X-Envelope-to: BIOSPH-L@UBVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: BIOSPH
X-VMS-Cc: WHITLOCK
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:14:00 EDT
Reply-To:     Jeremy Whitlock <WHITLOCK@MCMASTER.BITNET>
From:         Jeremy Whitlock <WHITLOCK@MCMASTER.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Industrial Society, Objectives of Society

Much of the talk appearing here recently has echoed a common feeling that,
although electricity is linked to increased efficiency and productivity, a
large amount of end products are superfluous and therefore just add to the
environmental burden.  Cheaper electricity will just increase this flow of
garbage, the argument goes.

I think this ignores the fact that much of the benefits of cheap
electricity will go to the less developed countries in the future, who
according to an EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) estimate will
increase their electricity usage by 10-15 times over the next 70 years,
compared to the developed countries who will increase their usage by only
4-5 times.  Our increasing "garbage" production must be weighed against
their increasing industrialization, which will be much cleaner if it
follows the electrification trend of the rest of the world.

The argument is also naive, since it overlooks the relationship between
increasing electricity use and increasing standard of living -- measured,
for good or bad, by the GNP.  Electricity has always tracked along with GNP,
even when overall energy use became "decoupled" from the GNP index in the
70's.  An increasing GNP means more excess wealth, more excess wealth
means more investment, and more investment means better roads, hospitals,
water systems, sewage systems, etc.   A constant GNP means that, as the
population grows, we are living with the same level of service -- no long
term planning, no long term improvement.

If one accepts the importance of electricity to both world development and
world standard of living (and of course the two are not mutually
exclusive), then the question becomes "how will this electricity be
generated?"  One study along these lines by EPRI makes the
following assumptions, looking 70 years ahead to the year 2060:

1) Conservation potential:  Direct energy use reduced to 50% of the current
trend value; Electricity use reduced to 2/3 of the current trend value.
These are very conservative estimates which stem from other EPRI analyses.

2) Solar potential (incl. wind, geothermal):  Supplies 1/3 of peak load,
with availability factor of 29% (high).

3) Biomass potential:  Roughly doubles.

They come up with these numbers:

Total electricity use:  47,000  TW-hrs  (41% from less-developed countries)

Maxiumum solar contibution:  6,000  TW-hrs

Maximum biomass contribution:  11,000  TW-hrs

Remainder:  30,000  TW-hrs

Currently, electricity use is about 10,000 TW-hrs (1986 numbers; 19% from
less-developed countries), 84% coming from fossil & hydro, and 16% from
nuclear.

Therefore, even with a very generous allotment to conservation and
non-hydro renewables, you are still left with three times today's
electrical energy flow, which must come from fossil, hydro, or nuclear.
All three have their opponents.  The real question, then, is not "how will
electricity be generated?", but "after pursuing conservation, efficiency,
and non-hydro renewable sources to their practical limits, how then will
electricity be generated?".

(This takes me back to my original criticism of Dr. Holdren's address, which
avoided this point.)

Jeremy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Whitlock                        e-mail:  WHITLOCK@MCMASTER.CA
Dept. of Engineering Physics
McMaster University                    phone: (416) 525-9140 ext.7140
Hamilton, Ont.
CANADA   L8S 4L8
                   "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU