Learn how we are working to transform how we use and produce energy.
Response to J.P.’s column “New numbers, same conclusion”
Why we share this work for free
RMI is an independent nonprofit working to accelerate the clean energy transition. We publish research like this to inform decision-makers and drive real-world impact.
Our work is supported by philanthropy as well as partnerships, including fee-for-service engagements. This support makes it possible for us to share our independent insights for free.
If you find this work valuable, you can support it anytime.
Get more insights like this
Stay up to date with the latest research, analysis, and tools from RMI by opting in to receive occasional emails below. You’ll get new reports, event invitations, and practical insights to help us all accelerate the clean energy transition.
Loading form...
Your download should start automatically. If it doesn’t, click the download button below.
This work is made possible by philanthropy
RMI is a nonprofit supported by donors and partners. Philanthropy enables us to produce independent research and make resources like this freely available.
If you find this report valuable, please consider supporting our work. You can also explore how we partner with organizations to drive impact.
Jump to Section
Dr. Charles R. Frank, Jr.’s May 2014 Brookings Institution Working Paper claimed that new nuclear and gas-fired power plants can displace coal plants’ carbon emissions far more cost-effectively than solar and windpower can. This claim was featured and endorsed in late July by a full-page Free exchange” article in The Economist. Amory Lovins promptly rebutted Dr. Frank’s paper in detail (www.rmi.org/frank_rebuttal). Three weeks later, an anonymous Economist writer posted a new essay called “New numbers, same conclusion” claiming that unpublished recalculations by Dr. Frank confirmed his original conclusions even if a few of the original errors asserted by Lovins were corrected to some unstated degree. This response by Lovins refutes that claim, describes 17 errors or misrepresentations in the new Economist essay, and encourages Dr. Frank to reply transparently and specifically to the original critique.”
Help build the clean energy future. Donate today.
Independent research. Real-world solutions. Supported by donors.
RMI can pursue the highest-impact climate and energy solutions because we’re supported by people who believe change is possible. Every gift helps advance the work needed to make clean energy the default choice worldwide.
For other ways to give to RMI, including checks or gifts of stock, please visit Other Ways to Give.