From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 1 Jan 93 19:29:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.001616.1907@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
> In article <51729@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
> >In article <1992Dec31.164259.22040@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
> >> In article <51726@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
> >> >In article <1992Dec30.161607.25113@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
> If we use money that otherwise would have been used for new capacity
> (nuke or otherwise) for efficiency, then we do not have money to
> build nuke capacity until efficiency has been played out.  At that

But that was not my argument.  Just take the budget for nuke development.
Take only the fraction that can currently reasonably be spent for
efficiency gains (these take time, and will eventually be played out,
so it is not clear that the entire budget for new power could be spent
on it).  The remaining funds still go to develop new nuclear power.
I don't believe it is an all-or-nothing situation.  In fact, this would
be very prudent practice, since not only is the current cost of efficiency
gains less than the cost of new power, but it would also provide the time
needed for planning and construction of new nuclear power.

> point, we will need to decide on a source for new capacity.  If the
> only reasonable choices are fossil and nuclear, I would support
> nuclear.  Since that point is years away, I will reserve judgement
> until the decision is needed.  While utility rates are not taxes, they

But since new power takes at least 3-5 years to develop, it has to be planned
well in advance.  Waiting until we start having brownouts to make these
decisions is not good planning.

> You obviously missed my posts (months ago) from an EPRI study that
> indicated that if there was 100% market penetration of the best
> existing technology today, we could get about a 54% decrease in
> consumption in the U.S.  Obviously, it won't happen today.  I am
> suggesting that it will take a decade or two.  But the technology
> will also improve.  By the way, the biggest effeiciency gain
> would be from industrial motors, according to the study.  How long
> will it take for our electricity service needs to increase by 54%?
> Certainly more than 5 years.

At a 5% growth rate, 16 years, assuming 100% market penetration.
Given at least 5 years to plan, construct and license new power,
we will have to start planningin only about 10 years.

> The study gave some case histories of enormous cost overruns.  And

There are cases of cost overruns in every industry - finding a few cases
related to nuclear power does not discredit it.

> My sources are described earlier.  I can e-mail you a summary of
> my EPRI post (if I still have it).  Many studies indicate enormous
> savings are possible in the U.S.  More than seems intuituvely likley,
> based on the responses to my original EPRI post.

I absolutely agree that enormous savings are possible with efficiency
gains, and I fully support efforts in this area.  However, growth will
eat up the gains in short order, no more than 2 decades.  I see no reason
to build twice as many nuke plants as we really need since we can use
conservation to cut back on power requirements.  But we will need new
power and need it relatively soon.  I don't think efficiency gains
should be contrasted with nuclear power - to me they are two important
aspects of a single, comprehensive, environmentally and economically sound
energy policy.

> here.  Maybe the use of the term "unambiguous proof" was inappropriate.
> The world community has responded forcefully to the ozone problem, but
> not to the climate change problem due to this level of differing
> proof.  My point is that the kind of convincing proof that got us a
> Montreal Protocol (and recently strengthened it) could lead to the

I think the main reason for the difference in response is that options
to replace CFCs already existed at the time of the agreements, and there
was little economic impact to removing them from production.  The US
backed the agreement strongly and has pressured other nations to support
it.  On the other hand, reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a big
unknown and could have strong economic impact.  power generation is
just a fraction of greenhouse gas production.  Everything from cars
to cattle has been implicated and replacement technology is not
necessarily readily available.  Without an option to develop nuclear
power, the US would find it virtually impossible to meet any standards
for greenhouse gases established by the international community.
Mr Bush has decided not to support any such agreements mainly due
to these problems.  Another interesting aspect to this problem is that
the developing nations expect the US to fund any of their efforts to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Agreeing to this would be signing
a blank check over to the third world, something I am definitely not
in favor of.  It will be hard enough to pay for any of our own conversions.
CFCs had no such international aspect, since the US was the main producer
anyway and they do not impact such basic things as transportation or
energy production..

> Our only area of disagreement seems to be how long efficiency can
> control increased electricity demand.  If I am correct, based on the
> EPRI study (and also the NSF/MIT study), then we can wait before
> deciding what will provide our new capacity.  If that decision had
> to be made now (or in 5 years), then I would agree with you.

We will be making that decision in 5-10 years at the latest, even with
excellent efficiency gains.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov