From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:35:03 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.173642.9571@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.160604.5987@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul23.145515.7912@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>
>>     Q:  Why is this not done?
>>
>I have already commented on this previously.

     Power companies may be stodgy, but generally they are not stupid.
     If there were clear economic advantages, they would be doing it.

>>     A:  It is not economical, and I think that most people would object
>>         to having 5 windmills in their front yards.
>
>Modern wind generators operate for around 7 cents per kwh in windy areas
>and the capital costs are not so high.  The windmills don't go in
>peoples front yards.  They work just fine in farms, take up very little
>of the farm space, and most windy areas in the U.S. are in agricultural
>areas.  Farmers in such areas have seen big increases in land value due
>to this new resource.  From the Scientific American article:
>
>	At Altamont, prices rose from $400 to $2,000 per acre, reflecting
>	royalties paid to landowners for use of the land.  Ranchers lost
>	only about 5% of the grazing area at Altamont, where cattle graze
>	around the wind machines.

     You seemed to be saying that we would get 2TW from wind.  I see no
     way to do that without putting a few (!) windmills around (the 'front
     yard' thing was a joke, son, just a joke).

     Also, Altamont is just peachy for a wind farm.  Most other places are
     not so peachy.  There may well be a place for wind power, however,
     I suspect that filling the plains of Nebraska with windmills is
     probably not the place.  Power companies tend to like their maintenence
     nightmares to be confined to a relatively small surface area.

>>     Fabrication energy is not a useful concept on which to base
>>     economic decisions.  Capital cost is.  If there were replacements
>>     that were more cost-effective, the equipment (most of the time)
>>     would be replaced.
>
>It is being replaced and the rate of replacement will increase.  The standard
>utility prediction around the country is about 9% efficiency increase.  The
>question is at what rate will the replacement occur.  The EPRI study
>indicates that the 9% figure is much too low.  Many of the replacements
>are cost effective, but people don't know about them.

     The point is that usually an increase in the rate of replacement involves
     capital costs and other penalties (retraining,  maintenence difficulties,
     etc.).  The driving factor should never be 'how much power we are
     generating'.  It is not a universal benefit to force power generation 
     down (or alternatively to hamper the economical rate of growth).

>>     Nuclear plants *are* needed, right now.  As far as coal-fired
>>     plants go, environmental regulations stop them not one bit.  As
>>     I have stated before, there will be over 5 built in my area
>>     over the next few years (more like 10).  This is a shame when
>>     they could have been replaced with capacity at a nuclear plant
>>     nearby.  However, the 'environmentalists' have pretty effectively
>>     stopped nuclear plant planning.
>
>Coal plants are being stopped in some areas, maybe not yours.  Your
>utility needs to get in touch with EPRI (of which ir probably is a 
>member) so it can learn how avoid the necessity for much of this
>new capacity.

     Most plants of any type are being stoped in some areas (e.g. the
     northeast).  This leads to 'benefits' like controlled brownouts
     and blackouts.  It is very easy to 'save' when you are receiving
     none.

>>     I think what you have failed to realize is that capacity *will*
>>     increase with economic growth (if the environmentalists allow
>>     us any). The draconian restrictions on nuclear power will just mean
>>     that we belch more sulfurous smoke into the atmosphere.
>
>Energy use does not need to increase with economic growth.  This has been
>well demonstrated in CA in the 80's.  It has also been demonstrated in
>other developed countries.  Energy use to GNP (or growth) ratios have been
>shifting significantly in recent years when a utility tries.  Your
>insistence on this relationship, which used to be true, is part of the
>inertia that I mentioned before that prevents cheaper alternatives
>from being used.  Many utilities are learning that efficiency for
>users, referred to as demand side management, makes much more sense
>economically than investing enormous quantities of money in huge
>power plants of any type.

     I repeat again.  There was no increase in generating capacity
     in CA in the 80's?

     As far as 'demand side management' goes, there is only so much we can
     do economically as some seem to always forget. 

                              dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9865 sci.geo.meteorology:2553 sci.skeptic:13134