From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: --UCS Offers New Energy Policies
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:48:35 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Oct9141008@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.143359.1400@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>
>   In article <STEINLY.92Oct8160056@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>
>   >It would be nice if opponents would state an acceptable level of
>   >proof _and_ _stick_ _with_ _it_.
>
>   I'm not aware that the UCS has changed its definitions.
>
>What _is_ their criterion for "proven safe" - as reported here it is
>semantically null. Certainly other nuclear opponents are quite
>happy to set unattainable standards of safety.

But we are talking about the UCS.  I will try and get ahold of a
specific criteria from them.
>
>   >   factor.  Further, the UCS does not advocate fossil-fuel construction.
>   >   There is plenty of evidence that short-term efficiency retrofitting
>   >   moving towards renewables as efficiency gets played out can remove
>   >   the need for major building of fossil-fuel _or_ nuclear power plants.
>   >   The continued ignoring and/or refusal to accept (or rebut) these
>   >   facts demonstrates a bias or tunnel-vision among many of the same
>   >   people who complain about representations of nuclear power.
>   >
>   >The refusal to accept this comes from recognition of some other
>   >factors. There is more to energy supply then building capacity
>   >to meet increased demand (peak or base ;-), you need to consider
>   >replacement of current capacity as it becomes ineffective of obsolete,
>   >unless you reduce the absolute demand fast enough and that is not
>   >happening. Personally I'd like to see a lot of fossil plants in
>   >US and western Europe retired.
> ...
>
>   Efficiency advocates claim that it can prevent the need for newly
>   constructed capacity in the _short_ term, meaning from 1 to 2
>   decades.  They do claim that _small_ decreases in total energy
>   requirements may be possible, and larger over time,
>   but noone is claiming an order of
>   magnitude decrease in energy supplies would be workable.
>
>   The role of renewables is to take up the slack once efficiency
>   has been played out.  This means it has 10 to 20 years to
>   develop before it will be needed for large scale utility
>
>But plant is constantly retired, which means you either reduce
>absolute demand or you replace it! So far efficiency seems to
>basically hope to keep demand constant, which still leaves need
>for replacement capacity. Note that if for example electric ZEV
>vehicles are introduced on a decade time scale or electric mass
>transit is built on any significant scale you essentially double
>demand on the same time scale! 

Based on _normal_ retirement schedules, the EPRI report indicated
that efficiency could be enough.  They used industry projections
for new construction required based on business-as-usual energy
needs - this includes replacement capacity - and found that 
efficiency _could_ meet this need.  The level of penetration needed
to meet that goal is higher than is likely to be achieved with
current policy but this is because the current system _impedes_
market forces.  The market will only lead to the cheapest
choice when consumers have the right information _and_ the chance
to use it.  If ZEV's become dominant within a decade, then this
certainly changes the picture. 
>
>   applications.  While wind is essentially competitive now, even
>   PV is expected to be competitive 1 to 2 decades from now.  While
>
>I'd say solar thermal has a chance of putting GW on line within 
>the decade, PV is likely to remain off-grid and small scale (although
>it does add up) for more than a decade barring a breakthrough.
>Wind is never going to be more than 10% of capacity on US scale
>demands (ie some small countries may use it for greater fraction
>of capcity)

Wind could be more than 10%, especially if transmission technologies
improve.  Lets look at a few numbers.  Lets say we get 50% penetration
for all of the efficiency technologies studied by EPRI.  That lowers
usage (sans growth) by about 22%.  Assume that new consumption has
a much higher penetration; that lowers the additinal need.  Lets
say wind gets 15%.  Lets say solar thermal (utility scale) and PV
(niche applications) combine for 10%.  I have heard that the new
energy bill enhances non-utility power supply.  I don't know if that
is PURPA-based or not, but cogeneration is popular for PURPA so we
might get a few percent that way.  These are ballpark figures,
especially the solar component, but they displace 1/3 to 1/2 of
current usage.  How much economic growth is required to absorb
that capacity?  At what rate will plants be retired over this
time period?  Also, I believe some of these percentages could be
larger if policies were changed (primarily by PUC's), especially
the solar and efficiency.
>
>   While many people would like to close fossil-fuel plants before they
>   would normally be retired, few are actually advocating this.
>   The cost for replacing the huge coal-fired capacity is enormous,
>   no matter what technology is used.  Studies have examined using
>   nuclear power to do this assuming all of the beneficial conditions
>   desired and claimed by nuclear proponents, and the cost is still
>   tremendous.
>
>If the greenhouse warming is real then it is possible that fossil
>plants will have to shut down. Doing without the electricity is
>even more costly.

If we need to replace all fossil fuel plants, that would require
many TW of new capacity in the order of a couple of decades (on the
order of GW/week!).  I doubt
that even the developed countries could afford that, using any 
technology.  If the evidence of climate change grows that strong
so that there is a strong _consensus_ for such action, we will need to
sacrifice (oh my god!) some energy _services_ to lower the need.  If
such a consensus exists, then the sacrifices will come easily.
>
>*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
>*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
>*  If you ever have to go to Shoeburyness			*
>*  Take the A-road, the ok road, that's the best!		*
>*  Go motoring on The A13!	- BB 1983			*
>
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment