X-Envelope-to: biosph-l@ubvm.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"biosph-l@ubvm.bitnet"
X-VMS-Cc: MDUGAN
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 09:04:00 PDT
Reply-To:     Marianne Dugan <MDUGAN@OREGON.BITNET>
From:         Marianne Dugan <MDUGAN@OREGON.BITNET>
Subject:      energy

>
> Many milestones in environmental and human well-being have only been
>achieved because of the availability of abundant, low-cost electricity.
>This must not be forgotten.
>

Could you give us an example of "environmental well-being" that
is better because of low-cost electricity?  I'm sure the salmon
are interested.

>While it is very true that the industrialized world has an ethical mandate
>to ensure that industrialization elsewhere proceeds with more environmental
>"awareness" than the first wave did, we must remember that we have no right
>to prevent a developing country from achieving the same level of prosperity
>that we have.

We also have no right to foist that "prosperity" and its
attendant ills on societies, via the World Bank, multinational
corporations and other invasive forces which hook up with
nondemocratic governments and create such crises as are now
occurring in the Amazon.  That national self-determination
argument seems to be the latest pro-development rationale for
continuing the rapid mass destruction of the earth's lungs,
bloodstream and digestive track.

>  > Soft energy [...] 3) is flexible and relatively low technology, that is,
>  > easily accessible technologically, easy to understand rather than
>  > unsophisticated
>
>This is, I would wager, the main selling point of "soft energy".  The
>"easier to understand" part, however, really applies to the people Lovins
>is (literally) selling his ideas to -- the average member of the public.
>Things like nuclear power don't appeal to the public partly because of the
>physics needed to comprehend the energy source.

The point here is accessibility.  Corporate America (and Canada,
no doubt) does not want "the average member of the public" (you
and me, remember?) to be able to break away from the power grid.
Yes, photovoltaics, etc, etc, are "beyond the understanding of the
average member of the public, " as Jeremy puts it ... However, if
I go purchase a solar collector and photovoltaic cell, it is
quite simple for me to either use my rudimentary knowledge of
carpentry or hire someone at a relatively low cost (prorated,
especially) to put that sucker up on the roof.  Right now, there
are still economic incentives (tax breaks, rebates from power
companies) to do so, instituted by the federal government; I was
told 2 weeks ago by my power company those incentives will
disappear by the end of the year.  Thanks, Ron & George, ya done
good.

The point is, I don't HAVE to understand a photovoltaic cell to
access it.  Through the use of small-scale energy production we
could disconnect from the grid and not have to buy into the
environmental destruction caused by large-scale energy
production.

>every passing year.  To shirk off one source as being "too complex", such
>as nuclear power and other "hard" sources, when we (collectively) have the
>ability to understand them and make them as safe, or safer, than any other
>source, is to cheat ourselves and rob our children.

No, creating tons of nuclear waste, destroying the ozone and
rainforests and raising the temperature of the earth's surface so
that we can have "cheap" energy is robbing our children.  Ever
see that bumpersticker "We're spending our children's
inheritance"?  It's a joke, usually seen on large motor homes
driven by retired people; but in the larger sense, it's no joke
at all.

>
>  > 5) is matched in energy quality to end-use needs -- that is, using a nuke
>  > plant to power a toaster is "like cutting butter with a chainsaw.  That
>  > sort of practice is "superfluous, wasteful, and expensive" and
>  > "inelegant."
>
>The butter cutting with the chainsaw thing is a hook of Lovins that really
>seems to draw them in.  Of course you don't build a nuclear, or any other
>centralized, plant to power one toaster.  Powering a billion toasters,
>with one nuclear plant, however, is efficient, cheap, and, yes, very elegant.

Lovins' point is that nuclear energy requires heating water up to
very very high temperatures; and then reduce it way back down.
Lovins explains that 58% of all energy use in the U.S. at the
point of end use is required as heat, split roughly 23-35 between
temperatures above and below the boiling point of water.  Another
38% provides mechanical motion: 31% in vehicles, 3% in pipelines,
4% in industrial electric motors.  The remaining mere 4%
represents all lighting, electronics, telecommunications,
electrometallurgy, electrochemistry, arc welding, electric motors
in home appliances & railways, and other end uses that require
electricity.  However, electricity is used for 13% of all end-use
needs, and its generation consumes 29% of all fossil fuels used
in the U.S.  The hard energy path seeks to increase this 13% to
20-40% (depending on assumptions) by the year 2000 and
increasingly more thereafter.

Why is this wrong?  Because a
power station must change 3 units of fuel into 2 units of almost
useless waste heat plus 1 unit of electricity.  Electricity can
admittedly do higher quality "work" and is more versatile than
the original fuel, that upgrade is usually not needed by the end
source.  So -- if we need only a temperature difference of tens
of degrees, we should use a source within that range rather than
electricity (nuclear reaction temperature is in the trillions).
The toaster was not the best example (mine, not Lovins') -- a
better example is a stove/oven.  "The object is to crack nuts
with nutcrackers and drive pilings with triphammers."  Even L
ovins doesn't say, lets get rid of all "hard" energy sources
today.  He advocates a reasonable and flexible approach, and he
makes a lot of sense to me.

>With a million dollars (not his, of course) in "soft" energy systems running
>his home, the "Rocky Mtn. Institute", Amory Lovins still plugs himself into
>the power grid.

Huh?  Because he was resourceful enough to get funding to do so?
At any rate, it does not take "millions" to start hooking your
own home up to solar.  A solar water heater can be purchased for
less than $2,000.  It's a start.


----------------------------------------------------------------
Marianne Dugan  mdugan@oregon.uoregon.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU