🚀 go-pugleaf

"wmbjk" <wmbjk@ctaz.com> wrote in message
news:Fc615.257$Df3.32295@news-west.eli.net...
>
> "Murray Love" <murraylove@home.com> wrote in message
> news:%p_05.13945$F9.436088@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com...
> >
> >
> > So I'm meant to spend money on a technology that I think makes a _great_
> > hobby for other people, in order to lower prices?  Uhhh, I'll get back
to
> > you on that one, OK?
> >
> I thought so. Your idea of contributing solutions is to post in NGs until
> everyone sees the wisdom of nukes. If they don't agree (and they won't),
> then you can say that they should have listened. Here's a free idea- use
> half the time you use to post here to work some extra hours. Use the money
> to buy some CFs, extra insulation, or whatever you think will benefit YOU.
> Or just keep posting, and I'll check back in five years to see how much
that
> reduced your energy consumption.

It appears that, for a man who disdains the forum as not to be taken
seriously, you got stung by the "hobby" bit.  It was a bit of a cheap shot,
and I apologize for it.  Still, I could do without the sanctimony.  Tell me
Wayne, does anyone in your household own or drive a car regularly?

Oh, and yes, I think renewables are great, when they're appropriate.  Energy
efficiency can't be beaten for a smart thing to do.  I live in a house built
in the 40's, and the efficiency upgrading is an ongoing process, when I can
afford to do it.

> Here's a statistic for you. Fifteen years ago I
> had a 400 amp (220V) electrical service. Ten years ago I had a 200 amp
> service. Today I have an 35 amp, 10KWh per day independant system. And
trust
> me, I'm not suffering. Most of the things I had to do to get down to that
> level could be done by any middle class family, grid or no. Even you could
> do most of it, if you wanted to. But I'm not holding my breath. I will
make
> a prediction though- any money you spend on conservation or alternative
> energy will pay off in less time than it will take to convince the public
to
> start building nukes again.
>

Wayne, I credit you with the best intentions.  Unfortunately, it's going to
take a lot more than you and me and the rest of the middle class
weatherizing our houses. Which isn't to say that we shouldn't do it, and it
all helps, but large sections of the developing world will be coming on to
the grid in a big way in the next couple of decades, and chances are they'll
be powered by coal (China and India have lots of it).  Their concerns are
getting factories up and running, providing reliable irrigation to
agricultural areas, and supplying domestic demand when people start
purchasing microwaves and the like.  To put it bluntly, they don't care
about efficiency - it's far from even a secondary concern--they need
reliable baseload.  Efficiency is a concern of comfortable people.

The paper I have here is not a pro-nuclear tract; in fact, the authors
dismiss nuke pretty much completely.  I will send you a copy, if you like.
In any case, the authors calculate that, in order to stabilize atmospheric
CO2 levels at twice pre-industrial levels, we'll need 16 TW of carbon-free
energy by 2050, IF we maintain our current rate of energy intensity decline
(efficiency increases) at 1% per year.  If we manage 1.5%, we'll only need 7
TW.  Right now, the world has 1.5 TW of carbon-free energy; that's hydro,
nuke, and some renewables.

Just so you know, if we take the best case of 7 TW needed, that's 618,520
sq. km of PV cells.  It's also 185,556 sq. km of wind turbine area, housing
58.8 million wind turbines.  Calculated from the paper.  I would welcome a
check on my numbers.

For the interested, the paper is "Climate Change Policy is an Energy
Problem", and the authors are Chris Green and Doug Lightfoot of McGill
University.