Should nuclear energy be phased out?

[Cyrus]

What are you, retarded? You think the billion-dollar costs of reactors and dams should somehow magically not be included in their business cases? You think they're "free?" Let's not even get into the problems with hydro, which include NIMBY, greatly increased evaporation, water table problems, downstream user disruption, vast areas of land made unusable, and the rest. You seem to have this fantasy-land notion that we can just throw hydro plants at our problem until it magically disappears

Free, in the sense that we do not need fossil fuels to get power from those sources. Obviously not free as in no cost or pitfalls.

Two-thirds is 66%. And you were the one insisting that wearing sweaters could cut residential energy costs in half, not me. I just said that was retarded, and your own evidence shows that it was, in fact, retarded.

Again, I DID NOT SAY wearing sweaters would cut ANYTHING in half. You put, and still put those words in my mouth, STOP IT, PLEASE. And cut out the personal insults. I have not insulted you.

You didn't give any ways we could actually use less power; you are just trying to say that we should use hydro instead of fossil fuel. This really isn't a viable option in most places, and shows a deep misunderstanding of economics and environmental impact.

No, I did not say anything about putting up hydro-electric plants. You put that into my mouth as well. I said there is a large area that we could make a change, i.e. the commercial residential and transportation. Industrial would not have to be changed.

Now you are just throwing mud at me and not arguments worth debating.

I have shown and continue to show you that 60% is non industrial areas. These areas are the majority, and if we can reduce power use in these areas, we will take a major step in the right direction. The numbers speak for themselves. And I did not read one report, I have provided you with an annual report from every major power area in the US for the year 2004 (electricity, distilled and residual oils, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro). You have only provided me with information on global power rates that happen to include the US per capita, so what? That does not reflect the power use numbers by area or category. That information is misleading. The true data is in the reports I have provided. Perhaps you should read them.

I have no idea how you can gain a sense of what we can save by looking at a chart that shows us how we produce energy.

This shows me that you did not bother to look at what I gave you, as they were all power consumption rates, not power generation rates. Hence, my argument holds weight on solid grounds.

 

[chroot]

You still do not understand what industry is, so again, I will give you the governments definition of industry, as opposed to commercial.

I know exactly what "industrial" means. I used the word "industry," by which I was referring to all business-related use.

Again, no. Stop giving me inaccurate numbers. It is more akin to ~30%.

So, let me get this straight -- "industrial use" includes "facilities and equipment used for producing, processing, or assembling goods. The industrial sector encompasses the following types of activity: manufacturing and mining." Yet you claim that industrial use is not actually business-related.

I ask you, do you have any equipment for the production, processing, or assembling of goods in your home? Do you conduct any manufacturing or mining in your home?

Residential use is about 30% of our total energy consumption. Almost all the rest is consumed by business. There is no argument possible here.

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

Business, yes. Industrial business NO! Hence, my argument. So you STILL are not paying attention to a word I have said. I said INDUSTRIAL this hole time, never have I said business. I have been careful to keep industrial and commercial as two different entities. The same chagnes to your home that decrease power use applies to office type buildings. The technology can be used to benifit BOTH, but more than likely will NOT help industry.

For the 4th time now warren, industrial does NOT mean all business related use. Business includes industrial and commercial, the converse, industrial does not mean all types of business. Industrial is a subset of business.

 

[chroot]

Free, in the sense that we do not need fossile fuels to get power from those sources. Obviously not free as in no cost or pitfalls.

Who cares if they're free of fossil fuels? We were never talking about the sort of energy production. We were talking about total energy consumption. Why are you so bent on changing the subject?

I have shown and continue to show you that 60% is non industrial areas.

I was using the word "industry" to include all business-related uses, which your reports split into two categories: industrial and commerical use. I was using the term "industry" to describe all business-related use, which accounts for 2/3 of our energy consumption.

Why do I continue to repeat myself, while you continue to use the same words over and over again?

Residential use is approximately 30% of our total worldwide energy consumption.

This shows me that you did not bother to look at what I gave you, as they were all power consumption rates, not power generation rates. Hence, my argument holds weight on solid grounds.

What argument, exactly? You keep changing your mind about what you're arguing. First, you argued that Americans are the most wasteful people of energy, and that the Japanese are better. Then I pointed out that both arguments were factually false. Now you're arguing that coal is about half our generation. So what? I don't care about any of that. You seem to be changing the topic of discussion because you desperately want to be right about something, yes? Charming.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Business, yes. Industrial business NO! Hence, my argument. So you STILL are not paying attention to a word I have said. I said INDUSTRIAL this hole time, never have I said business. I have been careful to keep industrial and commercial as two different entities. The same chagnes to your home that decrease power use applies to office type buildings. The technology can be used to benifit BOTH, but more than likely will NOT help industry.

The first reports I showed you did not, in fact, separate industrial and commercial use. They used the term "industry" to refer to all business-related use, as I have done.

If all you're going to do is argue the definition of a word, this discussion is completely pointless. Do you even have an argument anymore?

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

First, you argued that Americans are the most wasteful people of energy, and that the Japanese are better. Then I pointed out that both arguments were factually false

Ok, fine. I like the information you provided, and I have to agree with you on that issue. The evidence does not lie. However, I am showing YOU, that there is a lot of area for improvement in this country, and its not 'enviro-babble' on my part. And that making claims that changing industry is the only way to make change in this country is simply FALSE.

 

[chroot]

For the 4th time now warren, industrial does NOT mean all business related use. Business includes industrial and commercial, the converse, industrial does not mean business. Industrial is a subset of business.

I understand the concept. I used the word "industry." Again, why are you so hung up on the definition of a word? Different reports use the words differently. You have to use context to determine the intended meaning. This is an example of reading comprehension.

As I have said from the beginning, residential users are a small portion of the world's total energy consumption. There can be no argument about that statement, regardless of how you define "industry," because it is factually correct.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Ok, fine. I like the information you provided, and I have to agree with you on that issue. The evidence does not lie. However, I am showing YOU, that there is a lot of area for improvement in this country, and its not 'enviro-babble' on my part.

No kidding -- there's a lot we can do! This I have never disagreed with you about. We're probably never going to cut our consumption in half without some enormous leap in technology (or an enormous cut in standard of living), but indeed there's quite a lot that can be done.

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

Because your use of the word Industry, lumps industrial and commercial, which over estimates the power use by nearly DOUBLE. My reading comprehension is fine. I am using the proper use of the words, you are not.

As I have said from the beginning, residential users are a small portion of the world's total energy consumption.

They out use industrial, and nearly tie with commercial. How is that a small portion?

Lets just play with a number here. Let's say, for instance, we can make some cuts in power use. A modest 5% in industry, 20% in commercial, and 20% in residential. You are talking of nearly 45% TOTAL ENERGY REDUCTION. That, sir, is MASSIVE!

 

[chroot]

Because your use of the word Industry, lumps industrial and commercial, which over estimates the power use by nearly DOUBLE. My reading comprehension is fine. I am using the proper use of the words, you are not.

Residential users use 33% of the total. Business use accounts for about 66% of the total.

66% is double 33%. Correct?

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Lets just play with a number here. Let's say, for instance, we can make some cuts in power use. A modest 5% in industry, 20% in commercial, and 20% in residential. You are talking of nearly 45% TOTAL ENERGY REDUCTION.

Wow, 20 + 20 + 5 does equal 45! What a great argument!

Now how would we actually achieve those gains? You don't seem to ever advance any possible methods.

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

This is human calculus. Numbers are rough. That post was utter nonsense. Back on point, notice how I used a modest 20% reduction in both commercial and residential. The reason is because changes in these areas are very applicable to each other. They are complimentary. That is why you can NOT lump commercial and industrial. You have to group residential and commercial.

Now how would we actually achieve those gains? You don't seem to ever advance any possible methods.

That is the job of smart EE's like you to figure out. And It requires a real plan set forth by the president, not just a cheerleading speech about it on the state of the union every 6 months.

