From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuclear Power and Climate Change
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:13:36 GMT
Organization: Circle 'C' Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, California

This is God Awful long, and mostly just rebuts Richards points, but
I've tried to make it entertaining along the way... Give it a try
before you give up and hit 'n' ...

In article <51779@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.095948.26136@michael.apple.com>, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>> 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:
>> >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.  
>> 
>> There will be a full spectrum of players with the full range of
>> marginal costs.  By definition, most of them will be near the 
>> mean difficulty to converst and your example of a small producer
>
>Why?  How can you say this is by definition?  

There will be a full spectrum of players since we are talking about
the whole economy.  All == full.

Most of them will be near the mean, since the definition of 'mean' is
that point in the middle. 

(For a statistical treatment, it would be stated as modal point, that 
point which most data points are near...  grossly simplified,
but gross simplification seems to be what is needed here... the 
more exact answer would be that modal point was what most data
points were near but that mean was the statistical mean and might
not match the modal point exactly; however since we are dealing with
a very large sample space {all the economy}, modal point and mean are
substantially coincident.  Since we are using standard English rather
than statistics, the common usage of mean is acceptable and the use
of modal point would confuse as many folks as it enlightened).

Yes, it is true, the middle is the middle by definition.

>I was responding to a post that
>claimed current technology would permit 54% savings if all equipment was
>100% converted.  In no way can you assume from that, that by definition
>most will be near the mean - when you then assume that "mean" means able
>to profitably and easily convert.  

Pardon me?  I never assumed that 'mean' ment able to profitably and
easily convert, only that they would be at the middle of the difficulty
range and that your examples were on the 'hard' end of the range.

And, yes, we can assume that by definition most will be near the 'mean'.
You distort my words.

>I could propose technology that would
>cost $1 million/ kW-h to convert.  Then how many industries could convert?
>You can't just assume that only a few exotic cases will not be able to convert.

This makes no sense whatsoever.  You propose another blatantly false case
then try to generalize it back to reality.  So?  There is a fine line
between an absurdum ad reductum argument and an absurd one... 

>> >And a lot of old equipment
>> >will not be upgradible.  
>> 
>> So it will be replaced in toto with new machines.  This is common
>> in industry.
>
>Common is a reasonable word here, but that does not mean "vast majority".

If I ment 'vast majority' I'd have said so.  I didn't, so please don't
try to imply that I did.  Simple majority, I could be convinced to 
support, but the time frame would be in dispute.  Maybe over a decade
and a half ...

>I will agree it is not unusual to find complete retooling especially
>in large industries with a history of such practice and rapidly changing
>products to justify it.  Auto production is an excellant example.  However -
>check a few wood shops, and you will find that most of the equipment present
>has never been replaced.  Similarly for textile operations.

Um, the US textile plant is making a comeback on the world competitive
market exactly because they finally got it through their thick heads that
new automated tooling costs were preferable to going out of business.
Yes, the textile operations are buying new machinery.  Wood shops I 
can't speak to, other than to point out that US Sawmills are closed
largely thanks to log exports to Japan et. al. where new plant was 
built.  Grow or die.  The plant WILL be replaced with new tooling,
the major question is will it be US or Japanese {Korean, Indian, etc.} ...

>> >Some very old motor-driven factory machines will
>> >simply not accept any motors of modern design.  
>> 
>> Some, but not many in my experience.  Even the 100 year(ish) old
>> junk in the cannery I worked in (in the '70s) had plain round
>> motors held in by a couple of bolts.  In general, the older a
>> chunk of machinery, the simpler and less cranky the motor mount.
>> Yes, you can find something bizzare enough to meet your description.
>> It just isn't representative.

>Some equipment,
>however, has particular hp requirements at particular speeds.  Matching
>that could be difficult, and not matching could be a hazard to workers.
>The rest of the machine is often designed around motors available at the
>time it was built.  Too much and the machine could fail, too little and
>it may be underpowered for its job.  

I think this is just bogus.  I don't have a GE motor catalog at hand,
but I find it incredulous to claim that the desired HP/RPM couple 
cannot be had.  If nothing else, that is what a change of pullys is for.

>And slapping a resistor into the circuit
>is not necessarily going to solve the problem, and even if the resistor works,
>are you still going to get that 54% improvement or is the motor now out of
>its most efficient range?

No, you don't use a resistor, you use a semiconductor speed controller
with built in power factor correction as is being retrofitted to large
numbers of motors for the efficiency it gains.  (We are presently 
planning for variable speed AC fans as an efficiency improvement over
the present all-or-nothing ones ... via a speed controller...)

>> >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.  
>> 
>> This happens every so often anyway.  It is called depreciation.
>> We cycle Crays in about 5 years.  (Cut our energy usage by 
>
>And you obviously have something a lot of small producers do not.  It is
>called money.

No, my budget is strongly constrained from prior years.  Talk to any
user of Cray computers.  They are obsolete in 5 years since by then
they do not meet the definition of a supercomputer any longer (within
a factor of ten of the fastest machine in existance is a good working
definition.)  We replace our X/MP48 with a Y/MP232E.  For those who
don't know right off hand, that acually reduced our compute power a 
smidge.  (We got more memory though).  It was economical to do so
because it cut our power bills by something like $50k/month.  (That
figure is from memory and may be off some, but then again, I can't 
get too specific in public statements about my budget ... 8-{   )
Just remember that Apple had layoffs just a year or so ago  :-|

>> >Neither option will be economical in many cases, nor will
>> 
>> Only the economic ones will be done, most economic first.  At
>> the end of a 10 year cycle of this, the less economic ones are
>> now much more likely to be economical to do, since the machinery
>> is now 10 years further along in its life cycle.
>
>What difference does 10 years make on a 100 year old peice of equipment?

Not much, only 10%.  Then again, MOST plant is depreciated on the
schedules dictated by the tax code, which focusses on 20year and
less schedules.  Buildings may be anywhere from 18-40 years 
depending on a bunch of tax stuff.  The typical plant does not
run on 100 year old tools in 100 year old UN-MODIFIED buildings!
(I hope it is self evident that most of American plant and buildings
are not the same as they were in 1893 ...)

>How is 10 years going to help a small producer who can't afford to
>upgrade at all?  

He will either find a way to upgrade, or gradualy go out of business
from efficienct competitors.  (Or will be in a (minority) of the
industry that can compete on old equipment and will not upgrade).
That is the hard lesson of the last couple of decades of job loss
in America.  Compete or die.

>Just because existing equipment is ten years older
>does not mean it suddenly costs less to replace.  

Yes, it does.  Your depreciation write off stops.  Your maintenance
costs rise.  The (10 year newer, now) replacement equipment is now
10 year newer technology and even MORE productive.  It is now less
costly to replace, since you get {less power cost, more depreciation
write off, higher productivity, less maintenance, etc.}

>This is only true
>for large manufacturers who really do have an equipment cycle.  Small
>producers do not necessarily have any such cycle.  

Everyone has an equipment cycle.  They may not have a plan for it.  
They may not have a sinking fund for replacement.  They may not have
a clue... but there equipment will age, obsolece, and decay plan or not.

>They buy a machine
>once and it is expected to last for as long as they are in that line
>of business.  

And some small fraction may have an equipment cycle that lasts longer
than their business, but then they have an equipment cycle that has
'scrap value' that is high when the leave the business since they
can sell the machine to another entrant.

>Sorry, not all manufacturing works exactly like you
>were taught in microeconomics.

Yes, it does.  Microecon does not constrain how the shop conducts
their affairs, it only describes those affairs and points out how
optimisation COULD be done if that player desired to do it.  At
least in the Microecon I studied, stupid players were allowed.

[...]
>> >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,
>> 
>> Said shift being part of the deffinition of economic growth!  I make
>> computers, my granddad made horse shoes...
>
>Oh, and you are only 16 years older than your granddad?  You've got strange
>family practices.

No, my Grandad left Blacksmithing and started farming.  My Dad left the
farm and did construction work, owned a couple of restaurants, and then
went into Real Estate.  I've worked in {farming, restaurants, cannerys,
semiconductor fabrication, programming, computer center management } 
and a couple of others that don't warrant mention.  The last statistics
I heard had the typical person changing careers something like 3 times
in their life ... 

