X-Envelope-to: BIOSPH-L@UBVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: BIOSPH
X-VMS-Cc: WHITLOCK
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:37:00 EDT
Reply-To:     Jeremy Whitlock <WHITLOCK@MCMASTER.BITNET>
From:         Jeremy Whitlock <WHITLOCK@MCMASTER.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: electricity.

Joe Meyer writes:

  > Okay, for the sake of argument, I'll accept your contention that a
  > relationship exists.  However, it still _does_ matter which does the
  > driving _if_ you're inferring, as you seem to be, that higher electricity
  > production will result in a higher GNP.

All I've said so far is that electricity is important to a rising GNP -- there
are those on this list who contend that abundant electricity is a bad thing,
and that's what I'm debating.  If anything, put "ability to produce" before
"higher electricity" in your last sentence above, and you'd be correct about
what I'm trying to infer.

  > Until you provide evidence to the contrary, I'll believe economic growth
  > is unaffected by energy production.  I agree, however, that energy
  > production is most definitely affected by economic growth.

But it is not a by-product of economic growth; it is the means of economic
growth (I'm talking about electrical energy here, not energy in general).
Of course increasing electrical energy flow cannot induce an increase in
economic output, since, in the absence of electrical storage, this violates
physics.  However, an industrial economy will *not* increase unless
electricity is abundant, with the potential to remain abundant in the
future.

In a nutshell, electrical production does not just increase with increasing
GNP simply because people are getting richer and buying more toys;
electrical production is the fuel of the economic increase in the first
place.

The toys we can do without; the fuel we can't.

  > My point is, "who cares" if industrialization results in higher use of
  > electricity--this is common sense.

Ah, but my point is precisely that we *should* care, since if we want to
continue to live with the standard we are used to, and pass this on to our
children, we are going to have to become more efficient, develop our renewable
resources where applicable, and build more base load power plants (which
will be fossil or nuclear).  You cannot, as many from lobby groups to
governments say, cut out one of these three components (or, within a
component, cut out one option -- such as nuclear power).

It may seem trivial to stress the importance of supply planning, but in the
70's and 80's you'd be surprised how many people opposed the building of
new power plants, since the current plants were producing as much as we
needed at the time, perhaps with the ability to produce even more.  This
attitude continues to be encountered today.

Jeremy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Whitlock                        e-mail:  WHITLOCK@MCMASTER.CA
Dept. of Engineering Physics
McMaster University                    phone: (416) 525-9140 ext.7140
Hamilton, Ont.
CANADA   L8S 4L8
                   "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU