From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 19:39:47 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec30.161607.25113@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>It seems to be a common conception that nuclear power is a good response 
>to any possible climate change problem.  I have challenged this assumption
>before but I will address in more detail here.  
>
>The December 1988 issue
>of _Energy Policy_ contains an article called "Greenhouse warming - 
>Comparative analysis of nuclear and efficiency abatement strategies"
>by Bill Keepin and Gregory Kats.  They make a cost comparison of
>replacing fossil fuel production with nuclear compared to lowering
>energy consumption using a strategy of efficiency retrofits.
>
>They first make calculations for nuclear power with the goal of
>replacing all coal electricity generation over the next 40 years.
>This includes growth in energy demand.  Two scenarios are used for
>these calculations.  The first is a high growth scenario taken from
>a study carried out by the National Academy of Science.  The medium
>growth scenario was calculated by the Dept of Energy.  They modify
>these scenarios by replacing the expected coal component of energy
>production with nuclear power progressively over the next 40 years.  
>Nuclear power will also be assumed
>for 1/2 of the non-fossil fuel energy generation.  The following
>are cost assumptions for nuclear power:
>
>			High scenario		Medium Scenario
>
>Commissioning rate	1.6 days/GW		2.5 days/GW	(until 2025)
>Avg annual cost (1987 $)
>	capital		$227 billion/yr		$144 billion/yr
>	total		$787 billion/yr		$525 billion/yr
>CO2 emissions in 2025
>	total		8.3Gt/year		5.3 Gt/year
>	relative to 1988 60% increase		1% increase
>
>As can be seen, these scenarios require huge investments and an extremely
>intensive building program for nuclear plants.  And CO2 emissions will
>not even drop due to the increase in use of other fossil fuel energy
>sources!
>
A third comparison might have provided an additional practical
perspective, namely, what would the CO2 emissions be if we continued
with something approximating our current mix of energy sources.

Making comparisons based on a growth scenario always seems a little
shaky.  Also, the 1% per year increase in energy efficiency (absolute?)
sounds great.  There is certainly room for improvement.  But has anyone
actually considered what it would take on an aggregated basis, including
all the usually externalized costs.

The transportation component might be the easiest to do, although by no
means trivial.  

Automobiles (smaller, lighter, lower HP; _NOT_ EV's, for they suffer; hmmmm?
Trucks
Buses
Trains
Planes
.
.
The weighted fractions would need to be estimated and the effects
accumulated.

I would vote for energy efficiency, conservation, and prudent
planning....and replacement of fossil fuel power generation at a rate we
can achieve.  The fossil hydrocarbon resources are finite, and it seems
a shame to turn them into carbon dioxide and water; they may have better
uses.

russ

Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism