From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:07:53 GMT

In article <51731@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.001616.1907@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>> In article <51729@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>> >In article <1992Dec31.164259.22040@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>> >> In article <51726@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>> >> >In article <1992Dec30.161607.25113@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>> If we use money that otherwise would have been used for new capacity
>> (nuke or otherwise) for efficiency, then we do not have money to
>> build nuke capacity until efficiency has been played out.  At that
>
>But that was not my argument.  Just take the budget for nuke development.
>Take only the fraction that can currently reasonably be spent for
>efficiency gains (these take time, and will eventually be played out,
>so it is not clear that the entire budget for new power could be spent
>on it).  The remaining funds still go to develop new nuclear power.
>I don't believe it is an all-or-nothing situation.  In fact, this would
>be very prudent practice, since not only is the current cost of efficiency
>gains less than the cost of new power, but it would also provide the time
>needed for planning and construction of new nuclear power.

Efficiency costs a lot less than building new capacity.
>
>> point, we will need to decide on a source for new capacity.  If the
>> only reasonable choices are fossil and nuclear, I would support
>> nuclear.  Since that point is years away, I will reserve judgement
>> until the decision is needed.  While utility rates are not taxes, they
>
>But since new power takes at least 3-5 years to develop, it has to be planned
>well in advance.  Waiting until we start having brownouts to make these
>decisions is not good planning.
>
>> You obviously missed my posts (months ago) from an EPRI study that
>> indicated that if there was 100% market penetration of the best
>> existing technology today, we could get about a 54% decrease in
>> consumption in the U.S.  Obviously, it won't happen today.  I am
>> suggesting that it will take a decade or two.  But the technology
>> will also improve.  By the way, the biggest effeiciency gain
>> would be from industrial motors, according to the study.  How long
>> will it take for our electricity service needs to increase by 54%?
>> Certainly more than 5 years.
>
>At a 5% growth rate, 16 years, assuming 100% market penetration.
>Given at least 5 years to plan, construct and license new power,
>we will have to start planningin only about 10 years.

It looks like you are assuming a continuing coupling between GDP
and energy consumption that would no longer be true once the retrofits
were installed.  
>
>> The study gave some case histories of enormous cost overruns.  And
>
>There are cases of cost overruns in every industry - finding a few cases
>related to nuclear power does not discredit it.

The study also mentioned some successful cases.  It seems that the
majority experience with nuclear power in undeveloped countries is
negative - and this with minimal regulation (compared to the US)
and few environmentalists.  It seems that nuclear proponents like
to use the best case scenarios for nuclear power and the worst for
renewables (I am not specifically referring to you here).  Its also
true that environmentalists do the same, just switch the technologies.
>
>--
>Richard Stead
>Center for Seismic Studies
>Arlington, VA
>stead@seismo.css.gov


-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
Newsgroups: sci.energy