From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 6 Jan 93 00:26:12 GMT

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.
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.  And a lot of old equipment
will not be upgradible.  Some very old motor-driven factory machines will
simply not accept any motors of modern design.  Either a motor would have
to be custom-crafted (an expensive proposition, and maintainance would
go through the roof), 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.  Neither option will be economical in many cases, nor will
incentives offset the costs, downtime, retooling, etc. involved.
So while 54% may be theoretically possible, it is not likely to be
realistic, and the costs for this inexpensive conversion will increase
even for the same motors, etc., as the scale of the operation changes
and the existing equipment becomes more exotic.

> 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,
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.  However, if we produce the same
things, and use the same things to maintain our lifestyles 16 years from
now as we do today, 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%
increase in energy consumed.  Another example - if we have a 5% increase
in population, and the percent who own hair dryers stays the same, then
we get a 5% increase in electricity consumption by hair dryers.  Anyway,
the 5% growth rate is an excellant growth rate, but I think we should
shoot for that.  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.  Bush was defeated on economic issues while
we had about a 3% growth, so don't say we can live with it.  We will need
5% especially if the borders are opened to Haitian and other refugees.

I might be willing to grant a small amount of continued efficiency improvement
beyond the 54% you quoted, but I would then claim it will be more than
compensated for in my computation by the lack of 100% penetration of the
efficient technology.  Even with great incentives, and proof that it is
profitable in the long run, you will not get 100% penetration and my
computation assumed that.

> Fine, I will post a list of third world nuclear power experiences
> in a couple of days.

Thanks.  Even if you post only the bad experiences, I'll be interested.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov