RE: Nuclear Power Des NOT Need Gobal Warming Hoax!

[garyi@trinityphysics.com]

Jim,



Are you saying that climate models could give the same results without using historical 

climate data?  If not, then I have to say that we do indeed "depend heavily" on historical 

trends.



Also, your memory of historic electrical demands is from a completely different time 

than the one Ruth described, so I don't think there is any justification for claiming that 

your memory is better than hers.



-Gary Isenhower



 

> Ruth Weiner wrote:

 

> (1) In the years immediately after WWII, electric energy use in the

> United States increased about 7% per year, and the increase was pretty

> much linear, so utilities planned construction on that basis. 

> However, by 1968, the annual increase was a little less than 3%/year

> and has stayed there ever since. (2) Weather is predicted with about

> 65% accuracy on the average, in spite of reams and reams of good data.

> ==================





> On 1 Jun 2004 at 17:19, Dukelow, James S Jr wrote:

> Contrary to Ruth's belief, climate models (usually called general

> circulation models) are almost entirely physical and chemical first

> principles.  Some phenomena are too poorly understood or occur on a

> scale too small for the model resolution for strict first principles

> modeling.  In those cases the physics and chemistry and/or large scale

> behavior of the phenomenon are parametrized and historical data is

> used to determine best-fit values of the parameters.  Examples of such

> phenomena are aerosol behavior, cloud feedbacks, and a number of

> others.  GCMs certainly have uncertainties that need to be understood

> in interpreting projections of future behavior, but those

> uncertainties arise from the model dynamics and parameter

> uncertainties and not because past trends are being projected into the

> future.

> 

> My memory of the history of mis-prediction of electrical demand is a

> bit different from Ruth's and because of it personal impact on me, I

> suspect better than hers.  When I entered a nuclear engineering

> program in September 1973, utility managers had, almost universally,

> the quaint belief that the demand for electricity was inelastic.  They

> believed that if the price went up the demand would be unaffected.  In

> October 1973, the Yom Kippur war and the Arab Oil Embargo tripled or

> quadrupled the price of fossil fuels in the U.S. and uranium sellers

> thought that was a nice idea and followed the market up.  It turned

> out that electricity demand was elastic.  Demand growth projections

> dropped precipitously and within a few months US utilities had

> cancelled dozens of nuclear plants on order and some already under

> construction.  When I finished to program, prospects for nuclear

> engineers were not nearly as golden as they were when I started.

> 

> My experience with short-term weather prediction is better than

> Ruth's, but I do live in a region that has climate rather than

> weather.

> 

> Best regards.

> 

> Jim Dukelow

> Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

> Richland, WA

> jim.dukelow@pnl.gov

> 

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/