From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: --UCS Offers New Energy Policies
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:33:59 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Oct8160056@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.144024.25915@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>
>   In article <1992Oct8.054331.26269@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>   >In article <1992Oct7.175956.4223@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>    UCS
>   >>says they shouldn't be used.  They do call for an official moratorium on
>   >>construction of plants until a waate-handling system is online nad _proven_
>   >>safe.
>
>   >In other words a million year test. To those of us with shorter lifespans
>   >that's essentially equivalent to forever. I'm satisfied with safer and 
>   >don't expect the impossible ideal of safe. Good odds is all we can get,
>
>   Proven safe does not necessarily mean absolutely safe.  I am not sure
>   what their definition of proven safe is, but mainly they want to see
>   that some waste repository is available with some level of actual
>   experience.  While its clear that fossil has a worse record than
>
>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.
>
>   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.
>No matter how you look at it you need to produce some electricity,
>I'd claim that reducing demand below 1/3 current is umprobable
>(barring a major population crash) and to reduce it by an order of
>magnitude is sheer fanatsy. Hydro and wind cannot meet that demand,
>geothermal is immature and solar has distribution and reliability
>problems that have not been addressed (flat assertions on the net
>notwithstanding), that leaves fossils or fission for the next 2-4
>decades.

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
applications.  While wind is essentially competitive now, even
PV is expected to be competitive 1 to 2 decades from now.  While
the incorporation of renewables into the grid is problematic,
and there is plenty of room for debate, the levels of
penetration expected in the time frame we are discussing
should not be problematic.  There is a detailed article
examining this problem in Energy Policy (I don't have the issue
date handy) that debunks some myths while admitting problems at
higher levels of penetration.

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.  Cost _comparison_ studies have shown that the most
_effective_ use of a dollar for replacing coal-based capacity is
efficiency.  While nuclear proponents may claim that nuclear will
be the best alternative once efficiency retrofits have been done,
this remains to be seen.
>
>*  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)