuclear would be 15% less effective per kWh than wind.
+
Sovacool uses his "Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power" analysis to argue that renewable energy is "two to seven times more effective" at combating global warming than nuclear power, because the values he cited for wind are around 10{{sp}}g/kWh, or around 6 times lower, than what he calculated for nuclear energy.<ref>Benjamin K. Sovacool, [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00472331003798350 A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia], ''Journal of Contemporary Asia'', 2010, 40(3), pp. 369-400</ref> However what really counts in the case of {{CO2}} emissions is the change with respect to the sources replaced by new generation. Nuclear energy displaces other base load power, mainly coal, whereas wind displaces mainly natural gas and hydro since gas turbines and dams can vary output much more quickly to respond to wind's variability than coal power plants can do.<ref>[http://www.powerworks.com/healthandclimate.aspx Pacific Winds: The health and climate benefits of Altamont Pass wind power]: "The clean, renewable power generation from the Altamont wind farms displaces natural gas generation..."</ref><ref>[http://www.awea.org/newsroom/pressreleases/111025_Wind_energy_driving.cfm American Wind Energy Association: Wind energy driving down consumer electric rates]: "Since wind energy primarily displaces natural gas generated energy, reducing the quantity of natural gas purchases..."</ref> For the moment, we'll assume that only natural gas is displaced by wind and hydro is unchanged. Sovacool's article quotes the emissions for coal and gas as 960 g/kWh and 443 g/kWh, respectively. Generating 1{{sp}}kWh of nuclear electricity saves the need to generate 1{{sp}}kWh from coal, saving 894{{sp}}g of {{CO2}}. Generating 1{{sp}}kWh from wind removes the need to generate 1{{sp}}kWh from gas, saving 433{{sp}}g of {{CO2}}. Therefore, nuclear is at least twice as effective at reducing emissions. If the existing grid is almost 100% natural gas, as is the case in some Arab countries, then each kWh from nuclear would save 367{{sp}}g, while each kWh from wind would save 433{{sp}g. In this rather extreme scenario, nuclear would be 15% less effective per kWh than wind.
  
 
Thus even Sovacool's own numbers do not support the claim that nuclear is "two to seven times less effective" at emissions reduction than renewable sources. Compounded with the fact that a later analysis produced a much lower number of 13 g/kWh,<ref name="Warner-Heath"/> this contention is unsupported by evidence.
 
Thus even Sovacool's own numbers do not support the claim that nuclear is "two to seven times less effective" at emissions reduction than renewable sources. Compounded with the fact that a later analysis produced a much lower number of 13 g/kWh,<ref name="Warner-Heath"/> this contention is unsupported by evidence.

Revision as of 15:44, 6 October 2020


Anderson, Kevin

Tyndall Centre

Kevin Anderson is professor of energy and climate change in the School of Mechanical, Aeronautical and Civil Engineering at the University of Manchester. He has recently finished a two-year position as director of the Tyndall Centre, the UK's leading academic climate change research organisation, during which time he held a joint post with the University of East Anglia. Returning full time to Manchester, Kevin now leads Tyndall Manchester’s energy and climate change research programme and is deputy director of the Tyndall Centre. He is research active with recent publications in Royal Society journals, Nature and Energy Policy, and engages widely across all tiers of government. Kevin’s research interests include: understanding the implications of rising emissions and the latest climate science for mitigation and adaptation policy; analysing opportunities for rapid decarbonisation of the UKs energy system; and quantifying the role of international transport (aviation and shipping) in a low-carbon society. With his colleague Alice Bows, Kevin’s work on carbon budgets has been pivotal in revealing the widening gulf between political rhetoric on climate change and the reality of rapidly escalating emissions. His work makes clear that there is now little to no chance of maintaining the rise in global mean surface temperature at below 2C, despite repeated high-level statements to the contrary. Moreover, Kevin’s research demonstrates how avoiding even a 4C rise demands a radical reframing of both the climate change agenda and the economic characterisation of contemporary society. Kevin has a decade of industrial experience, principally in the petrochemical industry. He sits as commissioner on the Welsh Governments climate change commission and is a director of Greenstone Carbon Management - a London-based company providing emission-related advice to private and public sector organisations.

Andrews, Roger

About Roger Andrews Energy Matters

Booker, Christopher

The climate denial machine has gotten desperate. Among the many signs is that the British newspaper Sunday Telegraph still publishes the work of Christopher Booker...
(Shows example of cherry-picking temperature data.)

