Authors retract paper linking nuclear power to slow action on climate change

nukes Look! No question mark in my title. This is from a post on retraction watch about "Nuclear energy and path dependence in Europe’s ‘Energy union’: coherence or continued divergence?" by Andrew Lawrence, Benjamin Sovacool, and Andrew Stirling, Climate Policy, 2016; 16 (5): 622 DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2016.1179616.

Given the title and conclusions the pro-nuke folk weren't likely to like it, and it looks like they were right not to like it. Two criticisms (linked from the RW article, another I'll skip because it was too shrill) are by Stephen Tindale and Suzanna Hinson and Nicholas Thompson. Those two crits cover the broad range from, effectively, the broad-scale methodology doesn't make sense to the numbers are wrong. The numbers are wrong in many ways: simply mis-transcribed, calculated in the wrong way, and without reference to how the time period chosen affects the results. They also do questionable things with averaging: does it make sense to average an emission reduction, as a percentage, across Italy and Malta when the latter, in terms of absolute emissions, is tiny? I think you would expect at least some discussion of this point in the original paper, but it is absent. There doesn't seem to be any attempt to evaluate statistical significant of the results either1. On a more broad scale, the first criticism questions whether the groupings of the paper make any sense, which seems like a fair comment.

FWIW my own guess would be that the factors influencing renewables and nukes in a country are sufficiently idiosyncratic that this crude level of analysis would be unlikely to be useful.


1. Don't miss their delightful response which, errm, fully answers the statistical issue. Errm.

More like this

Nukes in Japan are going off like badly-racked champagne bottles, and the only thing fiercer than the radiation levels is the press circus (I liked that as a sort of simile-thingy, but actually at the moment the radiation levels aren't desperately fierce). How do you folks without blogs manage to…
Samples of fish species from the Poeciliidae family show the diversity in color, fin size and body shape. Kansas State University researchers studied 112 species of these live-bearing fishes and found that males and females evolve differently. Image courtesy of Kansas State University Dr.…
Turning aside from the moment from the strange world of Monkers we come to something that at least touches on science: to what extent did the atmospheric nuclear tests of the 50's and 60's affect the climate? It turns out that the answer is "hardly at all" and that the question isn't interesting;…
What a weird phrase. It sort of sounds like it ought to mean something, but it means nothing at all. "It speaks clearly of truth" would be better - but the grammar doesn't quite work. The alternate title to this post, incidentally, was "Like a trouser, yet not a trouser". I'll reserve that for…

Hi! We have just launched a blog about activities from our everyday lives in the Arctic. It is great to be able to blog and chat with people around the world even when we live in sparsely populated parts of the world. Our new blog we have chosen to call for Wealth and Work in the Arctic - An Northern Dimension. We have very much benefit from your tips to promote our blog. Thank you and welcome to visit, comment and share our blog too

/ Roger and Alina

By Roger K Olsson (not verified) on 06 Dec 2016 #permalink