[p2p-research] [Open Manufacturing] Addressing Post-Scarcity Pitfalls

[Stan Rhodes]

Nick, be honest: before sending that email, did you verify a single fact
claimed by Lovins in that interview?  Did you even try?  Which claim did you
find solid?

Lovins establishes fossil fuels--particularly coal--as the fuel to beat at
the very beginning of the interview.  That may be the only valid point in
the interview.  He then claims that "efficiency" and "micropower" have been
"whalloping" nuclear in the marketplace.  Fortunately, I don't have to write
much on this: these strange claims have already been debunked.  The most
well-known and well-researched criticism of Lovins' claims about nuclear and
"micropower" is here:
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/07/amory-lovins-and-his-nuclear-illusion.html

While that blog is decidedly and obviously pro-nuclear, Bradish's meticulous
research in dissecting Lovins and Sheikh speaks for itself.  If you want a
"liberal-leaning" source, compare Bradish to NNadir at DailyKos, who has
expert-level knowledge as well, but is far more snarky.  You're better off
with Bradish.

That's the long answer to your question.  The short answer is, and always
should be, "facts."

I don't share Ryan's sentiments about Lovins--I became more and more
disappointed by Lovins' research as I dug into it and attempted to follow
his reasoning and citations.  He had no credibility after I finished Natural
Capitalism, which I read upon recommendation, and wanted to like.  The more
I learned of economics, the worse I found the book, but questioning the
material taught me a lot (as questioning usually does).

I agree with Ryan's response otherwise.  When he says passive solar provides
no energy, I believe he meant electricity (versus heat).

-- Stan

p.s. although I am part of the openmanufacturing googlegroup, the emails are
not set to come to my box.

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Nick Taylor <nick1181 at googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>>  Whether people like it or not, that's the reality of power consumption
>>> and needs: it boils down to fossil fuels vs nuclear for the majority of the
>>> world's power generation.
>>>
>>
>> Still, Amory Lovins appears to think otherwise
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WxreFrUHho
>>
>> Any particular reason why the "reality of power consumption" that exists
>> in your head is any more credible than that which exists in his?
>>
>>
>
> Amory Lovins is a great man.  One of the truly great energy minds.  I think
> the reality of his statements are very much long term.  In the short run, it
> is fossil versus nuclear.  So pick your poison.  One had better know clearly
> which to prefer.  If you know and understand the issues...it isn't close.
> Nuclear is vastly superior.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090612/70fa6929/attachment.html>