Corrice, Leslie

Author of The Hiroshima Syndrome blog and commentator on nuclear energy and related issues. On his blog's "about the author" page he describes his background thus:
My academic resume includes a Bachelors degree in Nuclear Technology and Environmental Sciences. I also have a Masters degree in Philosophy. I am a member of the American Nuclear Society, Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information, and the National Education Association.
Experientially, I spent my first career of 21 years as (in order) a nuclear power plant operator, environmental monitoring technician, health physics design engineer, public relations spokesperson, public education coordinator and emergency planner.

Gardiner (Gardenier?), Barry

2016 Labour Party shadow energy secretary under Jeremy Corbyn

Renewable energy would be cheaper than Government's 'bad deal' on Hinkley Point nuclear plant, Labour warns Jon Stone @joncstone; Independent; 29 Jul 2016

Shadow energy secretary Barry Gardenier urged a renegotiation of the deal with EDF
“We’re not against nuclear power in principle. Let me be absolutely clear: I speak as the shadow secretary of state for energy and climate change in Jeremy’s shadow cabinet and we are absolutely clear that we are in favour of nuclear power as part of the energy mix that we need.”

[1] Suzie Ferguson; Facebook; 27 Sep 2016

So the Shadow Minister for Energy and Climate Change has asked me to send him some information on CCS as he wants to know more about it and ask me more questions...

Hayhoe, Katharine

Katharine Hayhoe, a Climate Explainer Who Stays Above the Storm JOHN SCHWARTZ; NY Times; 10 Oct 2016

Hickey, Jim

profile Renewable Energy World

About Jim
Progressive advocate for democratic policy-making and sustainable culture.

Jim Hickey: Hiroshima & Nagasaki: Seven Decades And Counting; 10 Aug 2015 countercurrents.org Southeast Review of Media Culture and Politics

'No Hot Air' About Renewable Energy While Blowing Smoke: David Mackay plays 'Brutus' to the Sun's 'Caesar'

Jacobson, Mark Z*

Mackay, David*

Legates, David

David Legates Wikipedia

David Russell Legates is a Professor of Geography[1] at the University of Delaware. He is the former Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the same university,[2] [3] and a former Delaware State Climatologist.[4]
Legates has published research papers, opinion editorials, and spoken openly in opposition to the consensus scientific opinion on climate change. More recently, he has been known for his skepticism toward the anthropogenic cause of the observed global warming patterns and the severity of its consequences at the local geographical scale.
Legates viewpoint, as stated in a 2015 study that he co-authored, is that the Earth will experience about 1.0 C warming over the 2000 to 2100 period.

Lomborg, Bjorn

See AGW denial

Mearns, Euan

About Euan Mearns Energy Matters

Roberts, David

David Roberts of Vox (formerly of Grist) -- Not "Pro-nuclear" Russ Finley; Biodiversivist; 3 Sep 2016

Rosling, Hans

Three minutes with Hans Rosling will change your mind about the world Amy Maxmen; Nature; 14 Dec 2016

News article about Rosling's life and work, and quiz on world population statistics

The best stats you've ever seen Hans Rosling; TED; 16 Jan 2007

Hans Rosling uses an amazing new presentation tool, Gapminder, to present data that debunks several myths about world development

Religions and babies Hans Rosling; TED; 22 May 2012

Hans Rosling had a question: Do some religions have a higher birth rate than others -- and how does this affect global population growth? Speaking at the TEDxSummit in Doha, Qatar, he graphs data over time and across religions. With his trademark humor and sharp insight, Hans reaches a surprising conclusion on world fertility rates.

Hans Rosling and the magic washing machine (2010)

What was the greatest invention of the industrial revolution? Hans Rosling makes the case for the washing machine. With newly designed graphics from Gapminder, Rosling shows us the magic that pops up when economic growth and electricity turn a boring wash day into an intellectual day of reading.

Hans Rosling: Debunking third-world myths with the best stats you've ever seen TED

How not to be ignorant about the world Hans and Ola Rosling; TED; 11 Sep 2014

How much do you know about the world? Hans Rosling, with his famous charts of global population, health and income data (and an extra-extra-long pointer), demonstrates that you have a high statistical chance of being quite wrong about what you think you know. Play along with his audience quiz — then, from Hans’ son Ola, learn 4 ways to quickly get less ignorant.

