From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 5 Jan 93 14:47:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.170753.5233@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
> 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:
> >> 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.

You keep saying this almost like a mantra - like saying it enough times will
make everyone believe it.  It is true only up to a point.  You quote my
paragraph in its entirety and some arguments against such a simplistic
statement are contained therein.  My original response showed that cost
of efficiency gains is necessarily exponential as you approach physical
limits.  No, efficiency does not universally cost less than new capacity,
and no, you cannot use efficiency gains to avoid new capacity for very long.
In fact, entropy alone will prevent you from using efficiency gains for
very long - even if you are willing to spend infinite funds on efficiency.

> >> 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.  

Where does that statement come from?  I just gave you a computation that assumed
that every current facility and every new facility would be 100% converted
to the technology you claim will be 54% more efficient than current technology.
This is easy to compute - just let today's energy consumption be 1.0.  Then
assume instantaneous and 100% conversion to 54% more efficient use - energy
consumption is now 0.46.  Now just grow that at 5% per year, compounded yearly.
After 16 years, you have 1.004 as total energy use.  This is so obvious I
don't see why I should have had to explain it.  What do you think growth will
do, or are you expecting to get work done without energy (like the free-energy
people)?

> 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)

"Seems"?  To whom?  I haven't heard of any negative third world nuclear
experiences, though I imagine at least a few have to exist.  All I have
ever heard of is how virtually every third world country is just begging
for nuclear power - mainly becuase of the success they have seen in its
application by their neighbors.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
Newsgroups: sci.energy