>> In my experience, it takes NO social change.  I have achieved a 50%+
>> reduction in my home energy usage with NO change of my lifestyle.  
>> (It was a 'design goal' that my wife not notice a thing ;-)
>
>I doubt it.  

Doubt all you want.  I've posted the PG&E bills here.  The change
happened over a (relatively short) 4 year time span, and most of 
the benefit was in the last single year.  Nothing dramatic happend
in that time in our family sociology (other than the addition of
a second child with slight increase in washer/dryer use...)

[ FAT example deleted ...]

>So I believe you are as truthful as possible in your statement and
>belief.  I just doubt that it reflects reality.

When one has specific devices that were replaced at specific times
with immediate observed reductions in the power bill thereafter it
doesn't take a social scientist to state the simple facts.  THE
biggest 'hit' was the 'fridge.  The old one took 800w AVERAGE.
That is about $2/day or $60/month.  The new one is $60/YEAR.
CF's did most of the rest.  (Though we DO use more light now, since
it is cheaper, but that isn't an error in your favor ...)

You may doubt all you want.  You have no way to know, and I accept
that you will remain ignorant of the details of my lifestyle.  (Thank
God.)   I won't rehash the details of efficiency improvments at home
in this thread.  I'm not a rabid conservationist, though.  I just
changed some easy to change stuff that had no effect on lifesytly.

>> >However, if we produce the same
>> >things, and use the same things to maintain our lifestyles 16 years from
>> >now as we do today, 
>> 
>> A blatantly false assumption.  I bought a new fridge that uses 
>> far less electricity than the old one.  It does the same job, but
>> it isn't 'the same thing'.  I replaced incandecent bulbs with CF
>> bulbs with no change in life style.  They are not 'the same thing'.
>
>This asusmption assumed from the start, from today, that 100% of everything
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 Which assumption?  The original poster did, not me.  He assumed 100%
 conversion.  You assumed NOTHING changes.  You're both wrong.

Some fraction will convert, increasing over time (cumulative things
do that...).  It will asymptotically approach 100%, but never reach it.

I've only asserted that many of the consumers of power,  and maybe even 
'most' of the power consuming equipment would be converted to more 
efficient forms.

>> Starting from the false premise of my choosing, I, too, can 'prove'
>> any point I wish ...
>
>And you have tried.

No, I have not.  Someone else assumed 100% penentration, not I.  I have
only pointed out your failings...

>> >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%
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Another false assumption.  We are busy rebuilding our steel industry
>> by scrapping the in-efficient old hearths for new furnaces.  We are
>> doing this 'cause the Japanese and Brazilians have destroyed our
>> ability to compete.  As a side effect, we are being far more effective
>> at producing steel per BTU.
>
>Likewise, this assumption was premised on the assumption that 100% conversion
>to the most efficient technology already happened and all new capacity
>is the most efficient.

This paragraph makes no sense.  If you are saying that YOU assumed that
100% conversion to the most efficient had already happened and you were
just projecting growth, then you are wrong because 100% has NOT been
done yet (though some has).  If you are saying that someone else
assumed 100% conversion already, then don't attribute it to me AND
state such assumptions when you present a model so that the obvious
flaw can be seen without repeated posts ...

>> >increase in energy consumed.  [...]
>> >Anyway,
>> >the 5% growth rate is an excellant growth rate, but I think we should
>> >shoot for that.  
>> 
>> It is an unsustainable rate unless you are modernizing from a 
>> pre-industrial state, IMHO.
>
>And how do you plan to provide for increased population?

Increased US population would take about 1-2%, I THINK.  We are not
adding population at 5%/year ...

>> >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.  
>> 
>> Flat out wrong.  A recession is defined as three successive quarters
>> of Negative Growth.  2% is not less than zero.
>
>Not under new politics.
[...]
>So we grow, but it's recession.  The choice of word is not mine, I would
>not call the past 4 years a recession.  

So you parrot someone elses wrong statments as truth, since you 
subscribe to 'new politics'.  I'll keep that in mind in your future 
postings...

