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

The author argues that Dr. Charles R. Frank, Jr.'s analysis incorrectly concludes that nuclear and gas combined-cycle plants are more beneficial than wind and solar. By replacing Frank's data with empirical figures from the EIA and DOE, the author asserts that the priority for carbon savings actually shifts to hydro, wind, gas combined-cycle, nuclear, and solar. The critique highlights significant underestimations of renewable productivity and overestimations of gas and nuclear costs and reliability.

• Using Dr. Frank's own methodology but applying empirical data reverses his conclusions; the priority for carbon savings at $50/TCO2 becomes hydro, wind, gas combined-cycle, nuclear, and solar.
• Dr. Frank systematically understates the productivity of wind and solar power by more than one-fifth, and up to one-half when considering the most productive regions, by using outdated or incorrect capacity factors.
• The analysis overstates the productivity of gas combined-cycle plants by up to fourfold by assuming a theoretical maximum capacity factor of 92% instead of the actual average of approximately 41.7% to 46.5%.
• Dr. Frank's assumptions on nuclear power are described as 'fantasy,' understating empirical operating costs by nearly fivefold ($9.22/MWh assumed vs. $44.17/MWh actual) and underestimating construction times.
• The critique argues that Dr. Frank's methodology for 'adjusting' capacity factors to reflect reliability is fundamentally flawed and foreign to actual grid operator practices, as it uses annual data as a proxy for hourly fluctuations.
• The document asserts that the U.S. has almost no market for new generating capacity due to shrinking demand since 2007, making the analysis of new capacity value largely superfluous.
• The author argues that grid integration costs for variable renewables are low (often below $5/MWh or $12/MWh) and that high-renewables futures may actually require less backup and storage than current systems dependent on large thermal generators.

APA

Lovins, A. B. (2014). An initial critique of Dr. Charles R. Frank, Jr.’s working paper “The Net BeneAits of Low and No-­‐Carbon Electricity Technologies,” summarized in The Economist as “Free exchange: Sun, wind and drain”. RMI. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_2014-21_Frank-Rebuttal.pdf

Chicago

Lovins, Amory B. An initial critique of Dr. Charles R. Frank, Jr.’s working paper “The Net BeneAits of Low and No-­‐Carbon Electricity Technologies,” summarized in The Economist as “Free exchange: Sun, wind and drain”. RMI, 2014. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_2014-21_Frank-Rebuttal.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Lovins |first1=Amory B. |title=An initial critique of Dr. Charles R. Frank, Jr.’s working paper “The Net BeneAits of Low and No-­‐Carbon Electricity Technologies,” summarized in The Economist as “Free exchange: Sun, wind and drain” |publisher=RMI |date=1 August 2014 |url=https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_2014-21_Frank-Rebuttal.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{lovins2014initial, author = {Lovins, Amory B.}, title = {{An initial critique of Dr. Charles R. Frank, Jr.’s working paper “The Net BeneAits of Low and No-­‐Carbon Electricity Technologies,” summarized in The Economist as “Free exchange: Sun, wind and drain”}}, institution = {RMI}, year = {2014}, month = aug, url = {https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_2014-21_Frank-Rebuttal.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }