Nuclear power 'cannot tackle climate change'

[struggle4progress]

· Energy efficiency far more important, expert says
· Standard of debate in UK condemned as abysmal

David Adam, environment correspondent
Tuesday January 17, 2006
The Guardian

New nuclear power stations would do little to combat climate change, according to a leading expert who has hit out at what he calls the "abysmal" standard of debate on the issue in the UK.
Kevin Anderson, a senior research fellow at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said claims that nuclear power was the only way for Britain to meet demanding greenhouse gas targets were fundamentally wrong. He said: "That argument is way too simplistic. We can easily deal with climate change without nuclear power" ...

Dr Anderson said the separate demands of the transport and heating sectors meant that nuclear power supplied only about 3.6% of total UK energy used. Replacing nuclear reactors with gas and coal power stations by 2020 would raise carbon emissions by 4%-8%, he said. "We could very easily compensate for that with moderate increases in energy efficiency. If you've got money to spend on tackling climate change then you don't spend it on supply. You spend it on reducing demand" ...

Dr Anderson said wider use of energy efficiency measures such as house insulation and fuel-efficient cars could almost halve energy demand ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,1688033,00.html?gusrc=rss

[Odin2005]

1. Of course efficency is important...

...but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use nuclear energy. Using less energy doesn't eliminate the need for power plants. You can't get all you power from renewable sources unless you live in a place like Iceland or New Zealand. The people bitiching about nuclear power should be out getting support for fusion energy research so fossil fuel and fission plants are obsolete instead of protesting space proble launchs and getting Swedish nuclear power plants shut down so they can burn more coal. :crazy:

[greenman3610]

5. We're about to go to war with Iran because they want to use Nuclear -

Nuclear power is inseperable from Nuclear Weapons.
Greens have been saying for 30 years that terrorists
would one day get their hands on nuclear weapons, and
that this was the greatest threat to civil liberties and
society imaginable.

[Dead_Parrot]

6. Not inseperable at all...

Around 70 contries have (or have had) nuclear reactors: Only 9 or so have nuclear weapons. A few, like South Africa and former Soviet states, have vountarily given up their nuclear weapons...

[bananas]

7. There's nno nneed for it.

Money is better spent on efficiency.
Then you can get all your power from renewable sources,
no matter where you are.

[Dead_Parrot]

2. Reducing global emissions by 50%...

...would mean we're only cranking up the CO2 by 1.1 ppm / year. It might buy us 20 years rather than 10, but it's still a long way from a solution - you still have to replace the generation infrastructure afterwards.

[skids]

3. A decade is a very long time, research-wise.

...and since it's so glaringly obvious that efficincy is the $/watt king I really wouldn't mind if 90% of technology rollout went towards that. If it gained us an additional 10 years, who knows what else would be in the pipeline.

[Dead_Parrot]

4. It would have to be a very fast pipeline...

The only "new" thing in the pipeline - that I know of - is fusion energy, and the current timescale for that is to have an operational powerplant around 2045. This could doubtless be slashed with a fusion "Manhattan project", but it's nothing I'd want to have to rely on.

There will doubtless be improvements in existing tech, but I can't see any combination getting close to 50% of current use. Not without nuclear, anyway...

[One_Life_To_Give]

9. Assumes increased efficiency will reduce demand

That could be a dangerous assumption. Increased efficiency reduces costs which will cause greater use. There are numerous examples from the last hundred years.
a) My furnace is more efficient and house is better insulated, than my grandfathers. But I heat the entire house evenly, while he had one room at temperature.
b) Car engines are much more efficient than 25yrs ago. But 2004 avg vehicle fuel efficiency (mileage) did not improve over the late 70's.

[skids]

10. Assumes increased efficiency reduces costs...

A counterpoint: do you really think energy prices aren't going up?

[One_Life_To_Give]

12. More complicated than just cost

My point is that Consumers will adjust their patterns based upon multiple factors. So that for example doubling the average mileage of automobiles will not halve gas consumption. Or after someone buys a high efficiency fridge. They will be less inclined to unplug parasitic loads.

Peoples expectations change over time as well. Once people have sampled a convenience they place a higher value on it than if they never had it. Case in point would be air-conditioning. In the 60's it was rare for a US car to have A/C.

[jpak]

11. Increased efficiency will most certainly reduce energy demand.

Replacing an older refrigerator consuming 1000 kWh per year with an Energy Star fridge using 400 kWh per year will absolutely reduce electricity demand.

(note: Japanese companies are now selling refrigerators that use only 160 kWh per year).

As would replacing a 60 watt incandescent bulb with a 14 watt compact fluorescent bulb, or a 10 mpg Hummer with a 50 mpg Prius, or an 6 SEER heat pump with an 16 SEER heat pump, or increasing an attic's insulation from R13 to R40.

I don't see how this is a dangerous assumption.

One assumption I do find dangerous, however, is Dick Cheney's hypothesis that "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis
for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."

Fuck that.

[One_Life_To_Give]

13. 1980-2000 approx 340 million BTU per person each year

After increasing the insulation to R-40. Will the house be kept cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter? What about keeping the pets comfortable while at work? If they drove the Hummer 10,000 miles/yr. Will the prius be the same or 12,000 miles/yr.

Yes efficiency can be increased in many specific areas as you cite. But that assumes people don't find someplace else to expend the energy saved. I look at the DOE website, and find that for 20yrs energy consumption per person has been fairly level. (Granted this is a short period) To have the desired output the gains of efficiency ned to be seen across aggregate demand. That won't necessarily happen just because we make a couple of big items from the 2005 energy use profile more efficient. Consumers are likely to find other ways to spend part or all of the energy savings produced.


edit spelling

[skids]

14. There's been no major efficiency initiative.

Look at CA's data. After enron, they had one. Note the bump.

[One_Life_To_Give]

16. 70's initiatives, should be showing

While the cost impacts were taken directly in the 70's and early 80's. The benefits of Carters efficiency programs, changes in building codes, CAFE etc. would be showing up in the 80's and beyond. But for the G-7 it appears only Germany has a very slight decline in per capita energy consumption over the last few decades. In the US, with exceptions for price spikes and the embargo, our energy usage appears fairly consistent since around 1965. Also note that the cost of Gasoline as a percentage of the mean hourly wage has also varied considerably over the same period.

I think it is too simplistic to assume that if we double efficiency that consumption will drop by half or if we double cost, consumption will drop by half. The relationship of how people utilize energy and the value they get from that are more complex than that simple analysis allows. It's not enough to just make todays technology more efficient. We need to anticipate what the next new technologies that everyone must have will be. And determine how to supply both the current conveniences and the future conveniences with clean reliable power.

(What does a Robotic Personal Assistant consume for power? How about an Air-Car?)

[skids]

17. Answers: not much and keep dreaming.

I robotic personal assistant would at most times consume very little power -- robots use power in spikes, and the driving logic behind them consumes less every year. Now if you programmed it to march up and down the stairs all day just for your amusement, maybe then, but...

And I wouldn't look forward to driving an air car anytime soon.

This is all pretty ridiculous to be talking about at a time when the average American is sweating out their power bills.

[jpak]

15. Energy costs will most certainly increase...

Especially gasoline, heating oil, kerosene, electricity, and natural gas.

People won't be leaving their CF bulbs on all day, or their Energy Star refrigerator doors wide open, or joy ride 200 miles more each week, or keep their homes at 80 degrees F in the winter and 60 degrees F in the summer under those conditions.

Efficiency cheats will find themselves in the poor house if that happens....

[NNadir]

8. Yes and chalk is cheese.

Lava is icewater.

Oh, yes, prayer is energy.



If you can't do numbers do doublespeak.