Talk:Benjamin K. Sovacool

Book review resource

Climate Change and Global Energy Security: Technology and Policy Options by Marilyn A. Brown and Benjamin K. Sovacool; Reviewed by By Richard N. Cooper January/February 2012 Foreign Affairs 99.19.44.155 (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear powers total life cycle CO2 emissions

Nuclear power plants produce electricity with about 66 g equivalent lifecycle carbon dioxide emissions per kWh, while renewable power generators produce electricity with 9.5-38 g carbon dioxide per kWh. Renewable electricity technologies are thus "two to seven times more effective than nuclear power plants on a per kWh basis at fighting climate change". However a more recent 2012 study by Yale University revealed Sovacool's high estimate to be off by nearly a factor of three, and the mean value from Nuclear power, depending on which Reactor design was analysed, arrived at a range from 11- 25 g/kW·h for Nuclear Power

I added the inline "Not in citation given" tags (in the image caption) as I searched source but could find no mention of "Sovacool's high estimate" or "factor of three" or "off". I'm concerned there is inaccurate reporting or WP:OR here. I'm also concerned that the image caption is too long and complex. Johnfos (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Johnfos you seemingly didn't read the Yale paper- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x/full Sovacool's high estimate was 288 g CO2/kWh. Whereas the more rigorous Yale study had a high estimate of 110g CO2/kWh, with a harmonized mean value of 11 g/kWh for BWR and 22g/kWh PWR. The 'nearly a factor of three' edit I made comes from dividing 288/110 = 2.62 Therefore 'nearly a factor of three' is correct. Having presented this to you, could you please remove your unwarranted 'not in citation' tag. Thanks. -- User:Boundarylayer

Sovacool's analysis is certainly quite notable, since it was reviewed in the prestigious journal Nature, see [1]. I still don't see the Yale paper saying Sovacool's analysis is "off", just that it reflects the different methodology used. I think this is the key point which needs to be mentioned. It needs to be mentioned, not in the Sovacool Study image caption, as this just confuses the issue, but in the main text of the article where needed. In this particular article, about Sovacool, I wouldn't even mention the Yale study, as it is off-topic here. Johnfos (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that Yale study actually comes to figures which are different than the present 11-25 gCO2/kWh reported in the image caption. I would argue that 11-25 is more like cherry picking. Here is the original text: "After harmonizing methods to use consistent gross system boundaries and values for several important system parameters, the same statistics were 12, 17, and 110 g CO2 -eq/kWh, respectively." and "Depending on conditions, median life cycle GHG emissions could be 9 to 110 g CO2 -eq/kWh by 2050"Bernard ivo (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Errors, corrections, and updates

Hello Wikipedia, seeing that this profile is about Prof Sovacool, somebody I know well, I thought I would correct a few errors and provide some updates. First, someone has asked for a citation for this claim: "He is the author or editor of thirteen books and more than 200 peer reviewed[citation needed] academic articles." Here is the citation: http://www.vermontlaw.edu/our_faculty/faculty_directory/benjamin_k_sovacool.htm

Second, and more seriously, you mention the quotation from the Beerten et al. study criticizing him, but you should read the entirety of their article. While the paragraph quote is indeed accurate, the CONCLUSION of the Beerten et al. study is almost the same as Sovacool, validating his findings. They conclude “The studies under consideration result in indirect emissions of around 8 and 58g CO2/kWhe and more than 110gCO2/ kWh." The mean of the low and high end of this range is 59 grams, very close to Sovacool’s 66 grams. You may also want to mention that while Beerten et al question Sovacool's methodology, more than two dozen other studies have praised it, and used it.

Third, in the side bar showing carbon emissions from nuclear power, Wikipedia notes that "However a 2012 study by Yale University did not arrive at the same conclusions as Sovacool, instead they found: "That life cycle GHG emissions from nuclear power are...comparable to renewable technologies."[5] Again, read this study closely. It also concludes that “Depending on conditions, median life cycle GHG emissions could be 9 to 110 g CO2-eq/kWh by 2050.” The mean of this low and high is 59.5 grams, very close to the 66 grams from Sovacool. This should be stated since it affirms Sovacool's research.

Fourth, in the same side bar, Wikipedia notes that "similarly an analysis by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2011 arrived at a 50th percentile value from nuclear power of 16 g of CO2 per kWh, Wind 12g & Solar 22g." Now, this comparison isn't fair because the IPCC study is using a different methodology that gives very low numbers for nuclear power sources. For instance, it excludes emissions from changes in land use, which means all the emissions with uranium mining and nuclear waste storage are excluded. That's why the numbers are much lower than Sovacools, and also why Sovacool's number is probably more complete, and accurate.

Fifth, there has been new research published in Environmental Science & Technology confirming Sovacool's numbers that should be acknowledged. That study, available here http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es401667h, concludes that "when recent marginal capital and levelized costs are factored in for the United States, wind energy is 96 times more effective at displacing carbon than nuclear power; other renewable sources range from about 20 times to twice as effective." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.164.28 (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree. I have removed some errors, WP:Coatrack material, and done some updating; see also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Benjamin K. Sovacool Johnfos (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Benjamin K. Sovacool bibliography

Most appropriate integrated into the main article on this scholar DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Benjamin K. Sovacool article looks too much like a CV when all relevant publications are included. The publications lists unbalance the article. Johnfos (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. In my opinion, with or without the bibliography, the article looks too much like a CV. The problem is that it is not written in an encyclopedic style. Only the most notable accomplishments and publications should be included, i.e. those addressed in reliable, third-party sources. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I actually agree with User:DASonnenfeld, this does look too much like a CV. Would suggest you remove the bottom Awards and Education part, and also either shorten or remove the list of books and articles.Bksovacool (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)