From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 31 Dec 92 20:48:15 GMT

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:
> The study was for replacing only coal electricity generation since it
> is the dirtiest form of fossil fuel.  Oil and natural gas were not
> included to keep the cost down.  The increased use of oil and
> natural gas over the 40 year period made up for the savings from
> not using coal.  Transportation contributions were not included.

But if the study really did use favorable numbers for nuclear power, then
it would be cheaper to add nuclear capacity than new oil and gas capacity.
However, it is not so clear that the study's number really were favorable
to nuclear power.  Perhaps the costs quaoted are reasonable for the cost
to construct a single nuclear plant today.  However, if nuclear power were
given serious consideration, then we could look forward to lower costs due
to economy of scale (building many plants would establish an efficient
industrial infrastructure to support such construction), greatly reduced
time of construction and licensing, and an improved legal environment.
Nuclear plants used to be very cheap to build, and would be on-line within
a few years after the first spade of dirt was turned.  In today's climate
of anti-nuke hysteria, it is completely infeasible to construct a nuclear
plant, and certainly not to do so economically.

> Any projections require modeling future energy needs, which usually
> requires modeling future economic growth.  The two cannot be separated,
> whatever the relationship between them.  Virtually all public

I agree, but you also argued that conservation could attain 1% per year
reduction in total energy consumption.  How can this square with
economic growth?  That 1% reduction would then mean that conservation
is saving enough energy on existing uses to offset both economic growth
and population growth.  It then looks like a small-differences problem
at best.  Healthy economic grwoth is considered to be on the order of
3-5% per year for a fully industrialized western nation.  That means
conservation would be saving 4-6% per year on existing uses.  Not only
that, but the economic expansion must be assumed to be constructed with
the most efficient equipment available.  So let's make a gross assumption
and claim that the most efficient stuff available in the future uses only half
the power of average currently installed equipment.  In 24 years, assuming
only 3% per year economic growth and total conversion to the more efficient
systems, we would be using more power than today.  So the 1% per year savings
would fail no later than 24 years from now, with the ridiculous assumption
that our industries can cut their energy uses in half.  That 3% has to include
all growth - standard of living, population growth, international
competitiveness etc.  I think the population alone is growing at that rate.

> >And why have they decided that the third world will be rigidly kept at
> >its same low level of development?  If they develop, they will have
> >factories, transportation systems, etc., which will all use new energy
> >that even if it is used very efficiently was not used before.  I think
> >there will be quite a bit of social strain if this was enforced
> >world-wide.
> 
> Where does it say that the third world will be kept at current levels
> of development?  You need to read the post more carefully.  As to

I did.  That 1% savings is unreasonable in the face of development.
How can an undeveloped country build significant infrastructure
while actually decreasing their total energy consumption?  It's simply
not possible.  They are basically using no energy now, but factories,
transportation and technology all eat up lots of juice.

> whether the 1%/year is reasonable, you will have to take it up with
> the researchers.  Details of this study were not included.

I would, but you posted it and are using it to support your position.
I think I have posted sufficient argument to cast significant doubt
on this claim.

> >what we've built - it's a lot.  We could easily develop both nuclear
> >and conservation.  Afterall, conservation would mean less nuclear development
> >required and that would free up cash for more conservation, etc.
> 
> 40 years.  I am glad you are so optimistic that the money is available.
> Considering that the good citizens of Colorado passed a strict tax
> limitation initiative, turned down a sales tax for schools (but approved
> a baseball stadium), I am not so optimistic.

First, the development would not be funded by taxes, but rather by utility
rates.  But beyond that argument, the main thing here is that if you have the
money to build all the nuclear capacity needed in the absence of conservation,
then all you have to do is take the cash that would have been used to build
a nuke plant, and use it for conservation.  Your original argument claimed
conservation was cheaper per kW, so this practice should more than replace
the power that the nuke would have produced.  Just continue that process until
diminishing returns prevents it from working anymore.  Then you have both
conservation and nuke capacity.

> >> For another comparison, they show that efficiency improvements cost
> >> about $.02/kWh.  When this is compared with nuclear strategies, at any
> >
> >For some current strategies.  This is why power companies are investing
> >in conservation by paying large users to convert to more efficient
> >motors/lighting/etc.  It is a wise and profitable investment.  We
> >cannot plan on having something with efficiency gains equivalent
> >to modern high-efficiency fluorescent vs. incandescent lighting, for
> >example.  So when they have paid off all existing plants to convert
> >then buying conservation is essentially eliminated.  Presumedly all
> >new facilities built will already use the best in efficiency.  The idea
> >that efficiency gains can be made indefinitely is clearly as specious
> >as free-energy arguments.
> 
> Noone claims these gains can be made indefinitely.  They can be made
> for quite some time (1 or 2 decades) at reasonably expected levels of
> investment.

But money does not control the technological gains possible.  Basically,
after the simple stuff is done (currently a boom industry), costs will
go up exponentially for each additional kW saved, (and will approach
infinity as energy used runs up against thermodynamic limitations, etc.)
So we can't expect a linear relation between money invested and energy
saved.  As for investing in efficiency, most of the big electric utilities
currently have programs to pay their major consumers to upgrade to more
efficient equipment - mostly replacing older fluorescent lighting and
ballast with modern fluorescent lighting and a few other upgrades.
The savings are nowhere near the 50% argument I made above, but the 50%
argument is the only thing that will keep us at the same power use
2 decades from now if we include modest economic growth.  If we assume
20% efficiency gains and 5% economic growth, we will need new electric
capacity in only 5 years assuming total conversion to the more efficient
technology!  That is a reasonable scenario.

> computer.  The developing countries clearly have a different set
> of choices than the developed countries.  Nuclear power has a poor
> cost record in developing countries and powerful environmentalists
> and regulation is not a likely cause in most of those countries.
> Their lack of a well-developed grid makes the use of large
> centralized plants more problematic than in the U.S. or Europe.

The US and Europe did not come complete with power grids when people
first started using electricity.  Part of developing a country includes
developing infrastructure.  They have no power grid, because they are
not generating or using electricity.  Both use of electricity and the
power grid will develop together as it did in this country.  And they
better use centralized production for the efficiency and reduction in
emissions.  If they generate on-site (normally a co-generation system),
the efficiency would be lower and increases in CO2 output will wipe out
any reduction in CO2 output in developed countries.
I don't know why you argue that nuclear power has a poor cost record
in the third world.  The two leaders of the third world - China and
India - have a lot of nuclear capacity and are building more, and they
do it very cheaply.

> You have not even attempted to rebut efficiency cost estimates.  What
> you have attempted to rebut is the methodology of the study, which you

That is a perfectly valid rebuttal.  If the methodology is flawed, then
so are the numbers.  If not flawed, then why would the numbers be suspect?
Of course I attack the methodology.

> >In big industry, cost of electricity is a significant
> >consideration and is a big part of the final cost of product.  If
> >electricity cost less, aluminum would be much cheaper.  Demand for
> >aluminum would then increase.  Simple supply and demand.
> 
> The economic argument is true for certain industries, but their component of
> total electricity consumption is very small.  Do you know what
> percentage of U.S electricity is used for Aluminum?  If this
> argument is to be devastating, then aluminum and similar uses
> must be shown to dominate the market.  Please provide a reference.

But you stated that electricity cost is independent of product cost and
provided no reference for that.  It was simply stated.  I then presented
a case that is a significant rebuttal, since while I do not know the
numbers, it is well-known that energy cost is the most significant cost in
the production of aluminum.  While aluminum alone probably amounts to no
more than a couple percent of total electric capacity in this country,
it is only one example (though, admittedly, it is the best).  As for
percentage of capacity that it uses, I don't know, but I do know that
a moderate-sized aluminum refinery uses 100's of MW, and because of this
the plant and a generating facility are usually built together and the plant
uses the majority of the electricity generated.  So if we new how many
aluminum plants there were and how many electric plants, the plant ratio
would be close to the fraction of energy used to produce aluminum.
Other metal-refining processes do not use as much electricity (most notably
steel, where a lot of the energy comes from coke), but it is still a
significant contribution to the cost of the metal produced.  This would
not be true of precious metals where most of the cost is mining.

> >back conservation efforts, as long as they remain reasonably viable
> >economically.  (As they get more difficult, you will reach the point
> >of diminishing returns.  Investment in conservation is a big booming
> >industry right now with lots of room to grow.  Let's check it again in
> >10 years.  It will level off and go down.)

> How quickly cost effectiveness levels off depends on how forcefully
> it is approached.  A strong national program for efficiency might
> lead to leveling off within 10 years but a program of that magnitude
> at that speed of implementation would lead to a _decrease_ in electricity
> consumption, even including economic growth, so we would not need to

Not according to my calculations.

> industry likes it.  The best likelihood for the fast scenario, IMO,
> would be for strong and unambiguous proof for climate change, similar
> to what is now available for ozone depletion, to become available in

There is not "unambiguous proof" of ozone depletion.  There are the polar
"ozone holes" every winter, but it is not known if the holes existed or
not before the first measurements of them were made.  It is possible that
a certain amount of chlorine has always made it to the stratosphere, and
the ozone holes (even if very small) have always been a polar winter feature.
Summer measurements of ozone at mid-latitudes do not show an unambiguous
reduction.

In stating this, I do not mean to claim that there is no problem with the
ozone.  I just want to put things in perspective.  I do not believe all
is well with the ozone, but I also do not think the problem is the dire
end-of-the-world catastrophe certain groups would have us believe.  Likewise
with global change.  I think the evidence for global change is currently
every bit as convincing, if not moreso, as the ozone evidence.  Ocean
temperatures definitely seem to point to global warming.  The variations
are very small and the noise is very large, but I'm convinced.  Waiting
for "unambiguous proof", you will wait forever.

Anyway, it doesn't matter how fast the conservation occurs.  It may lead
to a temporary drop in required capacity, but in 5 or 10 years we will
require more generating capacity than today.  If we do not invest in nuke
power, then this means CO2 emissions will go up.


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