From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:07:50 GMT

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:
>> I have already agreed that efficiency costs will rise.  My statement
>> pertains to short-term efficiency costs.
>
>Ok then our disagreement lies only in how long that "short-term" is.
>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.  And a lot of old equipment
>will not be upgradible.  Some very old motor-driven factory machines will
>simply not accept any motors of modern design.  Either a motor would have
>to be custom-crafted (an expensive proposition, and maintainance would
>go through the roof), 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.  Neither option will be economical in many cases, nor will
>incentives offset the costs, downtime, retooling, etc. involved.
>So while 54% may be theoretically possible, it is not likely to be
>realistic, and the costs for this inexpensive conversion will increase
>even for the same motors, etc., as the scale of the operation changes
>and the existing equipment becomes more exotic.

I agree with this and I thinkg it demonstrates structural impediments
to efficiency that must be dealt with.  The fact that the way decisions
about energy capacity are made is ervy different than the way decisions
about consumption technology are made.  Demand Side Management (DSM)
is the general tool used for dealing with this.  With this tool, money
saved by utilities by not building power plants is used to help
pay for the efficiency retrofits.  Essentially, DSM is a way around
the market distortion that occurs due to centralized decisions
about energy that are required because it is a centralized
beauracracy.  Effeiciency retrofits will never occur on the scale
I suggested with the current system.
e
>
>> What makes you think energy use will grow 5% per year?  Even with
>> current coupling that would entail a hugely expanding economy 
>> consistently for many years.  With efficiency, even after no more
>> retrofits are possible, energy consimption will grow mroe slowly
>> than the GDP.  West Germany's GDP grew by 33% from 1973 to 1988
>> while its energy consumption grew by 3%.  It will take much longer
>> to absorb this 54% energy use reduction through economic growth.
>
>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,
>conservation is important in the German experience as well, and we have not
>yet added conservation to the equation in this discussion.  Conservation
>will require a least some social change.  However, if we produce the same
>things, and use the same things to maintain our lifestyles 16 years from
>now as we do today, 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%
>increase in energy consumed.  Another example - if we have a 5% increase
>in population, and the percent who own hair dryers stays the same, then
>we get a 5% increase in electricity consumption by hair dryers.  Anyway,
>the 5% growth rate is an excellant growth rate, but I think we should
>shoot for that.  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.  Bush was defeated on economic issues while
>we had about a 3% growth, so don't say we can live with it.  We will need
>5% especially if the borders are opened to Haitian and other refugees.

Certainly we will have more recessions over the next couple of
decades.  You also choose to emphasize energy uses that will not
repond to efficiency.  Without knowing what percentage of total
electricity those sectors consume, we don't know how much effect
these will have on the growth in energy consumption.  Increases
due to population increase are a given, but since they will be
buying new technology, the effect may not be linear.
>
>I might be willing to grant a small amount of continued efficiency improvement
>beyond the 54% you quoted, but I would then claim it will be more than
>compensated for in my computation by the lack of 100% penetration of the
>efficient technology.  Even with great incentives, and proof that it is
>profitable in the long run, you will not get 100% penetration and my
>computation assumed that.

Basically agreed.  The 54% figure is a best case with current technology.
We will only get close to it if better technology raises the best case
figure.
>
>> Fine, I will post a list of third world nuclear power experiences
>> in a couple of days.
>
>Thanks.  Even if you post only the bad experiences, I'll be interested.
>
I will post all that were mentioned in the article.
>
>--
>Richard Stead
>Center for Seismic Studies
>Arlington, VA
>stead@seismo.css.gov


-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson			dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================