Response to “J.P.”’s column “New numbers, same conclusion” posted 22 August 2014 on The Economist Online’s “Free exchange”

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The document argues that Dr. Charles R. Frank Jr.'s analysis of electricity technology costs is based on outdated and methodologically flawed assumptions. Amory Lovins asserts that updating nine key variables—including capital costs and capacity factors for solar and wind power—would reverse Frank's conclusions. Lovins specifically critiques the use of national average costs, which he claims are inflated by atypical projects and do not reflect modern competitive practice.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Amory Lovins argues that Dr. Charles R. Frank Jr.'s conclusions would be reversed if nine outdated numerical assumptions were updated, even without correcting methodological errors.
  • The document asserts that Frank's solar photovoltaic (PV) cost assumptions are too high; while Frank assumed $4,115/kW, Lovins notes that many 2012 projects were priced below $3,000/kW, with the cheapest around $2,300/kW.
  • Lovins argues that Frank significantly understated the productivity of renewables by using unrealistically low capacity factors. For solar, Frank assumed a 15.5% annual-average utility-scale capacity factor, whereas Lovins documents a 2008–13 U.S. average of 20.4%.
  • The author claims that Frank's wind power capacity factor assumptions are similarly flawed, noting that in the midwestern windbelt, the average generation-weighted capacity factor in 2013 was 38%, while Frank's implicit levelized price of $157/MWh is more than four times the realistic unsubsidized U.S. onshore-windpower price of $37/MWh.
  • Lovins critiques Frank's use of mean (average) costs rather than median costs, arguing that averages are skewed by a small number of high-cost, atypical, or small-scale projects.

Cite the original document

APA
Lovins, A. B. (2014). Response to “J.P.”’s column “New numbers, same conclusion” posted 22 August 2014 on The Economist Online’s “Free exchange”. RMI. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_2014-24_JP_Rebuttal.pdf
Chicago
Lovins, Amory B. Response to “J.P.”’s column “New numbers, same conclusion” posted 22 August 2014 on The Economist Online’s “Free exchange”. RMI, 2014. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_2014-24_JP_Rebuttal.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite press release |last1=Lovins |first1=Amory B. |title=Response to “J.P.”’s column “New numbers, same conclusion” posted 22 August 2014 on The Economist Online’s “Free exchange” |publisher=RMI |date=25 August 2014 |url=https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_2014-24_JP_Rebuttal.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@misc{lovins2014response, author = {Lovins, Amory B.}, title = {{Response to “J.P.”’s column “New numbers, same conclusion” posted 22 August 2014 on The Economist Online’s “Free exchange”}}, publisher = {RMI}, year = {2014}, month = aug, url = {https://rmi.org/app/uploads/2017/05/RMI_Document_Repository_Public-Reprts_2014-24_JP_Rebuttal.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated