From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 6 Jan 93 09:59:48 GMT
Organization: Circle 'C' Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, California

In article <51762@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.190903.9504@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>> I have already agreed that efficiency costs will rise.  My statement
>> pertains to short-term efficiency costs.
>
>Ok then our disagreement lies only in how long that "short-term" is.

Classically, economists define 'short term' as less than one year.
Anything longer than one year is 'long term'.  Then again, you
may not care what economists think, even if this is an economic
arguement ;-)

>If you take a small producer, for example, incentives and long term
>reductions in energy costs may not offset his cost to convert, particularly
>if downtime during conversion is included.  

There will be a full spectrum of players with the full range of
marginal costs.  By definition, most of them will be near the 
mean difficulty to converst and your example of a small producer
with antiquated equipment is far from the mean.

>And a lot of old equipment
>will not be upgradible.  

So it will be replaced in toto with new machines.  This is common
in industry.

>Some very old motor-driven factory machines will
>simply not accept any motors of modern design.  

Some, but not many in my experience.  Even the 100 year(ish) old
junk in the cannery I worked in (in the '70s) had plain round
motors held in by a couple of bolts.  In general, the older a
chunk of machinery, the simpler and less cranky the motor mount.
Yes, you can find something bizzare enough to meet your description.
It just isn't representative.

>Either a motor would have
>to be custom-crafted (an expensive proposition, and maintainance would
>go through the roof), 

On what do you base this speculation?

Again, from both the cannery experience and some other places
I've worked (farms, etc.) that used old equipment, the motor MOUNT
might be custom made, but never the motor.  The mount was most 
often made by the 'mechanic' at his welding bench in about 30 minutes.
Maintenance costs did NOT go up.  (The newer motors were often
more reliable.)

>or the entire machine trashed (along with any jigs,
>etc. the factory had invested in that go with the machine) and a new one
>purchased.  

This happens every so often anyway.  It is called depreciation.
We cycle Crays in about 5 years.  (Cut our energy usage by 
WAY over 1/2 going from an X/MP to a Y/MP .. got a $199K
REBATE on our savings!)  Other equipment is often cycled
in 10 to 20 year ranges.  So?

>Neither option will be economical in many cases, nor will

Only the economic ones will be done, most economic first.  At
the end of a 10 year cycle of this, the less economic ones are
now much more likely to be economical to do, since the machinery
is now 10 years further along in its life cycle.

Your posting leads me believe that you havn't had much experience
in manufacturing industries or managing a production environment.

 ...
>> What makes you think energy use will grow 5% per year?  Even with
>> current coupling that would entail a hugely expanding economy 
>> consistently for many years.  With efficiency, even after no more
>> retrofits are possible, energy consimption will grow mroe slowly
>> than the GDP.  West Germany's GDP grew by 33% from 1973 to 1988
>> while its energy consumption grew by 3%.  It will take much longer
>> to absorb this 54% energy use reduction through economic growth.
>
>Basically, Germany's GDP decoupled due to efficiency improvements and due
>to a shift in types of goods produced as a percent of market share.  Also,

Said shift being part of the deffinition of economic growth!  I make
computers, my granddad made horse shoes...

>conservation is important in the German experience as well, and we have not
>yet added conservation to the equation in this discussion.  Conservation
>will require a least some social change.  

In my experience, it takes NO social change.  I have achieved a 50%+
reduction in my home energy usage with NO change of my lifestyle.  
(It was a 'design goal' that my wife not notice a thing ;-)

>However, if we produce the same
>things, and use the same things to maintain our lifestyles 16 years from
>now as we do today, 

A blatantly false assumption.  I bought a new fridge that uses 
far less electricity than the old one.  It does the same job, but
it isn't 'the same thing'.  I replaced incandecent bulbs with CF
bulbs with no change in life style.  They are not 'the same thing'.

Starting from the false premise of my choosing, I, too, can 'prove'
any point I wish ...

>and we increase GDP by 5%, we directly increase energy
>use by the same amount.  Some simple examples:  steel uses the same amount
>of energy per ton regardless of how many tons are produced, as long as
                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^
>the same process is used.  So a 5% increase in steel production = a 5%
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Another false assumption.  We are busy rebuilding our steel industry
by scrapping the in-efficient old hearths for new furnaces.  We are
doing this 'cause the Japanese and Brazilians have destroyed our
ability to compete.  As a side effect, we are being far more effective
at producing steel per BTU.

>increase in energy consumed.  [...]
>Anyway,
>the 5% growth rate is an excellant growth rate, but I think we should
>shoot for that.  

It is an unsustainable rate unless you are modernizing from a 
pre-industrial state, IMHO.

>Most economic planners seem to be willing to settle with
>4% as comfortable.  3% is considered barely getting by and 2% is considered
>unsatisfactory - a recession.  

Flat out wrong.  A recession is defined as three successive quarters
of Negative Growth.  2% is not less than zero.

>Bush was defeated on economic issues while
>we had about a 3% growth, so don't say we can live with it.  

Bush was defeated 'cause he didn't dump Quayle and was generally
being a weeny.  This has nothing to do with energy efficiency.

[...]

At work, we are in the middle of an energy efficiency conversion of
our office space.  We computerized the AC and changed out 150W PAR
bulbs for CFs in our track light cans.  No one noticed any 
difference.  In 1993 we get a PG&E rebate for going from (I think
it is t-12) old technology rapid start ballasts to new high efficiency
electronic ballasts.  We will get about a 50% improvement in our
lighting efficiency from these changes.

Conservation is not hard, is not synonymus with deprivation, can
EASILY hit a target of cutting use to 1/2 for home and office
space, and takes NO CHANGE OF LIFESTYLE.  It will have a MAJOR
market penetration because it is being written into the 
building codes!  (I know, my facilities folks keep pointing
out to me the new building codes we have to meet 8-{   )

BY LAW 1993 refridgerators will be remarkably efficient.  How
many folks will still be using 1989 refrigerators in 2003?
Not many, judging by my experience with home appliances :-{ again...

While I'm marginally leaning towards nukes over coal, conservation
is a very painless winner over both.

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.