From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:09:03 GMT

In article <51748@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.170753.5233@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>> 
>> Efficiency costs a lot less than building new capacity.
>
>You keep saying this almost like a mantra - like saying it enough times will
>make everyone believe it.  It is true only up to a point.  You quote my
>paragraph in its entirety and some arguments against such a simplistic
>statement are contained therein.  My original response showed that cost
>of efficiency gains is necessarily exponential as you approach physical
>limits.  No, efficiency does not universally cost less than new capacity,
>and no, you cannot use efficiency gains to avoid new capacity for very long.
>In fact, entropy alone will prevent you from using efficiency gains for
>very long - even if you are willing to spend infinite funds on efficiency.

I have already agreed that efficiency costs will rise.  My statement
pertains to short-term efficiency costs.
>
>> >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.
>> 
>> It looks like you are assuming a continuing coupling between GDP
>> and energy consumption that would no longer be true once the retrofits
>> were installed.  
>
>Where does that statement come from?  I just gave you a computation that assumed
>that every current facility and every new facility would be 100% converted
>to the technology you claim will be 54% more efficient than current technology.
>This is easy to compute - just let today's energy consumption be 1.0.  Then
>assume instantaneous and 100% conversion to 54% more efficient use - energy
>consumption is now 0.46.  Now just grow that at 5% per year, compounded yearly.
>After 16 years, you have 1.004 as total energy use.  This is so obvious I
>don't see why I should have had to explain it.  What do you think growth will
>do, or are you expecting to get work done without energy (like the free-energy
>people)?

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.
>
>> The study also mentioned some successful cases.  It seems that the
>> majority experience with nuclear power in undeveloped countries is
>> negative - and this with minimal regulation (compared to the US)
>
>"Seems"?  To whom?  I haven't heard of any negative third world nuclear
>experiences, though I imagine at least a few have to exist.  All I have
>ever heard of is how virtually every third world country is just begging
>for nuclear power - mainly becuase of the success they have seen in its
>application by their neighbors.
>
Fine, I will post a list of third world nuclear power experiences
in a couple of days.
Many of then are begging for it, but the record does not look
promising that it will be such a huge benefit for them.
>
>--
>Richard Stead
>Center for Seismic Studies
>Arlington, VA
>stead@seismo.css.gov


-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson			dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.energy