Re: background vs man-made emmissions

["ruth_weiner" <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>]

Now for a summary of the opening lecture I used to give when I taught the
energy course at Western Washington University (1978-1993):  one statement
of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that heat cannot be converted into
work without making other changes in the environment.  This is another way
of saying that heat cannot be converted into work at 100% efficiency.
(Production of electricity is "work").  Until a conversion method  is widely
used, it is very difficult to say  what (or how extensive) those "other
changes in the environment" will be, so let me take one of Mr. Cohen's
examples: hydroelectric power generation.

There is a lovely small (1 MW) run of the river hydro project on the
Nooksack River in Washington.  The project was built in the early 1900s (the
meters are hand-painted!), it uses about 1/3 of the river's flow and the
natural drop (160 feet) of Nooksack Falls, and, except for an occasional
fish caught and chewed up in the water wheel, it has had no apparent effect
on the environment in almost a century of operation.   If you stand at the
falls over the intake, you don't even know it's there.  There has been no
discernible effect on the fishery, the streamside ecology, the water
quality, or anything else--and being near an environmental studies college
(where I taught) it's a heavily studied area.

Now consider Ross Dam on the Skagit River, about 50 miles south of the
Nooksack, and, as I recall, about 80 MW.  The entire river is used, there is
a dam to provide a man-made potential energy drop, the fishery and spawning
areas around the dam are gone (although both exist downstream) because of
the wide fluctuations in river flow.  The eagle nesting areas have been
heavily impacted.  The turbidity of the downstream water is increased and
the fish species are fewer both in quantity and variety.  Upstream of the
dam is Ross Lake.  The streamside ecology is gone, replaced by a relatively
barren area where the lake level fluctuates, above which the mountain
ecology is much as it always was.  Upstream of the lake, the flow rate of
the river has decreased markedly, with impacts on wildlife, streamside
ecology, and fishery.

A small nuclear r power plant (e.g., the wattage of a research reactor) also
has far less impact in terms of waste products than a large power producing
plant.  The Valmont coal-burning plant in Boulder is much less of an air
polluter than the Farmington plant.  And so on.  I have reason to think that
this this principle will apply to any method of energy conversion, including
wind and solar. Conservation?  Yes, we can (and do!) do that.  However, only
Friday I discussed with a student doing a little "experiment" to conserve
his use by 15%: 15 % of a full week is 25 hours, or about 1 day.  So, I
suggested, turn off your power one day a week, don't use a car or motorbike
that day, and don't cheat: no cooking in advance, no flashlight, no candles
(that's energy too),no using your camp stove, no going to someone else's
home to read or watch TV or use the computer.  Actually, he's intrigued and
is going to try it.  Sure the results of doing this are at worst
uncomfortable, but it's far from a minor change in life style if it's done
week after week after week.  No electricity one day a week in winter?

By the way, is the approximately 40%-45% efficient conversion of heat to
electricity a really good way to use up our natural gas resources?  Aren't
they better used by using 100% of the heat directly, as in space heating and
cooking?

On a final note, I would be really encouraged about Norm Cohen's motives if
he acknowledged the correctness and aptness of at least some of the
information given him in response to his postings.

Ruth Weiner
ruth_weiner@msn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Norman & Karen Cohen <norco@bellatlantic.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Monday, May 01, 2000 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: background vs man-made emmissions


>Short term - a phase out of nuclear and coal, replaced by natural gas. Long
term - real investments in all of the alternatives out there, from wind to
solar to hydro to wave to fuel cells. As well as a real commitment to
efficiency. This is really more of a national policy question - whether we
as a country have or can get the necessary will to make these changes.
>
>norm
>
>Patricia Milligan wrote:
>
>> Hi Norm,
>>    Just a quick question... what are the safer forms of energy production
that you would like to see implemented in this country?
>>         thanks!
>>                Patricia Milligan Sullivan, CHP
>>                pxm@nrc.gov
>>
>>
>
>
>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html



************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html