From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:06:04 GMT

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:
>>
>>
>>   In article <STEINLY.92Jul22143340@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>>
>>   Wind power could be the dominant energy supply in the upper plains and if
>>   the grid has the capacity to distribute it, the power could be a 
>>   non-trivial (10's of %) part of the U.S. energy supply.
>>
>>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?

     A:  It is not economical, and I think that most people would object
         to having 5 windmills in their front yards.

>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.

>> 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.

     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.

                                    dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.environment