NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/sci/environm/9840

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-23 | 4.8 KB

Xref: sparky sci.environment:9840 sci.physics:11463 sci.energy:3566
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.energy
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!destroyer!ncar!vexcel!dean
From: [e-mail] (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:55:15 GMT
Lines: 89

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (dean alaska) writes:
>
>
>   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>
>   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.
>
>US concumption is about 10TW of which 3TW is grid,
>mean wind speed is about 6 m/s - if you have a 1km
>turbine, assuming wind power can be regenerated by solar
>heating on a time scale of 10**5 seconds, you need an
>area of 2d16 cm**2 to get 1TW. That's 1000miles square,
>100% extraction. What do you think the climate impact
>would be, even if it could be done?

I have in front of me a graph of the U.S. that indicates that if we had
100% extraction of wind potential from a band of states in the center
of the U.S., we could supply 90% of current U.S. electricity demands.
I realize that we can't get 100% extraction, or probably even close
to it, but 20% extraction means 18% of our energy supply.  The graph is
from Scientific American (9-90) and the article is by the manager of R&D
at PG&E and a senior research physicist at Princeton.

I have no idea what the climate effects would be.  Have there been any
effects at the wind farms in CA?
>
>   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.
>
>I'm puzzled, is the study for all uses or for domestic uses only?

Residential, commercial and industrial.

>Are metal foundries and transport really that far from thermodynamic
>limits? Don't forget household only accounts for 1/3 of energy
>consumption, - or does this presume the US does not refine its
>ore and continues to export heavy industry?
>    The EPRI studies I've seen quote the 20-30% easy
>efficiency, and that does not factor in the energy to do
>the change, simply the new consumption rate if you magically
>replace all old inefficient devices.
>    Again I ask, does the study include the energy
>that is requried to fabricate the new efficient devices,
>in energy efficiency, assuming finite lifetime it is not
>worthwhile to replace all old inefficient equipment immediately,
>refining Al and moulding glass are high energy activities.
>
I have not the seen fabrication consumption addressed in the article
so I don't know if they include it.  The issue of how quickly inefficient
equipment is replaced is important.  The more we rush the replacement,
the more the fabrication issue comes into play, since for a slow
replacement, we replace old fabrication consumption.  Do you have
any estimates on how the fabrication energy compares with energy
consumption for lifetime use?
>
>   >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.
>
> no. "nuclear" jerks knees.

I think the original poster was simply stating that nuclear plants are
not needed right now due to the potential of efficiency and renewables,
which is a position I share.  Whether the lack of use of nuclear power use
is due to technological limitations, inherent danger, or misrepresentation
is unimportant to financiers on wall street and partly so for utilities.
They need to make pragmatic decisions.  Environmental regulations make
coal highly problematic.  Various causes make nuclear unlikely in the
near future.  Efficiency and renewables may be the most pragmatic choice.

>
>*  Steinn Sigurdsson               Lick Observatory          *
>* [e-mail]        "standard disclaimer"      *
>*  Some people think they're really clever            *
>*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979    *

--

        dingo in boulder    ([e-mail])