DON'T PANIC — Hans Rosling showing the facts about population 15 Dec 2014

Gapminder Foundation YouTube channel

Don’t Panic — End Poverty Gapminder

The United Nations just announced their boldest goal ever: To eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, already by 2030.
Looking at the realities of extremely poor people the goal seems impossible. The rains didn’t fall in Malawi this year. The poor farmers Dunstar & Jenet, gather a tiny maize harvest in a small pile on the ground outside their mud hut. But Dunstar & Jenet know exactly what they need to break the vicious circle of poverty. And Hans Rosling shows how billions of people have already managed. This year’s “hunger season” may very well be Dunster’s & Jenet’s last.
Up-to-date statistics show that recent global progress is ‘the greatest story of our time – possibly the greatest story in all of human history. The goal seems unrealistic to many highly educated people because their worldview is lagging 60 years behind reality.

Sovacool, Benjamin

From wikipedia

Benjamin K. Sovacool is director of the Danish Center for Energy Technology at the Department of Business Technology and Development and a professor of social sciences at Aarhus University. He is also professor of energy policy at the University of Sussex, where he directs both the Center on Innovation and Energy Demand, one of six End Use Energy Demand Centres in the United Kingdom, and the Sussex Energy Group. His research interests include energy policy, environmental issues, and science and technology policy. He is the author or editor of eighteen books and 300 peer-reviewed academic articles and chapters and has written opinion editorials for The Wall Street Journal and the San Francisco Chronicle. Sovacool is editor-in-chief of Energy Research & Social Science, which explores the interactions between energy systems and society.


The following is based on RationalWiki's article on Sovacool and criticism of some of his publications.

Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey

Arguably the most popular of Sovacool's papers on the Internet is Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey published in the journal Energy Policy in 2008.[1] It is a survey of analyses done on this topic.

Sovacool found 103 papers estimating the greenhouse gas emissions for the nuclear fuel cycle. He then subjected them to a selection process which consisted of the following:

  • He rejected 40 that were too old (published before 1997).
  • He rejected 9 that were not published in English or were not open access, though this paper was not published as open access.
  • He rejected 35 because of methodology. In most cases, this was due to relying either on unpublished data or on secondary sources (e.g. other analyses). Oddly, he also excluded a study that calculated very low emissions that relied on "published utility data", which did not appear to meet his criterion.

This left 19 studies which satisfied his criteria. He did not evaluate the soundness of studies' methodologies, or whether they were peer reviewed, just whether they contained enough detail.[2] He also did not remove superseded versions of the same analysis from the same authors. This led him to include 3 versions of the StormSmith study, as well as 3 different studies by Dones et al. Finally, to arrive at a "true" value of CO
2
emissions, he calculated a mean of all results. He arrived at a value of 66 g/kWh, which he then compared to emissions from other sources, with each value selected from a single analysis.

This approach has several flaws:

  • The criteria of the selection process are faulty, as it leads to the inclusion of the debunked "StormSmith" work, while rejecting studies based on real world measurements.
  • The mean is used as the true value; however a mean is sensitive to outliers so a more accurate measure would be the median.
  • The emissions for other sources are not obtained using the same process, and therefore not directly comparable.

A better meta-analysis which investigated a larger corpus of literature and additionally excluded studies using the average economic intensity (AEI) method, which is known to produce bogus results for projects utilizing lots of high-value, low-energy labor (such as the construction and operation of nuclear power plants), came up with a median of 13 g/kWh lifecycle emissions for light water reactors.[3]

A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia

This publication makes many claims, but for now we will focus only on one specific item.

Sovacool uses his "Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power" analysis to argue that renewable energy is "two to seven times more effective" at combating global warming than nuclear power, because the values he cited for wind are around 10 g/kWh, or around 6 times lower, than what he calculated for nuclear energy.[4] However what really counts in the case of CO
2
emissions is the change with respect to the sources replaced by new generation. Nuclear energy displaces other base load power, mainly coal, whereas wind displaces mainly natural gas and hydro since gas turbines and dams can vary output much more quickly to respond to wind's variability than coal power plants can do.[5][6] For the moment, we'll assume that only natural gas is displaced by wind and hydro is unchanged. Sovacool's article quotes the emissions for coal and gas as 960 g/kWh and 443 g/kWh, respectively. Generating 1 kWh of nuclear electricity saves the need to generate 1 kWh from coal, saving 894 g of CO
2
. Generating 1 kWh from wind removes the need to generate 1 kWh from gas, saving 433 g of CO
2
. Therefore, nuclear is at least twice as effective at reducing emissions. If the existing grid is almost 100% natural gas, as is the case in some Arab countries, then each kWh from nuclear would save 367 g, while each kWh from wind would save 433{{sp}g. In this rather extreme scenario, nuclear would be 15% less effective per kWh than wind.

