From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 7 Jan 93 14:11:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.095948.26136@michael.apple.com>, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
> 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:
> >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

Why?  How can you say this is by definition?  I was responding to a post that
claimed current technology would permit 54% savings if all equipment was
100% converted.  In no way can you assume from that, that by definition
most will be near the mean - when you then assume that "mean" means able
to profitably and easily convert.  I could propose technology that would
cost $1 million/ kW-h to convert.  Then how many industries could convert?
You can't just assume that only a few exotic cases will not be able to convert.

> >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.

Common is a reasonable word here, but that does not mean "vast majority".
I will agree it is not unusual to find complete retooling especially
in large industries with a history of such practice and rapidly changing
products to justify it.  Auto production is an excellant example.  However -
check a few wood shops, and you will find that most of the equipment present
has never been replaced.  Similarly for textile operations.

> >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.

I disagree.  You can't extend what exists in one cannery to all of industry.
The problem with accepting new motors is not the mounts or the shape or anything
like that - I assume all that is trivial.  Most of the machinery I have
seen has the motor mounted exposed and outside the mahcine.  Some equipment,
however, has particular hp requirements at particular speeds.  Matching
that could be difficult, and not matching could be a hazard to workers.
The rest of the machine is often designed around motors available at the
time it was built.  Too much and the machine could fail, too little and
it may be underpowered for its job.  And slapping a resistor into the circuit
is not necessarily going to solve the problem, and even if the resistor works,
are you still going to get that 54% improvement or is the motor now out of
its most efficient range?

> >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 

And you obviously have something a lot of small producers do not.  It is
called money.

> >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.

What difference does 10 years make on a 100 year old peice of equipment?
How is 10 years going to help a small producer who can't afford to
upgrade at all?  Just because existing equipment is ten years older
does not mean it suddenly costs less to replace.  This is only true
for large manufacturers who really do have an equipment cycle.  Small
producers do not necessarily have any such cycle.  They buy a machine
once and it is expected to last for as long as they are in that line
of business.  Sorry, not all manufacturing works exactly like you
were taught in microeconomics.

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

You are incorrect in that belief, however I can claim the same regarding
your response.

> >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...

Oh, and you are only 16 years older than your granddad?  You've got strange
family practices.

> 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 ;-)

I doubt it.  But unless an impartial observor scientifically monitors
your lifestyle before and after, there is no way to know.  Personal
claims about personal practices are notoriously unreliable.  Check the
recent study on why Americans are fat.  Scientists found that even
experienced calorie counters who did their best to meticulously keep
track of what they ate, consistantly reported they consumed only about
half the calories that they did in reality, and reported that they
exercised 20% more than they really did.  These were voluntary experimental
subjects who tried to do these things truthfully and just couldn't do
it.  So I believe you are as truthful as possible in your statement and
belief.  I just doubt that it reflects reality.

> >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'.

This asusmption assumed from the start, from today, that 100% of everything
in existance was converted to 54% more efficient technology.  That means
everyone converted their fridge, everyone converted all their bulbs to the
most efficient fluorescent, etc.  Then I assumed that everyone would
continue to need the same number of fridges per person or bulbs per person,
with growth represented as a combination of population increase and
increases in standard of living (more things that use energy).  The
assumption is far from false - it is too optimistic in that there will
not be 100% conversion and 100% of new products will not incorporate
the 54% improvement.

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

And you have tried.

> >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.

Likewise, this assumption was premised on the assumption that 100% conversion
to the most efficient technology already happened and all new capacity
is the most efficient.

> >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.

And how do you plan to provide for increased population?

> >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.

Not under new politics.  Everywhere I look, it has been claimed that
we have been in a recession for the Bush years.  Whenever I get real
numbers, they show around 2% growth.  The "talking heads" all dismiss
the growth numbers as not reflecting the "true state" of the nation.
So we grow, but it's recession.  The choice of word is not mine, I would
not call the past 4 years a recession.  I agree we did not grow fast
enough, however.  2% is not enough to allow for population growth - 2%
growth will result in growing unemployment, because people will enter
the job market faster than they can be absorbed.


> >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.

No, it has to do with energy, because Bush was defeated on economic issues.
Every analysis of the compaign has pointed to that.  Exit polls show that
something on the order of 80% of voters said economic issues (jobs, deficit
or whatever) were the most important factor in their decision.  Perot got
20% of the vote purely on economic issues.  The Clinton campaign motto
was "The economy, stupid".  Economics and energy have a lot to do with
each other.  Your personal opinions of Bush or Quayle certainly have
nothing to do with energy efficiency.

> 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-{   )

You are confusing conservation and efficiency - they are different.
Efficiency improvement is doing exactly the same thing with less energy.
Conservation is doing less.  Doing less is a lifestyle change, by
definition.  And while it is true that much of new construction and
new products will be more efficient, this doesn't address conversion
of existing construction and products.  New houses might be insulated
to R40 for all I care, but that isn't going to reduce heat losses
from housing projects constructed in the 40's and 50's.  And these
are now low-income housing - the residents cannot afford the high
cost of insulating their homes.

So back to my point - I assumed 100% conversion to 54% more effecient
technology today (not a year from now, but right now, instantaneous).
I also assumed that every new product was also 54% more efficient.
I then simply computed how many years until new energy capacity is
required - 16 years.  Now, do you have nay real arguments against
that?  The 54% is not mine - it was posted.  The 5% is, but if you
want to bicker about that, you will have to grant me less than 100%
conversion, which should easily bring the time back to 16 years.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment