Are any of you getting mail from futurework? My posts keep bouncing. Ray
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Straker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 2:04 AM Subject: RE: [Futurework] In the spirit of Harry Pollard]] > I think this didn't make it through the blackout, so I am > re-sending. - SS > > REH: > >> Here's an article from today's NYTimes from MIT > >> that basically says what Harry has been saying > >> about Nuclear power's potential to cure the energy > >> crisis for a time. > > arthur: > > Reducing demand at source should be our first option. > > Technological fixes always seem easy at the outset > > but the unanticipated costs soon mount. > > > Amory Lovins - who has always made a great deal of sense to > me - says that Arthur is right and that Harry needs to go > back to the drawing board, as follows ... > > Stephen Straker > Vancouver, BC > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > "The Nuclear Option Revisited," The Los Angeles > Times (8 July 2001) > Amory B. and L. Hunter Lovins > available at: > http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid171.php > > Too expensive and unacceptably risky, nuclear > power was declared dead long ago. So why would we > resurrect it? > > Snowmass, Colo. - Buoyed by a supportive White > House, growing climate concerns, temporarily high > gas prices, and California's electricity mess, the > nuclear industry is running an all-out > public-relations campaign to resuscitate its > product. This attempt ignores one crucial fact: > Nuclear power already died of an incurable attack > of market forces. Once touted as "too cheap to > meter," nuclear power, as The Economist recently > concluded, now looks "too costly to matter." > > Overwhelmed by huge construction and repair costs > around the world, nuclear plants ended up > achieving less than 10% of the capacity and 1% of > the new orders (all from countries with centrally > planned energy systems)forecast a quarter-century > ago. The industry has suffered the greatest > collapse of any enterprise in industrial history. > Beyond the hard economic facts, about which more > later, the nuclear industry is dismissing > legitimate public concerns about the risks of a > technology so unforgiving that, as Nobel physicist > Hannes Alfven wrote, "No acts of God can be > permitted." Each nuclear plant, through accident > or malice, could release enough radioactivity to > hazard a continent. This is presented by the > industry as extremely unlikely, but many citizens > aren't reassured. They have seen too many highly > improbable events, including terrorism. And if > nuclear power plants are so safe, why would the > industry build and run them only if the federal > government passed a law limiting > operators'liability in major accidents? Why > should the nuclear industry enjoy a liability cap > that reduces its incentive for safety, distorts > choices with a vast subsidy and is unavailable to > any other industry? Why can't nuclear operators > self-insure and put their money where their mouths > are, or buy insurance at market prices like > everyone else? The liability law's expiration in > 2002 presents an awkward dilemma for advocates of > both nuclear power and free markets. > > Scientists still haven't developed reliable ways > to handle nuclear wastes and decommissioned plants > (which remain dangerously radioactive for far > longer than societies last or geological foresight > extends). And experts feel nuclear power's > gravest risk is that power plants can provide > ingredients and innocent-seeming civilian cover > for the development of nuclear bombs, as was the > case in India and elsewhere. Now the White House > proposes to revive nuclear-fuel reprocessing after > decades of proof that it's unprofitable, > unnecessary, a complication to nuclear waste > management and a source of vast amounts of bomb > material. > > Market economics provides an even more basic > argument: "If a thing is not worth doing," said > economist John Maynard Keynes, "it is not worth > doing well." Leaving aside bomb-proliferation, > waste, sabotage and uninsurable accidents, nuclear > power is simply uncompetitive and unnecessary. > After a trillion-dollar taxpayer investment, it > delivers little more energy in the U.S. than > wood. Globally, it produces severalfold less > energy than renewable sources. The market prefers > other options. In the 1990s, global nuclear > capacity rose by 1% a year, compared with 17% for > solar cells (24%last year) and 24% for wind power > - which has lately added about 5,000 megawatts a > year worldwide, as compared with the 3,100 new > megawatts nuclear power averaged annually in the > 1990s. The decentralized generators California > added in the 1990s have more capacity than its two > giant nuclear plants - whose debts triggered the > restructuring that created the state's current > utility mess. > > Enthusiasts claim new-style reactors might deliver > a kilowatt-hour to your meter for 5 cents, > compared with 10 to 15 cents for post-1980 nuclear > plants worldwide. (Of that 10 to 15 