From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Date: 28 Jul 92 09:04:28 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Jul28.072820.1364@ruacad.ac.runet.edu> wkovarik@ruacad.ac.runet.edu (William "Bill" Kovarik) writes:
>My colleague from Virginia, Dale Bass, writes: 
>
>   Yet huge sums were spent directly and through tax breaks for
>     PV and other solar research in the 1970's at the expense of
>     more promising technologies such as nuclear on the expectation
>     that they would render such things as nuclear unnecessary.
>     We could have been generating extremely inexpensive power
>     in the intervening years had roadblocks not been placed in the path
>     of doing so.
>
>     The point is that solar is still not a large-scale generating
>     technology.  If and when prices for modules and related infrastructure
>     come down or can be reliably projected to be economical on large
>     scales (or less likely, small scales), then we can talk about it as a
>     power-generating option.
>
>     Until then, it is again wishful thinking.
>
>Actually, the solar tax credit and assorted research funds never topped $1 
>billion per year, while nuclear subsidies were at the $15 billion per year 
>level in the early and mid-80s. Of course now there is no solar subsidy and
>nuclear power subsides may have declined somewhat as well.

     Nuclear subsidies for what?  Naval and US government nuclear operations?

>Most of the solar research work at SERI, NCAT and other locations was 
>extremely promising but was very deliberately and maliciously scuttled by 
>Reagan energy department bureaucrats. The ideological warfare over this issue
>had a great deal to do with the current lack of reliable data in the solar 
>area. I feel we have lost 12 years in simply getting reliable facts. 

     Possibly, possibly not.  One good thing about the last 12 years
     is that government did not 'select' a technology to focus on.
     If they had, we probably would not have had TI/PG&E's new modules
     or Regan's work on dye cells.  No one would be interested in 
     capitalizing such things in direct competition with the US
     government.  With my everpresent faith in the selection abilities
     of government officials, I have no doubt that we would have selected
     whatever single technology shows the least ultimate promise.

     The government is not the source of all plenty.  In fact it
     usually just slows down the pursuit of plenty.  By the way, if
     it were that promising the researchers could have pursued it and
     marketed it themselves.  Stanford Ovshinsky seems to have survived.

>One point about solar not being a large-scale generating technology is that 
>the best end-use of a dispersed energy source is obviously closest to the source. If we want to heat a house, on-site solar beats distant electrical generation. If we want electricity, a dispersed flexible grid for renewable energy makes 
>more sense than a centralized renewable energy system. Thus, the "Power Tower" 
>at $14,000 per kWe of the early 80s, which renewable energy engineers found 
>laughable. 

     Who capitalizes a 'dispersed flexible grid'?  Who is responsible 
     for maintence?  Who makes sure that I don't blow up my neighbor's
     generating equipment with my radial arm saw.  Is there any way
     to show that this makes more sense than large power plants using
     the existing grid?  What is our compelling reason to change 
     everything?

     [stuff deleted]

>I dont find renewable energy "wishful" so much as relatively unknown. The 
>extreme ideological positions (witness recent flames on "eco-terrorism") 
>are counterproductive from the standpoint of the need for flexibility and 
>variety in approaches to energy production and use. I dont see the threat 
>to civilization from renewables that some people apparently do. 

     I find it wishful thinking to propose widespread use of a technology
     that is more expensive per kilowatt-hour (base or peak) than
     an environmentally clean alternative that does not require that
     we rewire and fundamentally alter the way power is distributed
     even to get this more expensive power.

     Such talk and interest-group pressure is leading us to a potential
     economic catastrophe in this country since plants are being delayed
     and canceled with no alternatives but enforced lower power usage.

     I tell you what, when solar is not more expensive than nuclear or
     scrubbed-stack coal, we'll have to talk.  Until then please suggest
     that your local utility consider additional nuclear capacity.

                                 dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Xref: sparky sci.environment:9874 sci.physics:11503 sci.energy:3586