NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/environm/14111

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 7.2 KB

Xref: sparky sci.environment:14111 sci.energy:6517
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!tulane!darwin.sura.net!seismo!skadi!stead
From: [e-mail] (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 31 Dec 92 01:41:48 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: sci.energy
Lines: 134
Nntp-Posting-Host: skadi.css.gov

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.
>
> 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.

> 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.

>     ... 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

>     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.)


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
[e-mail]