Re: background vs man-made emmissions

[New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution <necnp@necnp.org>]

At 03:13 PM 05/01/2000 -0500, Sandy Perle wrote:

	I've been lurking on this list for a while now and I usually enjoy Sandy's
generally thoughtful posts, comments etc.  In this case, though, I think
that his comments perpetuate the utility industry myth that alternative
sources of energy are not ready for prime time.  

	Currently wind energy systems are the least expensive of all energy
systems on terms of installed cost per KWH produced.  Sure they might wipe
out some birds, but the harm there is probably just about awash with the
aquatic animals wiped out by the residual heat from the nuclear plants that
is dumped into our lakes, streams and estuaries.  (Seabrook alone has done
in over 50 seals on the past few years.)

	Photovoltaics (solar electric systems) while currently somewhat expensive
in terms of installed watt is another prime candidate for replacing a large
amount of capacity that might be lost by closing the nuclear and coal fired
plants.  The installed price of these systems had been dropping rapidly
over the past few years.  

	Sandy asks what about the land area needed for solar systems.  I will
respond to Sandy by asking him how many acres of south facing roofs are in
the areas currently served by the average nuke?

	Currently 27 states have net metering laws.  These laws require that the
utilities allow small producers to sell electricity back to them at the
same rate that the utilities sell power to the producer.  That is the
utilities will bill the customer for the "net" of what they use.  Most of
these laws, at the utilities' insistence only require the utilities to buy
back through net metering 1 percent of their gross power sales.  I think
that you will se that soon the utilities will be very glad to buy this
power far in excess of that one percent.  Why? Deregulation.
	Since the early part of the last century, utilities were guaranteed a
profit based on a percentage of their investment.  The more they spent, the
more they were guaranteed to make.  So why not build the most expensive
power plants possible?    Once deregulation is complete, the utilities
won't have that financial incentive to build large centralized power
plants.  They will be out there begging people to rent them their
south-facing roofs or they will actually be giving people financial
incentives to put up photovoltaic systems or wind turbines or low head
hydro systems.

	The whole system is based on national policy.  It was national policy that
set up the utilities as regulated monopolies the keep investors from being
ripped off by the Insulls and Morgans of the 1930s.  It was national policy
that gave the push through investment guarantees and research subsidies for
nuclear power plants in the 1950's.  And it will be national policy that
will ensure that less centralized non-polluting electrical generating
systems will be in place in the next few tens of years.  As you read this
DOE is building a photovoltaic system in that will power the Pentagon.
That is no small deal, considering that the Pentagon is the largest office
building in the world.  


	Sandy tells Norm Cohen that "You did provide an answer, but you need to
go further than simply 
provide the same alternatives that have been thrown around before."  The
fact is that the "same alternatives" are the ones that will get us out of
our greenhouse gas AND nuclear waste problem at the same time.  Nuclear
power came about partly because people were coming out of a war and were
looking toward the future and were easily convinced that with enough "too
cheap to meter" (regardless of whose quote it is) energy they could do
anything.  Now people are looking toward the future again, but this time
they are saying "If we don't do something to save the planet it doesn't
matter how much energy we have."  They look back at the government's and
nuclear industry's failed 50 year-old promises to clean up its little
radioactive messes scattered all over the country and, regardless of whose
fault it is that the promises haven't been kept, see nuclear power as a
failed technology that has no place in their clean world future.  Failed
technology or not, national policy created the nuclear power industry and
national policy will create its successor.  It really isn't Norm's job to
articulate a national energy plan; it's the job of all of us working together.

	BTW, Sandy asked Norm about shutting down the oil burners as well.
Considering that every produced of photovoltaic panels in the world except
one has been purchased by an oil company for very large sums of money, it
would seem that the oil companies already know where it butter is on their
bread.

David N. Pyles

>
>Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 10:43:29 -0700
>From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>
>To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: Re: background vs man-made emmissions
>Message-ID: <390D5FD1.11780.C8D519@localhost>
>
>> 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.
>
>OK .. and does one do this in a timely manner after everything is 
>shutdown. Not only have you shutdown the nuclear units, but the coal 
>units as well. I'm not sure on the number, but you probably 
>eliminated about 60% of the energy mix. You don't mention fossil fuel 
>plants, so why not shut down the oil burners as well?
>
>Realistically, you can't make up for the plants you shut down. To 
>develop the technologies you address will take years, and, what about 
>their associated environmental effects? For instance, what about the 
>about of land you need for the solar power requirements? What about 
>the residual heat that is produced from these facilities that must be 
>dissipated?
>
>You did provide an answer, but you need to go further than simply 
>provide the same alternatives that have been thrown around before. It 
>takes more information, and a real plan, to make these things happen, 
>before you "throw the baby out with the bath water."

>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Sandy Perle					Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100   				    	
>Director, Technical				Extension 2306 				     	
>ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division		Fax:(714) 668-3149
    
>ICN Biomedicals, Inc.				E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
           
>ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue  		E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
      
>Costa Mesa, CA 92626                                      
>
>Personal Website:  http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205
>ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com
>


==================
"So far we have been extremely lucky...But with the spread of
industrialization, with the greater number of simians monkeying around with
things they do not completely understand, sooner or later a fool will prove
greater than the proof even in a foolproof system."

Edward Teller (as quoted in the Eugene (Oregon) Register Guard, October 7,
1969.)
===================

New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution
P. O. Box 545
Brattleboro, VT 05302-0545
802-275-0336 voice and fax
necnp@necnp.org


www.necnp.org
Educating the Public in Safe, Clean Alternatives to Nuclear power for over
25 Years.
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html