Thus even Sovacool's own numbers do not support the claim that nuclear is "two to seven times less effective" at emissions reduction than renewable sources. Compounded with the fact that a later analysis produced a much lower number of 13 g/kWh,[3] this contention is unsupported by evidence.

Bird mortality studies

Sovacool's oft-cited 2009 paper Contextualizing avian mortality: A preliminary appraisal of bird and bat fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity[7] concluded that fossil fuel energy and nuclear energy causes 10 times more bird deaths per GWh generated than does wind energy. This paper has the unusual distinction of having a direct rebuttal (Willis et al. 2010[8]) published against its conclusions in the same journal (a blemish accrued by less than 2% of peer-reviewed papers). Further studies by Sovacool in 2012[9] and 2013[10] reached conclusions similar to the 2009 paper. At that point, Sovacool was sticking to his guns.

But in early 2013 Sovacool's studies were reported in the press, which led to them actually being read by people. Thus they attracted strong criticism in the blogosphere[11][12][13][14], particularly regarding Sovacool's sloppy methodology (assigning deaths from fossil-fuel plants to nuclear power, assigning deaths from copper mining to uranium, and assuming unusual accidents are common occurrances). To his credit in Sovacool's response[15] to some of these criticisms he has admitted many errors which, if corrected, would have significantly changed his conclusions.

Perhaps the most notable failing of these papers is that Sovacool considers lifecycle bird deaths for nuclear, while omitting them for wind. Thus, the fact that wind uses 10 times more steel than nuclear and 700 times more copper than nuclear per MWh generated[16], would have reversed Sovacool's conclusions even if that were the only error in these papers.

Nuclear Power and Climate Emissions in EU

Sovacool co-authored a paper in 2016 in the journal 'Climate Policy'[17] which, according to its press release, claimed:

most progress towards reducing carbon emissions and increasing renewable energy sources – as set out in the EU's 2020 Strategy – has been made by [EU] nations without nuclear energy or with plans to reduce it

This claim was false; and based on incompetent maths[18]. After complains about the validity of data, the paper was retracted by the authors within a few months.[19] Although the press release has subsequently been removed from the University of Sussex website, it was published by 'The Ecologist' as an "article"[20]. Despite the retraction, as of today (2 Sept 2019), 6 out of 13 green media and science news sites who reported the press release still carry their stories without acknowledging the retraction.

Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power Wikipedia

Suzuki, David

The two Suzukis: There’s Saint Suzuki, the one you see on CBC, and Secret Suzuki, the capitalist millionaire Ezra Levant; Toronto Sun; 11 Oct 2013

There are two David Suzukis.
Most of us know one of the Suzukis. Let’s call him Saint Suzuki. That’s the Suzuki whose TV show on the CBC constantly lectures us about our lifestyle. He says we need to consume less, buy less and use less fossil fuels.
But then there’s another Suzuki. Let’s call him Secret Suzuki, because he’s far less well-known.
Secret Suzuki is the one who lives on Vancouver’s elite Point Grey Road, on a double lot, overlooking English Bay, right above the exclusive Kitsilano Yacht Club. The City of Vancouver assesses the land value alone at over $8 million. And that’s just one of Secret Suzuki’s properties.
He has another million-dollar home in Vancouver. And then there’s another home on Quadra Island. That’s three homes right there, if you count the double lot on Point Grey Road as just one property.
But then there’s his large property holdings on Nelson Island. What’s so fascinating about that one is that he co-owns the property with an oil company, Kootenay Oil Distributors Ltd. They don’t plan to drill for oil together. It’s a beautiful tourist spot — maybe perfect for a nice big condo development.
Of course, there’s nothing wrong with co-owning any property along with an oil company. But isn’t Saint Suzuki against fossil fuel companies — especially oil companies?