 

[chroot]

This is human calculus. Numbers are rough. That post was utter nonsense. Back on point, notice how I used a modest 20% reduction in both commercial and residential. The reason is because changes in these areas are very applicable to each other. They are complimentary. That is why you can NOT lump commercial and industrial. You have to group residential and commercial.

I don't care how you group it. You've provided no mechanisms by which we could save so much energy. Saying "20% is modest" is not really an argument.

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

If we put our minds to it, we could do it warren. Just because you don’t have an answer now does not mean you can’t find one later. Is that your philosophy can’t think of a solution, so just give up all efforts and say it can’t be done?

 

[vanesch]

This raises a new poll question: I see a lot of skepticism regarding global warming in these forums. Who among you pronuke folks do not believe that fossil fuel CO₂ causes global warming?

Yes, I sometimes read Andre's posts, he seems to be an expert with scientific arguments against the relationship between fossil fuel consumption and global warming. But then, he seems to be pretty alone. As I'm no expert at all in the field, I would trust more the "consensus view" which is that there is a strong link. It's what's usually best when you can't judge for yourself: accept the consensus view in the field, over the "lone rider" view. But there is a more important reason: imagine that the consensus view is right (the arguments of Andre not withstanding). Wouldn't it be very stupid to continue the way we are, then ? Now, let's assume that Andre's right. Is it then such a big mistake to put fossil fuels aside and find other solutions, even if it wasn't necessary for the sake of global warming ?
I think that the potential danger of global warming being right, is far worse, than the potential disadvantage of having over-reacted and having shifted energy production to other areas. In any case, fossil fuels are a finite ressource, so sooner or later we'll have to tackle the issue.

My main reasons for leaving aside fossil fuels as soon as we can, are:
1) the potential danger of global warming
2) the political dependency and all the wars and conflicts that are related to this oil-pumping middle east
3) the fact that sooner or later, we'll run out of them
4) the fact that one should always diversify essential ressources

I think that the intermediate step of nuclear fission power is a good thing, but as I said, in the long run, we should look for other solutions, and surely make most of renewable sources. I don't see this as the one OR the OTHER. Re-devellopment of nuclear fission energy does not, in any way, put a brake on research and development of renewable sources. I would even say: on the contrary. In fact, both are very complementary. Renewable sources are usually best distributed, relatively small scale systems, opening the possibility of very competitive market. Nuclear power is much more "centralized", compact, and "strategic". I don't see, for instance, what would be a problem with some nuclear over-capacity and a distributed grid of renewable sources. In the case of problems, we "push the handle" of the nukes to deal with it. In normal times, the renewable sources deliver the bulk. Nuclear fuel is very compact, and strategic reserves for years can be stored in a small building.

And if we could keep the fossil "fuels" rather as ressources for the chemical industry, instead of as energy generator, that's probably a wiser use of the finite stock of them.

 

[chroot]

Is that your philosphy, can't think of a solution, so just give up all efforts and say it can't be done?

Not at all -- but I don't see any value in debating pie-in-the-sky figures.

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

Not at all -- but I don't see any value in debating pie-in-the-sky figures.

I don't think 20% each for com and resid, is all that pie-in-the-sky. You want to be more conservative, fine. Let's use 10%. Thats still 25% overall reduction. 25% is not an insignificant step. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, warren.

People thought we would never go to space, we did. People thought the world was flat, it wasn't. People thought the sound barrier could not be broken, it could. People will say, they thought they could not solve the energy crisis, but they did.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, can we at least discuss options for a 20% across-the-board reduction in energy usage? One option would be to outsource even more of our manufacturing and go to a nearly 100% service economy (including overseas services to pay for our goods). I'll bet that would take at lest 20% out of the commercial sector since manufacturing uses lots more energy than service.


Any comments?

 

[Cyrus]

One option would be to outsource even more of our manufacturing and go to a nearly 100% service economy (including overseas services to pay for our goods). I'll bet that would take at lest 20% out of the commercial sector since manufacturing uses lots more energy than service.

That would reduce a fraction of the power usage in the industrial, not the commercial sector. The commercial sector is blue\white collar jobs, as per government definition. Industrial is manufacturing jobs. Also, to move industry to another country would actually be worse, as other countries probably won't have as strict emissions controls. Its not an easy problem to solve. Having a large services enonomy is kind of dangerous. It is primary industry that brings money into a country. So you don't want to let all of it go away.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, can we at least discuss options for a 20% across-the-board reduction in energy usage? One option would be to outsource even more of our manufacturing and go to a nearly 100% service economy (including overseas services to pay for our goods). I'll bet that would take at lest 20% out of the commercial sector since manufacturing uses lots more energy than service.


Any comments?

Even in the short term, and even if that would be good for the economy to oursource that much of it, how does that help? 20% is not a significant fraction of the problem and its an amount that we'd make back up in 5 years or so anyway.

To counter the pollution problem, emissions need to be dropped - not by 20% - but by 99%. To end our dependence on foreign oil, we need to drop, not 20%, but 55% of our oil usage.

 

[russ_watters]

Now how would we actually achieve those gains? You don't seem to ever advance any possible methods.

That is the job of smart EE's like you to figure out.

Unfortunately, the laws of physics make it impossible for even the smartest EE to reduce our energy consumption by a significant amount without changing how we live. Ie...

Lets just play with a number here. Let's say, for instance, we can make some cuts in power use. A modest 5% in industry, 20% in commercial, and 20% in residential. You are talking of nearly 45% TOTAL ENERGY REDUCTION.

Actually, you're talking percentage points there, not percent of usage. You're talking cutting 20% from the 33% that residential uses right now. That's actually a 60% drop in energy usage for residential.

So how do we do that? Simple: eliminate all heating and air conditioning, since they are on the order of 75% of your energy usage. Is that a viable solution? No.

Is there any way to make heating and air conditioning 75% more efficient (guess of what is needed to accomplish a 60% drop in residential energy usage)? No. The typical residential gas heater is 85% efficient. It is possible to make them on the order of 95% efficient - dropping their consumption by 12%. With air conditioning, you have the same problem except that they are only on the order of 35% efficient. The laws of thermodynamics dictate that they can't get much more efficient. And electric heaters are, of course, already 100% efficient.

You can pick up a little with heat pumps, but as far as the thermodynamics is concerned, if you get twice as much heat out as energy in with a heat pump, you haven't helped yourself any if that energy in was created at 45% efficiency in a gas turbine generator. Burning it at 90% efficiency yields theh same net usage.

 

[Cyrus]

Actually, you're talking percentage points there, not percent of usage. You're talking cutting 20% from the 33% that residential uses right now. That's actually a 60% drop in energy usage for residential.

Ah, I see what you mean. You are correct.

So how do we do that? Simple: eliminate all heating and air conditioning, since they are on the order of 75% of your energy usage. Is that a viable solution? No.

That is just because you think it is impossible to eliminate all heating and air conditioning. In fact, its not. Its called making a sacrifice. It won't kill you. As I said before, it is a necessity only for the very old and the very young. I realize doing that is a big pain in the butt for everyone, but that's the price you pay when you have no other options. You start to cut back to the bare necessities.

 

[russ_watters]

The posts of mine above are why I consider nuclear to be the only viable solution in the near-term (by which I mean the next ~50 years) to these energy and pollution issues. If we just stop building coal plants and build nuclear plants instead, start transitioning to hydrogen for mobile use, with maybe a 30% increase in energy costs we could be pretty much off fossil fuel in 20 years.

One caveat about coal - coal is plentiful and cheap and because of that it is the primary obstacle to change in our energy usage. "Clean coal" is a smokescreen (pun intended). It is certainly possible to make coal "clean", but what is meant by that? Coal has impurities and releases all sorts of nastyness (including, ironically, uranium) into the atmosphere when it is burned. There are ways to stop that, including preheating the coal to drive off methane and then burning the methane. Methane is what a stove uses and is what people think of when they think of a "clean" fossil fuel. But before anyone gets excited - methane is still a fossil fuel and its primary combustion product is still carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas. So while clean coal would help - it would reduce the number of people who die from air pollution, eliminate smog, etc., it would't fix that bigger problem of global warming.

