NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/environm/14079

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 3.2 KB

Xref: sparky sci.environment:14079 sci.energy:6514
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!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]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:14:59 GMT
Lines: 54

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Tobis) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dean Alaska) writes:
>|>
>|> While it is not theoretically impossible to do both, they both cost
>|> money and such money does not grow on trees.
>
>Hmm, I thought the idea of an "investment" was a long term return for a short
>term cost. It seems to have worked so far. Both new energy production and
>new energy efficiency are investments in that sense. Both have large costs
>in the immediate term but negative costs (i.e., benefits) in the long run.
>Economics is NOT a zero-sum game. You are applying short term budgetary
>thinking to long term policy questions where it doesn't really apply.

I completely agree with you but we alone do not make this decision.  If
the money can be found, I would support doing both.  As a practical
matter, I don't think the funds are available.
>
>|>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.
>
>Even in the rosiest of scenarios, power plants age and some of them must
>be replaced. Assuming the storage problems of solar and wind energy
>remain unsolved, would you replace a fossil fuel plant with another, or
>with a nuclear plant? I believe this is a difficult issue, but it's obvious
>that considering impact on CO2 alone (or acid rain alone) the choice
>is clearly for nuclear power over fossil fuels, and no amount of
>handwaving will change that.
>
>Your argument that it is better to reduce consumption than to build
>production is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far in arguing
>against nuclear power once new production capacity becomes necessary.

I have posted proof that efficiency improvements should be enough to
forestall the need for new capacity in general for 10 to 20 years.
This proof was from an EPRI study.  As we approach that limit, we
can determine what the best decision is for new capacity, nuclear,
wind or solar, based on the newest technology of the day.  Remember
that efficiency has the shortest installation time. This is all
for the U.S.  The developing world will need new capacity soon (if not
now).  I would argue that they would be best served by smaller scale
generation and solar and wind tend to serve them well since they have
little or no grid, but that is their decision to make.
>
>mt
>


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