Re: Basic Choices and Constraints on Long-Term Energy Supplies

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

Why is it that nobody seems to want to discuss the "demand" side rather
than the "supply" side of the energy problem.  Have we given up on
population control entirely?

Dr. Mark H. Shapiro
Professor of Physics, Emeritus
California State University, Fullerton
Phone: 714 278-3884
FAX: 714 278-5810
email: mshapiro@fullerton.edu
web: http://chaos.fullerton.edu/Shapiro.html
travel and family pictures:
http://community.webshots.com/user/mhshapiro



-----Original Message-----
From: Forum for Physics Educators [mailto:PHYS-L@list1.ucc.nau.edu] On
Behalf Of Richard Tarara
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 10:38 AM
To: PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU
Subject: Re: Basic Choices and Constraints on Long-Term Energy Supplies

> [Original Message]
> From: John Denker <jsd@AV8N.COM>

> > Then  there is the 20-25 year lifetime of the panels--versus 60 years
plus for
> > nuclear or coal generated electrical plants.

> That's irrelevant.  Over such a lifetime, the cost of the
> fossil-fueled plant is trivial compared to the cost of the fuel.
> There's no point in calculating based on a 60-year lifetime
> for the plant if you don't have a 60-year supply of fuel.  Which
> you don't.

It is relevant--at least in comparing coal to solar when you calculate
the
cost per kWh over the life of the 'plant'.  Largely because of the short
lifetime of PV panels, this cost is 2-3 times that for coal generated
electricity.

One needs a reference for what a 250x250 mi area really is.  Your
comparison to 1/2 the area of Nevada is one way--but look at it another.
It is 3 times the area of all the roads in the country!  ALL THE
ROADS--but
not concrete or asphalt (although the amount of steel and concrete
necessary for such an area of PV arrays is stupendous as well), rather
somewhat more sophisticated material.

I do agree fully on the analysis for Japan.  My latest energy
simulations
(International Project) clearly demonstrates that to eliminate oil and
gas
usage and replace such with wind/solar/biomass requires two things--land
and money.  The U.S., Canada, Australia, and the like can do it because
they have both.  India, Russia, to some extent China, and the like can't
afford the huge capital costs ($20-30 trillion for the U.S. over the
next
century).  Smaller but sparsely populated countries are OK, but Japan,
Great Britain, much of Western Europe, and the like don't have the
available land resources.  Europe will probably have to become even more
inter-dependent with the West offering the capital while the East can
offer
the land.  Japan is probably in the worst shape--especially once the
coal
and nuclear are gone.  They should be investing heavily in fusion
research
(hot or cold).  ;-)

Rick

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

**********************************************************
FREE:  Windows and Mac Instructional Software
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
***********************************************************