 

[russ_watters]

That is just because you think it is impossible to eliminate all heating and air conditioning. In fact, its not. Its called making a sacrifice.

I didn't say it wasn't possible, I said it wasn't viable (that subtlety has been a problem in this thread several times...). Just being possible is not good enough. It needs to be viable and it is not viable.

The government could, of course, outlaw heating and air conditioning. But that doesn't mean its a good idea. And it doesn't mean the public would go along with it.

It won't kill you. As I said before, it is a necessity only for the very old and the very young. I realize doing that is a big pain in the butt for everyone, but that's the price you pay when you have no other options. You start to cut back to the bare necessities.

Perhaps you think that is an acceptable sacrifice, but I don't and I suspect that a high fraction of the population would consider that unacceptable as well. That and the fact that it would utterly destroy the economy are what make it not viable.

People have had heat for thousands of years and many people most certainly would die without it. That part, anyway, stretches the limit of "possible", but sure, we could do it: Large fractions of the US (not to mention the world) would be simply uninhabitable in the winter without it. We'd need to abandon the northern half of the US in the winter.

Air conditioning is one of the things that makes the modern world the modern world. Eliminate that and we drop back a century. At home it is largely a comfort, but commercially, our economy could not function in its present form without air conditioning. Computers, or electronics of any kind? No - they require air conditioning. We'd have to stop using pretty much everything electronic (which, I guess, would just leave lighting, dropping our energy usage by 90%).

I think I asked you before if you are a "dark-ages environmentalist" and didn't get a response. It would appear that you are. You may consider such sacrifices to be acceptable, but that puts you in a very tiny fringe. Part of what has made the far fringe of environmentalism so impotent is the fact that their goals aren't viable. The US is a free country and the public just won't accept such radical ideas - such a radical departure from what the modern world is.

 

[Cyrus]

That and the fact that it would utterly destroy the economy are what make it not viable.

That is why you would have to phase it out.

People have had heat for hundreds of years and many people most certainly would die without it.

Ok, fair. Then you limit the total heat output. Make it so that the amount of heating you can get in your home is tolerable. This is one option to reduce heating usage. So your house won't be a warm sunny day in mid january, too bad so sad. Its the price you have to pay if you want to cut back on our power use.

Computers, or electronics of any kind? No - they require air conditioning.

My computer does not have an A/C unit. Does yours? Does anyone else's?

For large networks and mainfrains, of course you will need it. But that's not going to be in every house in the United States.

I think I asked you before if you are a "dark-ages environmentalist" and didn't get a response. It would appear that you are. You may consider such sacrifices to be acceptable, but that puts you in a very tiny fringe.

For the second time, no I am not. I am saying that if you want to reduce the amount of power we use, you will have to make some sacrifices. That does not make me a 'dark ages environmentalist.' Its called there is simply no other alternative. If you want to reduce the power usage, you have to make cuts somewhere. Do you know of any places that we can make cuts, because I would like to know?

 

[russ_watters]

That is why you would have to phase it out.

Huh? How do you phase out heat? And what would replace the economics of HVAC? These things account for a significant fraction of our economic output - they'd need to be replaced with something else.

Ok, fair. Then you limit the total heat output. Make it so that the amount of heating you can get in your home is tolerable. This is one option to reduce heating usage. So your house won't be a warm sunny day in mid january. Its the price you have to pay.

Now you're starting to be reasonable, but you're not seeing the flaw in your logic: the amount of heat required is proportional to temperature difference. If you live in a place where the average winter temperature is 30F and you drop your thermostat from 70 to 50, you've dropped your heating usage by 50%. Few people would find that acceptable and that isn't enough to meet your goal. And what if you live in Maine...?

My computer does not have an A/C unit. Does yours? Does anyone else's?

Try running it outside on a hot summer day and see what happens. Most are good up to around 85 F before you start running into major problems.

For large networks and mainfraims, of course you will need it. But that's not going to be in every house in the United States.

