X-Envelope-to: BIOSPH-L@UBVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: BIOSPH
X-VMS-Cc: WHITLOCK
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:35:00 EDT
Reply-To:     Jeremy Whitlock <WHITLOCK@MCMASTER.BITNET>
From:         Jeremy Whitlock <WHITLOCK@MCMASTER.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Energy and Sustainability

In a summary posted by Tom Gray, Prof. John Holdren of the University of
California-Berkeley spoke about the relationship between energy
supply and a sustainable future:

  > Energy is central to the problem of designing a human society that
  > is sustainable in the long run, Holdren said in a wide-ranging talk
  > that emphasized the need to increase energy efficiency and the use
  > of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.

While I don't find fault in his thesis of energy being central to this
problem, I do disagree with his exlusion of nuclear fission from the list of
future energy pathways, which includes energy efficiency and solar sources.
Now, I'm not posting this for the sake of harping on nuclear power.
Normally I'd let such statements, which are bandwagon fare, pass with the
rest, but Holdren in fact contradicts himself if one examines his listing
of energy supply's current and past problems:

  > Energy, he said, has been characterized by three difficulties:
  >
  > o    Historically, there has been too little of it to meet basic
  >      needs for all.

He advocates "energy for all" and yet offers only conservation and solar
sources as a means of attaining this, while replacing fossil fuels at the
same time.  Surely he is missing one component -- a large-scale baseload power
source, for which I suggest nuclear power is the best candidate.
Conservation is inherently limited to a certain level of maximum returns,
after which Holdren suggests solar sources, which are limited by geography
and land area requirements to certain power loads and certain locations.

  > o    At times, it has also been too costly, leading to reductions
  >      in the standard of living, recession and an increase in debt.

He advocates "cheap energy" and yet offers conservation, which experience
shows to be more expensive than increasing supply, and solar sources, which
are not competitive with sources like fossil and nuclear power.  Things
like the economics of solar sources can improve, but again, Holdren offers
no alternative -- especially in areas where, due to the limitations
discussed above, solar sources will never be competitive.

  > o    It's too risky, posing dangers to human health and the
  >      environment and leading to political instability because of
  >      the uneven distribution of energy resources (e.g., large
  >      amounts of world oil reserves being concentrated in the Middle
  >      East).

He advocates "lower risk energy", and yet in *his own study* [J.H.Holdren
et al, "Health and Safety Impacts of Renewable, Geothermal and Fission
Energy," in C.C.Travis and E.L.Etnier, eds.,_Health Risks of Energy
Technologies_, Westview Press, Boulder, Co., 1983.] Holdren clearly shows
nuclear power to pose less risk to human health than solar sources.

Not to detract from Holdren's otherwise sound arguments, but I believe he
is riding that bandwagon by not including nuclear power.  This is further
suggested by two tell-tale (and very familiar) moves he makes:

1)  He does mention that current nuclear safety must be improved.  This is
a face-saving position for people who have always said we don't need our
current nuclear reactors, and now finally realize that they are necessary.
Other than Soviet-designed systems, which Holdren is almost certainly not
restricting his comments to, nuclear safety is already of paramount
importance around the world.  Redundant environmentalist calls to make
reactors "more safe" have not changed that.

2)  He does mention the importance of nuclear fusion.  Fusion is, like
fission, an extremely complex, centralized, highly radioactive power
source irequiring an enormous R&D infrastructure, and yet it is touted by
people who claim to oppose these characteristics.  This is partly because it
is a face-saving position to support nuclear fusion as well, this time for
people who have come to see the need for large-scale, centralized power
sources but can't quite bring themselves to endorse nuclear fission.   Fusion
is "safe" because it is comfortably down the road by the at least most
people's working lifetime, and it is widely believed to be "clean" and
"cheap".

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