>I agree we did not grow fast
>enough, however.  2% is not enough to allow for population growth - 2%
>growth will result in growing unemployment, because people will enter
>the job market faster than they can be absorbed.

Please site a source for your assertion that we are adding population
in the US at a rate higher than 2%.  I don't believe it.

Job growth is not tied, 1 to 1, with economic growth.  We have added
more jobs to the economy than we have added growth.  This is the 
basis for the complaints about lousy jobs...  Remember Quayle saying
that jobs were available at MacDonalds?  The people may well be
employed, but not making good wages.  This is a disjoint topic
from the question of power efficiency and somewhat disjoint from
the question of economic growth (as discussed here).

>> >Bush was defeated on economic issues while
>> >we had about a 3% growth, so don't say we can live with it.  
>> 
>> Bush was defeated 'cause he didn't dump Quayle and was generally
>> being a weeny.  This has nothing to do with energy efficiency.
>
>No, it has to do with energy, because Bush was defeated on economic issues.
>Every analysis of the compaign has pointed to that.  

I'm not going to get sucked off into a post mortem of the election...

>> Conservation is not hard, is not synonymus with deprivation, can
>> EASILY hit a target of cutting use to 1/2 for home and office
>> space, and takes NO CHANGE OF LIFESTYLE.  It will have a MAJOR
>> market penetration because it is being written into the 
>> building codes!  (I know, my facilities folks keep pointing
>> out to me the new building codes we have to meet 8-{   )
>
>You are confusing conservation and efficiency - they are different.
>Efficiency improvement is doing exactly the same thing with less energy.

You are correct, I've forgotten to split the hair of conservation
vs efficiency improvement.  I guess 'efficiency improvement' should
be substituted for 'conservation' in some of my prior statments.
It seems like a silly hair to split, though, since most folks
don't know when it is being split ...

>Conservation is doing less.  Doing less is a lifestyle change, by
>definition.  And while it is true that much of new construction and
>new products will be more efficient, this doesn't address conversion
>of existing construction and products.  New houses might be insulated
>to R40 for all I care, but that isn't going to reduce heat losses
>from housing projects constructed in the 40's and 50's.  And these
>are now low-income housing - the residents cannot afford the high
>cost of insulating their homes.

Paron me?  MY house was built in the 50's ... Are you telling me that
I live in 'low-income' housing?  (And I just inherited my Moms house.
It was built in the 1890's ...).

My house had a PG&E sponsored ZIP (Zero Interest Program) energy audit
done about 5 years ago.  We added blown in wall insulation.   The
montly cost was less than the energy saved and was taken from our
PG&E bill.  This program was available to ALL comers, without reguard
for income...  My Mom's house has some kind of Gov't sponsored Senior
Citizens Rehab loan done on it so she got energy improvements.  (Largely
insulation and better windows).  This program is available to all
commers who are Senior Citizens and meet some income standard.  One
of her rental houses was done under a similar plan for low-income
rentals.  The Residents don't pay for the cost of insulating, the
landlord gets a (4% in our case) sweetheart loan from the Rehab 
agency to do the work ...  I know, I know, personal experience is
only anecdotal and can't possibly count ...
>
>So back to my point - I assumed 100% conversion to 54% more effecient
>technology today (not a year from now, but right now, instantaneous).
>I also assumed that every new product was also 54% more efficient.
>I then simply computed how many years until new energy capacity is
>required - 16 years.  

Using an unrealistic 5%/year compound grown rate with no recessions
at all ...

>Now, do you have nay real arguments against
>that?  The 54% is not mine - it was posted.  The 5% is, but if you
>want to bicker about that, you will have to grant me less than 100%
>conversion, 

I DO want to bicker about the 5%, since exponential growth models
are particularly sensitive to the exponent chosen...

which should easily bring the time back to 16 years.

Make the should a 'could' and I'll agree.  *I* have not asserted that
your conclusion was wrong (i.e. that 16 years would come and go with
no new capacity needed).  I have asserted that (conservation/efficiency
improvments) are far easier to do than you stated.  I have pointed out
where I felt your arguement was flawed.

(I don't care so much if your conclusion is right or wrong, as I do
that you get to it correctly ;-)


-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.