home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.environment:9803 sci.physics:11405 sci.energy:3546
- Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!ncar!vexcel!dean
- From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
- Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
- Message-ID: <1992Jul22.221159.19297@vexcel.com>
- Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
- References: <1992Jul21.202320.6596@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1992Jul21.232009.1209@nmt.edu> <STEINLY.92Jul22143340@topaz.ucsc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:11:59 GMT
- Lines: 55
-
- In article <STEINLY.92Jul22143340@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
- >In article <1992Jul21.232009.1209@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
- >
- >Paul, please go calculate the extractable wind energy, comapre it with
- >demand, and contemplate potential climatic effects if a significant
- >fraction were actually extracted. Wind is going to a marginal
- >contributor unless demand plummets.
-
- Wind power could be the dominant energy supply in the upper plains and if
- the grid has the capacity to distribute it, the power could be a
- non-trivial (10's of %) part of the U.S. energy supply.
- >
- >This is dubious. I refer you to Physics Today from early 1992,
- >the problem is the comparisons used to make that claim (I assume
- >you're referring to the "the Japanese and Germans use much less
- >energy - and look we can marginally decrease our household
- >consumption...") usually fail to take climate and population
- >distribution into account.
-
- Studies of possible electricity savings for the U.S. based on studies
- of currently used versus currently available technology in the U.S. range from
- about 75% on the liberal side (from RMI) to 44% on the lower (from the EPRI).
- The 44% figure is the maximum _MTP_ figure which assumes full
- utilization of the best existing technology. The low end MTP value is 24%.
- The difference between the two figures represents rising costs for
- installing these technologies. The technologies for the 24% figure
- could be installed for cents per kwh, while realizing the 44% figure
- would get into 10's of cents per kwh. Keep in mind that these efficient
- technologies prevent the necessity for new capacity so comparing them
- with coal requires including capital cost, not just generation. I can
- provide more details from the EPRI report, if people are interested.
- [RMI = Rocky Mountain Institute; EPRI = Electric Power Research Inst]
- [The EPRI is a think tank for a consortium of utilities]
- >
- > If nuclear power advocates would just give up their luddite-like
- > apprehension towards sustainable technologies, then we might actually
- > start developing a sane energy technology for this country and the world.
- >
- >If people would look beyond arbitary "sustainable" labels and
- >realistically assess what the options are - rather than jerking their
- >knees and becoming phobic, then there might be stable long term
- >energy sources available.
-
- If people understood the true state of efficiency and sustainable
- technologies, they might stop calling others knee jerks.
- >
- >* Steinn Sigurdsson Lick Observatory *
- >* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu "standard disclaimer" *
- >* Some people think they're really clever *
- >* Smash your head against the wall Specials, 1979 *
-
-
- --
-
- dingo in boulder (dean@vexcel.com)
-