NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/environm/14061

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 3.7 KB

Xref: sparky sci.environment:14061 sci.energy:6507
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!yale.edu!yale!gumby!destroyer!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: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:20:38 GMT
Lines: 62

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Tobis) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dean Alaska) writes:
>|>
>|> 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.
>|>
>|> 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!
>|>
>|> 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:
>|>
>|>     ... 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
>|>     halving of energy use by the year 2050 and a 50% reduction
>|>     in (annual) CO2 emissions.  This result is quite independent
>|>     of any shifts to non-fossil sources for primary energy supplies.
>
>I fail to see why efficiency improvements and shifts to non-fossil energy
>sources are mutually exclusive. Your slant seems to imply that it is
>necessary to choose one of these approaches, but the use of the words
>"quite independent" shows that this is not the case.
>
>The argument you make above seems empty to me. It's as if you were advocating
>against unleaded gasoline on the grounds that you could always use your
>bicycle. (note for the unsubtle: I advocate bicycles, but am glad of
>unleaded gas for use in those instances where the bicycle is inappropriate.)

While it is not theoretically impossible to do both, they both cost
money and such money does not grow on trees.  Further, you ignore
the part of the thread that discusses opportunity cost of
investing in nuclear power.  It is an inefficient use of money if
the goal is to lessen CO2 emissions.  The phrase above about
"quite independent" means that the savings can be had without a
switch to nuclear (or solar, etc.).  In that sense, while it does
not directly support the idea that a switch away from fossil fuels
and an efficiency strategy are mutually exclusive, it does not
contradict it.  We can keep using fossil
fuels  and get the efficiency savings.  A central point is that
most studies of efficiency assume that money saved by not building
new generating capacity will be used to fund the efficiency
improvements.  We may also want to move away from fossil fuels, but
unless we can cough up the money for both, the most effective CO2
mitigation strategy is to focus on efficiency for the immediate future.
>
>mt
>
>


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