NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/energy/6530

Text File | 1992-12-31 | 11.3 KB | 222 lines

Newsgroups: sci.energy
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!vexcel!dean
From: [e-mail] (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:42:59 GMT
Lines: 211

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dean Alaska) writes:

Richard Stead makes a lot of incorrect assumptions about details of
the reports that I did not include.  I will attempt to clear up some
of the misconceptions.

>> It seems to be a common conception that nuclear power is a good response
>> to any possible climate change problem.  I have challenged this assumption
>> before but I will address in more detail here.
>>
>> The December 1988 issue
>> of _Energy Policy_ contains an article called "Greenhouse warming -
>> Comparative analysis of nuclear and efficiency abatement strategies"
>> by Bill Keepin and Gregory Kats.  They make a cost comparison of
>
>(costs for high and medium growth in energy consumption deleted).
>
>> As can be seen, these scenarios require huge investments and an extremely
>> intensive building program for nuclear plants.  And CO2 emissions will
>> not even drop due to the increase in use of other fossil fuel energy
>> sources!
>
>I don't see why these different energy uses are combined.  Why argue that
>CO2 emissions increase from other uses of fossil fuels?  Who claims that
>all energy uses must increase in lock-step?  If vehicles are converted
>from gas-fueled to electric, and the electricity is nuclear-supplied,
>the total energy use can still go up by vehicles, but CO2 emissions go down.
>So the argument that CO2 emissions increase if we use nuclear power
>is completely bogus.

The study was for replacing only coal electricity generation since it
is the dirtiest form of fossil fuel.  Oil and natural gas were not
included to keep the cost down.  The increased use of oil and
natural gas over the 40 year period made up for the savings from
not using coal.  Transportation contributions were not included.
>
>> Next, this is compared to the cost and emissions prediction for a focus
>> on energy efficiency.  They use a low energy scenario proposed by
>> Goldemburg et al.  They also discuss other low energy/efficiency
>> studies by Lovins et al and an NSF/MIT study, all of which point to
>> large savings from energy saving measures.  The NSF study states that:
>
>Thus apples and oranges are compared.  Why not consider the cost of replacing
>decommissioned fossil fuel facilities with nuclear facilities while
>incorporating the same conservation efforts?  It will cost less than replacing
>decommisioned fossil power with new fossil power, and produce less CO2.
>There is no need to mix the GDP growth = energy growth argument with the
>pro-nuclear argument.  They are completely separate, regardless of whether
>some pro-nukes like the GDP argument.

Any projections require modeling future energy needs, which usually
requires modeling future economic growth.  The two cannot be separated,
whatever the relationship between them.  Virtually all public
nuclear power advocates dismiss efficiency while efficiency advocates
assume that the non-trivial expense for efficiency retrofits comes
from money that would otherwise be used for new plant contruction.
It is clear from responses to this post that nuclear proponents here
do not dismiss efficiency as the public ones do.  That is good, but
I think people should look at the sources for these funds to see that
the combined strategy is problematic.  I discussed this with Michael Tobis.
>
>>     ... the effectiveness of energy use on a global scale can
>>     be increased by about 1% per year for decades without any
>>     social strain.  This seemingly small figure leads to a
>
>Where do they get this?  Sure, 1% sounds nice, but what about developing
>nations and population growth?  Suddenly 1% looks unbelievably large.
>What do the authors project for the population in 2050?  Hopefully several
>10's of billions, 'cause that's what it will be at current growth.
>And why have they decided that the third world will be rigidly kept at
>its same low level of development?  If they develop, they will have
>factories, transportation systems, etc., which will all use new energy
>that even if it is used very efficiently was not used before.  I think
>there will be quite a bit of social strain if this was enforced
>world-wide.

Where does it say that the third world will be kept at current levels
of development?  You need to read the post more carefully.  As to
whether the 1%/year is reasonable, you will have to take it up with
the researchers.  Details of this study were not included.
>
>> Note that such a development requires capital expenditures that would
>> not likely be possible if there was a focus on expanding nuclear
>> power generation.
>
>Why?  We're talking about spending the money over 60 years.  Think back
>to the world physical plant in 1933.  Compare that to today.  Look
>what we've built - it's a lot.  We could easily develop both nuclear
>and conservation.  Afterall, conservation would mean less nuclear development
>required and that would free up cash for more conservation, etc.

40 years.  I am glad you are so optimistic that the money is available.
Considering that the good citizens of Colorado passed a strict tax
limitation initiative, turned down a sales tax for schools (but approved
a baseball stadium), I am not so optimistic.
>
>> For another comparison, they show that efficiency improvements cost
>> about $.02/kWh.  When this is compared with nuclear strategies, at any
>
>For some current strategies.  This is why power companies are investing
>in conservation by paying large users to convert to more efficient
>motors/lighting/etc.  It is a wise and profitable investment.  We
>cannot plan on having something with efficiency gains equivalent
>to modern high-efficiency fluorescent vs. incandescent lighting, for
>example.  So when they have paid off all existing plants to convert
>then buying conservation is essentially eliminated.  Presumedly all
>new facilities built will already use the best in efficiency.  The idea
>that efficiency gains can be made indefinitely is clearly as specious
>as free-energy arguments.

Noone claims these gains can be made indefinitely.  They can be made
for quite some time (1 or 2 decades) at reasonably expected levels of
investment.
>
>> The article also discusses the components of nuclear production for the
>> above scenarios in developing countries and examines the difficulties
>> they would have in financing such a program.
>
>But apparently does not mention the fact that there is no cost for
>conservation in these countries since they are using virtually no energy.
>They are undeveloped.  They will remain that way unless they add energy
>capacity, even if what they add is used as efficiently as possible.

Why do you believe that this is not taken into account?  They do
address it.  Pardon me for not typing numerous pages into the
computer.  The developing countries clearly have a different set
of choices than the developed countries.  Nuclear power has a poor
cost record in developing countries and powerful environmentalists
and regulation is not a likely cause in most of those countries.
Their lack of a well-developed grid makes the use of large
centralized plants more problematic than in the U.S. or Europe.
>
>> First of all, the calculations for nuclear power cost were highly
>> favorable to nuclear power and certainly did not bias the study.
>
>Escept that they assumed no investment in conservation strategies.
>
>> may be cause for caution, but the results cannot be discounted
>> without an effective rebuttal.
>
>This post is an effective rebuttal.

You have not even attempted to rebut efficiency cost estimates.  What
you have attempted to rebut is the methodology of the study, which you
clearly do not know much about.  You did much better with flywheels :).
>
>> One was based not on the cost estimates, but on the economics-based
>> claim that increased efficiency would not lead to a lower energy use
>> since lower costs lead to higher consumption.  However, this assumption
>> is only true if the cost of the electricity is the limiting factor
>> in its consumption.  For most uses this is not true.  Also, there was
>
>However, the CO2 argument assumed all uses increase in lock-step with
>electricity.  However, cost of fuel is a limiting factor in gasoline
>consumption.  In big industry, cost of electricity is a significant
>consideration and is a big part of the final cost of product.  If
>electricity cost less, aluminum would be much cheaper.  Demand for
>aluminum would then increase.  Simple supply and demand.  I like this
>argument - it is subtle, but devastating.

As I said before, transportation was not included.  The economic
argument is true for certain industries, but their component of
total electricity consumption is very small.  Do you know what
percentage of U.S electricity is used for Aluminum?  If this
argument is to be devastating, then aluminum and similar uses
must be shown to dominate the market.  Please provide a reference.
>
>>     Expansion of the nuclear contribution in the short term
>>     can only be relatively modest.  Energy efficiency measures,
>>     particularly in the industrialized countries, may well
>>     offer more immediate potential to contain greenhouse gas
>>     emissions.
>
>Agreed.  I consider myself pro-nuke, and one of those who backs the
>nukes-for-the-environment argument.  However, I do not propose
>eliminating conservation or ripping out existing power to replace it with
>nuke.  My argument is to develop nukes to fill any increase in demand
>and to replace existing fossil power as it is decommissioned.  I fully
>back conservation efforts, as long as they remain reasonably viable
>economically.  (As they get more difficult, you will reach the point
>of diminishing returns.  Investment in conservation is a big booming
>industry right now with lots of room to grow.  Let's check it again in
>10 years.  It will level off and go down.)
>
How quickly cost effectiveness levels off depends on how forcefully
it is approached.  A strong national program for efficiency might
lead to leveling off within 10 years but a program of that magnitude
at that speed of implementation would lead to a _decrease_ in electricity
consumption, even including economic growth, so we would not need to
replace aged fossil fuel plants immediately.  This would be great
but I personally believe that a slower efficiency implementation, such
that gains equal fossil plant deactivation is more likely since the
short term cost-benefit results would be more equal which is the way
industry likes it.  The best likelihood for the fast scenario, IMO,
would be for strong and unambiguous proof for climate change, similar
to what is now available for ozone depletion, to become available in
the next few years.
>
>--
>Richard Stead
>Center for Seismic Studies
>Arlington, VA
>[e-mail]


--
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
    - Benjamin Franklin            [e-mail]