From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:36:42 GMT

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:
>>In article <STEINLY.92Jul22171433@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul22.221159.19297@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>>>
>>>US concumption is about 10TW of which 3TW is grid,
>>>mean wind speed is about 6 m/s - if you have a 1km
>>>turbine, assuming wind power can be regenerated by solar
>>>heating on a time scale of 10**5 seconds, you need an
>>>area of 2d16 cm**2 to get 1TW. That's 1000miles square,
>>>100% extraction. What do you think the climate impact
>>>would be, even if it could be done?
>>
>>I have in front of me a graph of the U.S. that indicates that if we had
>>100% extraction of wind potential from a band of states in the center
>>of the U.S., we could supply 90% of current U.S. electricity demands.
>>I realize that we can't get 100% extraction, or probably even close
>>to it, but 20% extraction means 18% of our energy supply.  The graph is
>>from Scientific American (9-90) and the article is by the manager of R&D
>>at PG&E and a senior research physicist at Princeton.
>
>     Q:  Why is this not done?
>
I have already commented on this previously.

>     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.
>
>>I have not the seen fabrication consumption addressed in the article
>>so I don't know if they include it.  The issue of how quickly inefficient
>>equipment is replaced is important.  The more we rush the replacement,
>>the more the fabrication issue comes into play, since for a slow
>>replacement, we replace old fabrication consumption.  Do you have
>>any estimates on how the fabrication energy compares with energy
>>consumption for lifetime use?
>
>     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.

>
>>> no. "nuclear" jerks knees.
>>
>>I think the original poster was simply stating that nuclear plants are
>>not needed right now due to the potential of efficiency and renewables,
>>which is a position I share.  Whether the lack of use of nuclear power use
>>is due to technological limitations, inherent danger, or misrepresentation
>>is unimportant to financiers on wall street and partly so for utilities.
>>They need to make pragmatic decisions.  Environmental regulations make
>>coal highly problematic.  Various causes make nuclear unlikely in the
>>near future.  Efficiency and renewables may be the most pragmatic choice.
>
>     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.
>
>     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.
>
>                                    dale bass
>--
>C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
>Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
>University of Virginia
>Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926


-- 

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