cents, nearly > 3 cents pays for delivery, about 2 cents for > running the plant, and the rest for its > construction and for occasional major repairs.) > But on the same accounting basis, superefficient > gas plants or wind farms cost only 5 to 6 cents > per kilowatt-hour, cogeneration of heat and power > often 1 to 5 cents, and efficient lights, motors > and other electricity-saving devices under 2 > cents, often under 1 cent. Cogeneration and > efficiency are especially cheap because they occur > at the site where the energy is consumed and thus > require no delivery. > > All these non-nuclear options continue to get > cheaper, as do fuel cells and solar cells. Today, > a pound of silicon can produce more electricity > than a pound of nuclear fuel. Already, > Sacramento's municipal utility, which has > successfully replaced power from its ailing > nuclear plant (shut down by voters) with a > portfolio emphasizing efficiency and renewables, > has brought the heretofore costliest option, solar > cells, down to costs competitive with a new > nuclear plant. > > The PR spinners trumpet that nuclear power costs > less than power from gas plants. This is true if > you are looking only at the running cost of an > average existing nuclear plant , compared with the > running costs of an old, inefficient gas-fired > plant. It does not include delivery to customers, > nor the prohibitive construction costs of a new > nuclear plant. Notice, too, the ads don't compare > the costs of a new nuclear plant with the new, > doubled-efficiency gas plants that are beating the > pants off nuclear and coal worldwide. Under such > realistic cost comparisons, nuclear power plummets > to its actual status as the worst buy available. > You didn't understand that from those slick ads? > You weren't supposed to. The nuclear industry has > a well-earned reputation for breezy mendacity. > > Lost in the debate over what kind of new plant to > build is the best option of all: more efficient > use of the electricity we already have. We've > been reducing electricity use per dollar of gross > domestic product by 1.6% a year nationwide, and in > California between 1997 and 2000, by 4.4% a year. > California has held its per-capita electricity use > essentially flat since the mid-1970s, yet far more > savings remain untapped - enough nationally to > save four times nuclear power's output, at > one-sixth its operating cost. Our personal > household electric bill, for example, is $5 a > month for a 4,000-square-foot house in the Rocky > Mountains. Passive solar design and > super-efficient appliances and lighting yielded a > 90% savings on electricity and 99% on fuel. The > improvements, made in 1983, paid for themselves in > 10 months. Today's technologies are far better. > An estimated three-fourths of U.S. electricity > could now be saved through efficiency techniques > that cost less than generating that power, even in > existing plants. > > Nor, finally, do shortages of electricity in > California justify more nuclear plants anywhere. > California did not have soaring electricity demand > during the 1990s, did not stop building power > plants and is probably not even short of > generating capacity. The system that had rolling > blackouts at a 28-gigawatt load last winter is the > same one that comfortably delivered 53 gigawatts > two summers ago. Half its power plants didn't > suddenly evaporate. Rather, there's apparently > been adequate generating capacity - if power > plants ran as reliably as they did before > utilities sold them. But in fact, since utility > maintenance contracts expired last fall, many of > the sold plants have been calling in sick - often, > some evidence suggests, because their new owners > earn far more profit by selling less electricity > at a higher price rather than more at a lower > price. > > If California does have a serious supply-demand > imbalance, it should be resolved in the cheapest, > fastest, surest and safest ways. Buying more > nuclear plants violates all these criteria. It > would buy less solution per dollar, making the > problem worse. That's also true of nuclear > solutions to climate change. > > Anyone who doubts the effectiveness of demand-side > solutions need only to look to California, where > in the first half of this year, with limited > formal programs, Californians have decreased their > peak demand for electricity by more than 12%, > reversing the past 5 to 10 years'growth in demand. > > After a half-century of nuclear power, the verdict > of the marketplace is in. Nuclear power has > flunked the market test. Nuclear salesmen scour > the world for a single order, while makers of > alternatives enjoy brisk business. Let's profit > from their experience. Taking markets seriously, > not propping up failed technologies at public > expense, offers a stable climate, a prosperous > economy, and a cleaner and more peaceful world. > > > Amory B. and L. Hunter Lovins, co-CEOs of Rocky > Mountain Institute, advise energy companies and > governments worldwide. See <http://www.rmi.org>. > > > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