You could probably redesign personal computers to allow them to run at an ambient temp of 90+F, but it would require a reduction in their functionality. Commercially, I think you underestimate how much of an effect computers have: most office buildings have to get cooling even in the winter because of their computers.

For the second time, no I am not. I am saying that if you want to reduce the amount of power we use, you will have to make some sacrifices. That does not make me a 'dark ages environmentalist.'

The sacrifices you are talking about would drop us back so far it is difficult to classify you any other way. Simply put, the sacrifices you are talking about require giving up a lof of what we consider modern life. That's what I call "dark ages environmentalism".

Its called there is simply no other alternative. If you want to reduce the power usage, you have to make cuts somewhere. Do you know of any places that we can make cuts, because I would like to know?

I didn't propose cutting power usage, you did. I'm saying that we can't cut power usage without irreparable damage to our economy and modern life. The problems of pollution and foreign oil dependence can be overcome by changing the way we generate power - they don't require decreasing our power usage.

 

[Cyrus]

Huh? How do you phase out heat? And what would replace the economics of HVAC? These things account for a significant fraction of our economic output - they'd need to be replaced with something else.

No, phase out the use of air-conditioning. You say it is significant, but I am curious as to how significant it is. Can you provide a statistic for that?
They would have to be replaced, but again that's the price you have to pay.

Now you're starting to be reasonable, but you're not seeing the flaw in your logic: the amount of heat required is proportional to temperature difference. If you live in a place where the average winter temperature is 30F and you drop your thermostat from 70 to 50, you've dropped your heating usage by 50%. Few people would find that acceptable and that isn't enough to meet your goal. And what if you live in Maine...?

Might not meet the goal, but it will take a step in the direction of the overall goal none the less.

You could probably redesign personal computers to allow them to run at an ambient temp of 90+F, but it would require a reduction in their functionality. Commercially, I think you underestimate how much of an effect computers have: most office buildings have to get cooling even in the winter because of their computers.

Then you cool the individual computers themselves, not the entire office building.

I didn't propose cutting power usage, you did. I'm saying that we can't cut power usage without irreparable damage to our economy and modern life. The problems of pollution and foreign oil dependence can be overcome by changing the way we generate power - they don't require decreasing our power usage.

Don't get me wrong. If we can maintain our way of life, and find better ways to get power while reducing the effects on the environment, GREAT! But I find this very hard to believe, because when most of the world gets out of 3rd world status, we will have a major energy crisis on our hands. Eventually, cuts will be inevitable. (Unless we get some technologies that can supply the increased demands within that time frame, which is debatable)

 

[Cyrus]

Russ, I can't find any information on the impact HVAC has on the total US economy. I have tried and tried. Can you find me anything? The fact that it is so hard to find leads me to believe that it is probably not a major economic sector.

 

[Cyrus]

All this talk about savings and numbers has lead me to wonder how much savings would actually occur in totality by playing around with savings in different areas. First, I looked at the different groupings of the various energy sectors. These sectors include: Nuclear: 20.7%, Hydro 6.7%, Natural Gas 16.5%, Petrol and Others 4.7%, Coal 51.4%. These groupings are for the net generation of electricity only.

I will try to use what I feel are modest and reasonable numbers. Let's say we can improve nuclear by 5% (we find some ways to be a little more efficient). Let's say hydro is ~2% (Maybe we put in more efficient generators), Let's say Natural Gas ~5%, Petrol and Others, ~3%, Coal let's say ~4%. So what would be our overall savings just for the net electricity?

The new percentages would be: Nuclear: 19.665%, Hydro 6.566%, Natural Gas 15.675%, Petrol and Others 4.559%, Coal 49.344%

That gives a new total of 94.984%. So in electricity alone, we have skimmed off ~4.191% (Not too bad)

Keep in mind that this 4.191% increase is just from improving manufacturing of the electricity by doing whatever we can, no matter the cost.