Taylor, James

James Taylor desmog blog

AGW denial pieces

Tindale, Stephen

Stephen Tindale Wikipedia

Stephen Tindale (29 March 1963 – 1 July 2017) was a British environmentalist who was the Executive Director of Greenpeace in the United Kingdom from 2000 to 2005. He was Director of The Alvin Weinberg Foundation, co-founder of the organisation Climate Answers, Associate Fellow at the Centre for European Reform and co-author of Repowering Communities with Prashant Vaze.
Tindale was noted for his recent change of heart on the issue of nuclear power, which went counter to his stance while at Greenpeace UK. Along with three other persons who have been involved with the environmental movement, Chris Smith, Mark Lynas and Chris Goodall, he considered that the need to overcome the dangers of rising carbon emissions and subsequent global warming requires a rethinking of anti-nuclear positions amongst the environmental movement. In addition to current nuclear technology, Tindale supported the research and development of the thorium fuel cycle in molten salt reactors to reduce nuclear waste output and increase safety.
On leaving Greenpeace Tindale also endorsed Genetically Modified (GM) foods. Greenpeace remains opposed to GM.
His other past roles included Senior Research Fellow on environment and energy at the Institute for Public Policy Research.

Director Stephen Tindale’s evidence to Lord’s Committee Jon Trevelyan; Climate Answers; 09 Dec 2016

Tindale's background and current involvement

Memorial held for green campaigner Roger Harrabin; BBC; 4 Sep 2017

Mr Tindale zig-zagged through the broad environment movement, working for Friends of the Earth; the Fabian Society; the Institute for Public Policy Research, the Labour Party and the government. He also directed the Green Alliance.
After the Labour landslide in 1997, he became special adviser to the environment minister Michael Meacher. Over three trend-setting years, the UK signed the Kyoto protocol, launched the climate change levy and passed right-to-roam legislation.
He left government, blaming powerful vested interests for opposing change for their own ends.
Later, at Greenpeace, he shifted the group towards technological solutions such as offshore wind power. Controversially, in recent years he infuriated former colleagues by embracing nuclear power and genetic modification.

He came to see these as essential tools in solving problems of climate change and world hunger.

He was a passionate hill-walker, and believed one of his greatest achievement was helping to frame the Countryside and Rights of Way Act which allowed walkers in the England to wander over land designated as Open Access.
  1. http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf
  2. Quote: "These studies were "weighed" equally; that is, they were not adjusted in particular for their methodology, time of release within the past 10 years, or how rigorously they were peer reviewed or cited in the literature."
  3. 3.0 3.1 Ethan S. Warner, Garvin A. Heath, Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Electricity Generation, Journal of Industrial Ecology 2012, 16(s1), pp. S73-S92
  4. Benjamin K. Sovacool, A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 2010, 40(3), pp. 369-400
  5. Pacific Winds: The health and climate benefits of Altamont Pass wind power: "The clean, renewable power generation from the Altamont wind farms displaces natural gas generation..."
  6. American Wind Energy Association: Wind energy driving down consumer electric rates: "Since wind energy primarily displaces natural gas generated energy, reducing the quantity of natural gas purchases..."
  7. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421509001074
  8. http://www.willisbatlab.org/uploads/8/0/0/6/8006753/willis_et_al_2010_bats_are_not_birds.pdf
  9. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1943815X.2012.746993
  10. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148112000857
  11. http://atomicinsights.com/nukes-kill-more-birds-than-wind
  12. http://atomicinsights.com/lorenzini-rebuts-sovacools-defense-of-nuclear-bird-kill-paper-as-weak
  13. https://achemistinlangley.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/wind-energy-and-avian-mortality-why-cant-we-get-any-straight-numbers/
  14. https://achemistinlangley.wordpress.com/2015/04/02/when-peer-review-is-not-enough-on-estimates-of-avian-deaths-attributable-to-coal-and-nuclear-facilities/
  15. http://atomicinsights.com/sovacool-vs-lorenzini/
  16. http://ewp.industry.gov.au/sites/prod.ewp/files/Appendix%207%20-%20Getting%20to%20Zero.docx Weißbach, D., et al. "Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants." Energy 52 (2013): 210-221.
  17. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14693062.2016.1179616
  18. https://thompson.energy/2016/10/12/a-response-to-lawrence-sovacool-and-stirling/
  19. Authorial statement of article withdrawal, Andrew Lawrence, Benjamin Sovacool & Andrew Stirling, Taylor & Francis online, 25 Nov 2016
  20. https://theecologist.org/2016/aug/24/new-study-suggests-pro-nuclear-countries-are-making-much-slower-progress-climate