Re: Worrying about the long term (was Global Warming (NUCLEAR))

["Shapiro, Mark" <mshapiro@EXCHANGE.FULLERTON.EDU>]

        A 25-30% reduction in energy use (waste) in the U.S. would be a
great start!

Mark
http://www.IrascibleProfessor.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Tarara [mailto:rtarara@SAINTMARYS.EDU]
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 8:48 AM
To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
Subject: Re: Worrying about the long term (was Global Warming (NUCLEAR))


I wouldn't argue much with anything you say other than to be cautious about
the economic impacts.  My major points are really two:

1)  One can't look at Switzerland or Japan and project their energy
efficiencies onto a U.S., Australia, Canada, or other large, sparsely
populated country.  If one looks at the raw data:

Country     GNP/person     Energy/Person/year    Population Density

Japan               $32k                    37MWh               336/km^2
Switzerland     $40k                    21MWh               174
U.S.                 $29k                    83MWh                 29

it is tempting to say that the U.S. could be at least twice as efficient.
BUT...the energy accounting isn't fair.  It doesn't properly account for raw
materials and products imported, the bases of the economies, and most
importantly the population density effects.

2)  IF you do ALL the things you suggest, you still have problems coming up
with much more than 25-30% energy savings in the U.S. (again unless you
drastically change culture and lifestyle).  The sad fact is that we NEED to
do ALL these things, but if current population growth trends continue (U.S.
at 1%) then those savings will be more than wiped out.  Of course things
will be worse if nothing is done in efficiency and conservation.

Bottom line--we need to do all we can in efficiency and conservation BUT
don't expect that to solve our energy problems in the future.  We (and
especially the third world) desperately NEED a clean, renewable, cheap,
high-density energy source.  There are really no candidates for that at this
point in time--fusion being the only thing close and 50 years of research
hasn't been able to make it work!

Rick

**********************************************
Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
rtarara@saintmarys.edu

FREE PHYSICS INSTRUCTIONAL SOFTWARE
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/
PC and MAC software
NEW! Energy Simulator Updates
CD-ROMs now available
******************************************************



----- Original Message -----
From: "William J. Larson" <bill_larson@CSI.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 1:25 AM
Subject: Re: Worrying about the long term (was Global Warming (NUCLEAR))


> ==>It is just not very meaningful to compare energy efficiencies
> ==>between different countries. Take Switzerland for example.
> OK, let's. Gasoline is $4/gallon here. That COULD :-) be done in the US.
> Virtually every inhabited spot in Switzerland can be efficiently (here I
> mean efficiently in the traveler's time spent) reached by public
transport.
> That could not be done in the US, but a vast improvement IS possible. I
> personally commute 100 km each way, every day by train & bus. To say that
> you cannot learn from other country's experiences & efforts is throwing
away
> very useful data.
>
> ==>You can't fairly compare the energy efficiency of Japan (at 335
> ==>people/km^2) and the U.S. at 30 people km^2.
> True, but the available sayings are in the much denser megalopolises on
the
> coasts.
>
> ==>I guess you can try to change the culture/lifestyle of everywhere
> ==>to something that is very energy efficient, but I don't think you
> ==>will ever be successful doing so.
> I do not think that changing the culture/lifestyle is at all easy, but
> recycling was a culture/lifestyle change in the 70's. It happened. I do
not
> imagine (as apparently do some of the environmental organizations that I
> belong to) that conservation and windmills will solve our problem. But you
> miss two points.
> 1) Incrementalism works. Don't disparage 10% effects. Look at any of the
> dozens of spectacularly effective high tech toys littering our houses.
> Typically one big breakthrough & then a hundred 10% improvements ground
out
> by corps of engineers brought them to their present state. 1.1^100 =
13,780
> :-)
> 2) The free enterprise system will save our butts. As long as the price of
> energy reflects its costs [I know that $4/gallon gasoline violates this
> rule, but it violates it in the "right" direction :-) ] over time
consumers
> will choose conservation and suppliers will find new sources.
Environmental
> concerns can be put into the pricing mechanism. Note that this is not
> automatic. Command economies, like the Soviet Union's did not let the
price
> of energy reflect its costs. In lots of third world countries gasoline is
> currently heavily subsidized. When their governments try sensible reforms,
> there are massive riots. We have to avoid these errors.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Bill Larson
> Geneva, Switzerland