Now, we also know that the total use of power is grouped into three major sectors, residential, industrial and commercial. The percentages are: Residential 36%, Industrial 29%, and Commercial 35%. So let’s assume we use energy saving devices, low power white LED lighting, and anything else one could think of. This would apply to both Commercial and Residential electrical power usage. So, that should be compounded to the 4.191% total power savings we got just from trying to improve how we make the power. So this means that I would originally have 100% power used from the electric source. From my savings, I now have 95.809 as my net total electricity, 36% of which comes from Residential, 35% commercial, and 29% industrial.

Let’s further say that the technology to save power in residential and commercial will be roughly the same. However, commercial uses power on a 24-7 basis, whereas residential has peak hours. So let’s just assume that every 1 saving in residential is going to be 1.5 times the amount in commercial. Let’s say residential saves, 3% all together. That means commercial will save around 6%. Let’s leave industrial alone to make warren happy. So this means the new total power use will be: Residential: 34.92%, Commercial: 32.9%, and Industrial 29%. That means the net difference in savings will be (100-91) = ~3.18%.

So that means we save another 3.18% on top of the 95.809% we saved when making the power. So now we are down to 92.629%. By doing so little, we have already chopped down the net electrical power consumption by 7.371%. (Now were getting some where)

Now, just for the hell of it, let’s say we switch over to renewable sources. Let’s say we exploit wind farms, as warren seems to like, and get perhaps 2% of the total power from wind farms for the U.S. Also, let's say we use have some sort of solar-oil power station, where the sun heats the oil in a tube via reflectors, and gives us 0.5% total US power. Also, let’s say we can use geothermal sources and get another 0.5% power production from that. That means we can further reduce another 3% from the generation of power. Recalculating the values gives a net savings in the end of: 10.371% in terms of electricity.

Furthermore, we know that out of all the natural gas consumption, 25% goes to electrical production, 25% to residential, 16% to commercial, and 34% industrial. We agreed to leave industrial alone, so well do just that. So let’s reduce residential and commercial by 5%, and we will stick with the 5% reduction we used earlier in electrical. That means additional savings of 3.3% for all natural gas usage in the US, not just for electricity.

What about oil. That is another big component of our dependence on energy. Well, only 1.3% of our distillate oil goes to making electricity. In fact the percentages are:

Residential: 10.7%
Commercial: 5.4%
Industrial: 3.7%
Oil Company: 0.8%
Farm: 5.1%
Electric Power: 1.3%
Railroad: 4.9%
Vessel Bunkering: 3.4%
On-Highway: 59.6%
Military: 0.6%
Off-Highway: 4.4%
Other: 0.0%

Ok, so let's impose regulations in parenthesis, and their associated new percentages:

Residential (6%): 10.058%
Commercial (6%): 5.076%
Industrial (0% I left it alone): 3.7%
Oil Company (1%): 0.736%
Farm (1%): 5.049%
Electric Power (3%): 1.261%
Railroad (1%): 4.851%
Vessel Bunkering (1%): 3.366%
On-Highway (Lets say 20%, this would be tough, but not unrealistic to achieve): 47.68%
Military (0%, well leave them alone): 0.6%
Off-Highway (5%): 4.18%
Other: 0.0%

Total of Distilled Savings: 13.443%. That is allot of savings for not asking too much.

This means we save ~10.371% in electricity production, and ~13.443% in distillate oil consumption.


So let's try not to be so dismissive about making changes that clearly would NOT destroy our economy or destroy our industry. It is very possible to make great strides in efficiency, *if we want to*. I was very moderate in how much savings I imposed. If you increase them, you will get even better results. The only area I was critical was in on-highway consumption by 20% because we already have the ability right now to make our cars ALLOT more fuel efficient. It just amounts to taking cars that average 18mph highway and turning them into 21.6mph on high way. Hell, my car already gets 24-mph city, and its a 4 door accord not a tiny pinto. So there is no reason why that can't be done.

As I alluded to earlier, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

 

[Art]

One caveat about coal - coal is plentiful and cheap and because of that it is the primary obstacle to change in our energy usage. "Clean coal" is a smokescreen (pun intended). It is certainly possible to make coal "clean", but what is meant by that? Coal has impurities and releases all sorts of nastyness (including, ironically, uranium) into the atmosphere when it is burned.

