http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/business/05conserve.html?oref=login
The New York Times > Business >
(...)
Slow Learner on Energy-Efficiency Front
By JAD MOUAWAD
(...)
Published: October 5, 2004
The United States, land of gas-guzzling S.U.V.'s and air-conditioned
McMansions, might do well to turn to the country some Americans love
to hate for lessons on how to curb its reliance on imported oil: France.
(...)
Most European countries, for example, have encouraged drivers to buy
cars with diesel engines, which burn 30 percent less fuel than regular
engines. Two-thirds of cars registered in France are diesel-fueled,
according to the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association. That
compares with diesel sales of less than half of 1 percent in the
United States.
... but too much Diesel cars means problems for raffineries (balance
production between diesel and lighter gasoline) and Environment
especially in towns (Noise, Sulfur dioxide, ozone and particles). Step
to step, diesel oil price is rising up, approaching from regular prices.
It's the same for PLG to keep taxes incomes level for state.
About cars, the newspaper's forgotten other measures as speed limits,
compulsory carburation (pollution) control every couple of year...
European Union and France also rules about efficiency for home heat (1/4
of oil cunsumption), including help for insulation or changing for new
systems with fossils fuels or alternative energies.
One hurdle to diesel sales in the United States is that compared with
conventional gasoline-powered cars, diesels emit more smog-forming
pollutants, though they offer lower emissions of the kind that
contribute to global warming. Still, with better technology, some
carmakers like Chrysler plan to offer new diesel models later this year.
While diesels have made little headway, fuel-efficient hybrid cars -
with electric motors that take over for the gas engines at low speeds
and stops - are gaining in popularity. But so far, only a few
carmakers offer them, and there is a waiting list for some of the more
popular models, like the Toyota Prius.
An additional disparity between the United States and France is the
approach to nuclear energy. With domestic production of oil a tiny 3
percent of the two million barrels it consumes each day, France has
turned to nuclear power as its economic savior; 80 percent of its
electricity now comes from the country's 19 nuclear plants, compared
with 40 percent in Sweden, 30 percent in Japan and Germany and 20
percent in the United States.
"Because it didn't draw a lucky geological hand, France has always
looked for energy independence," said Dominique Maillard, the
country's top official in charge of energy policy as the director of
energy at the Ministry of Industry. "We used nuclear power as a path
to offset our dependency on imports."
The United States, in contrast, has turned up its nose at nuclear
energy, in part because of the risk of a meltdown (much reduced in
recent years, experts say), and in part because of the controversy
over the disposal of nuclear waste. The biggest factor, though, was
the soaring cost of building nuclear plants to satisfy more rigorous
standards.
Since the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor in
Pennsylvania in March 1979, no new reactors have been built. With oil
prices rising and concern about global warming spreading, nuclear
power advocates argue that a new generation of power plants can
overcome the problems with nuclear energy at an acceptable cost.
To be sure, the depiction of the United States as the world's energy
wastrel and of France as a model of virtue can be overdrawn. All
developed countries have significantly improved their energy
efficiencies in manufacturing and construction since 1973. Moreover,
oil's slice of global energy demand has fallen to 35 percent today
from 45 percent 30 years ago.
(...)
But Nuclear power is absolutly not a perfect solution. "Energy
independence" is not true because we don't have enough uranium
ressources. The total costs are not included (dismantle nuclear power
plant for exemple or manage nuclear waste for centuries). The
radioactives wastes are very dangerous and we cannot give that kind of
present to our children (the glass containers have a life-time shorter
than the radioactive matters they contains). Nobody's perfect, and
Tchernobyl can happen again everywhere. French people never had
democratic choice about power policy.
The nuclear lobby in France is so powerful and linked to government and
the monopolistic state owned electricity provider EDF (Electricite De
France) , that efforts on alternative energy development are ridiculous,
compared to other European countries like Danmark (wind energy), Germany
(geothermic, biomass...) or Spain (solar).
If energy savings are now in our culture, US states like California are
an exemple for us for things to do (alternative energies) or not to do
(Enron, dismantling of railways in 1930's)
I guess that the US plan to start again a civil nuclear program.
Yesterday, a convoy has carried US military plutonium across France to
turn it in MOX, a nuclear fuel for new technology nuclear power plants.
AREVA (the french nuclear trust) will provide a factory to USA for
making MOX. The most funny is that this try for the USA at the Cadarache
plant in France, is made in a place where MOX production was stopped
because of earthquake threat and very bad economical efficiency of the
process.
While the french gov try to make oil savings, EDF (main owner = gov) is
promoting the less efficient way for home heating : electricity
France is of course NOT a model of virtue, even if our way of life is
more sustainable than the American one.
frantz from France
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