The reason it is called 'clean coal' is because it is not burned! It is gassified by heating to 2000 F which breaks it down into it's constituent chemical building blocks. These are then distillated and so what were harmful emmissions become useful by-products such as anhydrous ammonia and ammonium sulfate for use as agricultural fertilisers, phenol for use in manufacturing wood resins and naphtha and liquid nitrogen which have many uses.
The CO2 produced is captured and as I outlined in an earlier post can be used to help extend the useful life of oil wells or simply sequestered underground.
The net result is there are zero emmissions from a plentiful raw material source with none of the longterm environmental / health risks associated with nuclear power.

With regard to the US reducing it's usage of power one of the most obvious ways to do this without changing a single thing in how power is currently used is by converting the supply system to use HTS cables.

The amount of power currently lost through electrical resistance in the transmission grid is immense. This loss could be eliminated almost entirely using technology already available and proven. In fact it has been undergoing small scale field trials for some years now in several US states without any problems. Other advantages are it greatly reduces the amount of cabling needed to carry power as area for area HTS wire will carry >150 times the amount of current existing wires carry.

Another interesting area under development is HTS motors, prototype 36.5 MW (47,000 HP) ship propulsion motors have been produced for the US navy weighing 1/3 and taking up 1/2 the space of conventional motors of the same rating. Many ships have already transitioned to electrical propulsion systems making the next step to HTS systems far simpler. It is estimated that if a cruise ship used a HTS propulsion system it would save ~$100,000 a year on fuel.

 

[Lisa!]

I voted yes but I think nukes should be phased out.

 

[chroot]

That gives a new total of 94.984%. So in electricity alone, we have skimmed off ~4.191% (Not too bad)

Since the US energy demand increases by, say, 1.5% annually, we'll be back to the same demand in about 3 years, yet will have spent billions of dollars in a futile attempt to improve efficiency by this insignificant amount.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

It is very possible to make great strides in efficiency, *if we want to*.

You sure have added up lots of numbers, but you still haven't provided even a single technique by which such savings could be made -- other than wearing sweaters in the winter, of course.

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

Actually, I just showed you that it is about 13% for oil. That is a good amount of oil that can be saved. Which means less dependence on foreign sources. Also, If we can delay our usage increase by 3 years (for electricity), that’s 3 years of less increase in pollution. That sounds better than 3 years of rising emissions. If you factor in increases in renewable sources, that's about 10 years. A few billion is not allot of money. We spent that much to study where to make a hole in a mountain to put our nuclear waste, as Russ has pointed out. They did not even dig a hole with that money. So we do have the money around. Might as well put it to better use.

other than wearing sweaters in the winter, of course.

I made no mention of eliminating HVAC in that calculation warren. Thanks for yet another cheap shot, real classy.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Cyrus I think that there's a bit of a conflict with trying to decrease energy usage. Yearly we want to make sure that more and more people have clean water, food, clothes, shelter, heat/air, medical care, education, transportation, jobs, ect ect... in essence if we try to meet these goals more people are going to be using more energy yearly. I'm sure that these are goals you would whole heartedly endorse and would like to see met on a larger percentage yearly. I was on the same track of considering reducing energy usage until I realize this. After that reealization it seemed that the primary focus should really be harnessing more energy for less overall cost ("overall" to include longterm issues of global warming pollution ect.). Energy saving measures are definitely a good idea but I think in the long run with all issues considered it's really just a way of reducing the inflation of energy use which will continue to inflate regardless as already mentioned by Chroot and Russ.

On getting industry and commercial to reduce energy expenditures I think that it's not a very big issue there. Cost in energy is factored into cost of business and any good business man should be working on keeping his business as cost efficient as possible. I am sure though that there are businesses that are reluctant to make the investment in more efficient energy consumption. Most likely they just don't realize how they can benefit. Any good company that provides such technologies though should be hitting up anyone they can with literature on the subject. Tax breaks for companies that institute major energy saving plans would be a good incentive for them to get it done and tax breaks for companies that provide said services would also be good. What do you think?