One of these days, green energy policy wonks will have to deal with the basic issue of nuclear energy. If CO2 is going to be the figure of merit, the game of not counting CO2 emissions saved by nuclear power will not fly.

Activists sometimes point out that the power to run the uranium enrichment cascades comes largely from two old coal-burning power plants, and demand that nuclear power not be considered zero-emitting for CO2 accounting.

My gut guess would be that instead of zero percent emissions compared to coal, the nuclear CO2 number would end up as a few percent of equivalent coal power plant emissions. I do not have the numbers. However, the figures can be verified.

Let's get the numbers out for the public to see, and make future articles on green emissions a bit more complete.

A. David Rossin

A theory with growing support is that solar activity in the form of sunspots is the primary cause of global warming. In simple terms, sunspots and solar flares affect the Earth's magnetic field and prevent cosmic rays from forming ions that act as nuclei for water vapor to condense, resulting in lesser cloud cover that allows more solar energy in to heat the earth. There is significant evidence that the Roman warm period, the little ice age and similar periods in history were coincident with high and low solar sunspot activity. If these scientists are right we are headed for another little ice age around the year 2030. Other than the predictions of computer global climate models there is little evidence for the greenhouse gas theory.

I think it will be harder to adapt to the coming cold spell that it will to be global warming. We are wasting time and money with all this CO2 sequestering and carbon credits trading. Transfer payments to third world countries for carbon credits are just bad politics. The money would be better spent on water and sanitary infrastructure. Renewable resources may not be such a bad idea if we can use the fuel, such as corn, for food, except that crop failures in the cold climate will be problematic. Energy conservation such as insulation is always a good idea but I would be wary of solar energy investment with the increased cloud cover of the next little ice age.

Nuclear power is one obvious answer. Hydrogen fuel for vehicles makes good sense today as it did in the 1950's. If we start planning now we will have what we need in time. However, I predict it will be 5 years before the "consensus of scientists" recognizes that CO2 may not be the predominate cause of the current temporary cycle of global warming.

Ironically, CO2 with its counter effect to global cooling, regardless how small, will be seen as a benefit. Coal will have a big future.

William Malenius
Director of Engineering
Applied Cardiac Systems, Inc

Whether the motivation is global warming, energy security, or just plain-old saving money, the renewables and "negawatts" initiatives currently underway across electricity and automotive applications are broad and deep. The #1 concern is that we shall be (too) successful in our applications of technology to energy, causing the price of world oil to drop back down to $30 (or $10). At that point much of the investment made becomes lost due to re-adoption of the "lowest cost alternative".

The most valuable action the politicians could take would be to establish a "floor price" for imported oil and natural gas. If the price fell below the floor, the government would charge taxes to raise the price to the floor price. Oil import tax receipts could automatically trigger income tax decreases (as one example). In this manner the billions being invested in alternatives and energy conservation would be protected in any series of events causing oil prices to temporarily drop (again).

To those who say "nonsense, we need the cheapest power, should never tax it, and should let the free market work"...we don't have a free market in energy, and renewed reliance on "cheap imported oil and natural gas" will simply return us (in another 5 or 10 years) to the geopolitical and energy quagmire we find ourselves in today. It would be most helpful if the politicians would apply a long-term vision to energy policy in the United States.

Tom Conroy
President
Wind Tower Systems

Thanks for your article today on energy efficiency and conservation, which to me mean essentially the same thing: a megawatt NOT consumed is the same as a megawatt generated.

To be honest, I've never understood the arguments against conservation (are there any, really?), but if you don't want to think about it in environmental terms, then just stick to dollars and cents (or sense, as the case may be).

To take one example, roughly 65% of industrial power consumption goes to running large motors. Today only a small percentage of those motors are controlled by variable speed drives, which ramp up and down as needed rather than running the motor at top speed all the time. A variable speed drive can cut the energy consumption of the motor it controls by as much as 60%, which should raise the eyebrow of any CFO.

The variable speed drives delivered by ABB alone in the last decade have reduced energy consumption by over 80,000 GWh per year worldwide. That equates to over 68 million tons of CO2, or roughly the annual emissions of a country the size of Finland.

The terms "efficiency" and "conservation" are too often relegated to the economic and environmental arenas, respectively, but we should never think that one comes at the expense of the other. They are two sides of the same coin.

Bob Fesmire

There has been far too little emphasis put on energy conservation in this country. It is by far the easiest way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce pollution. I look at it this way. Every time I do something to save energy, I am taking dollars out of the pocket of some billionaire in the Middle East. If the U.S. is ever going to become energy independent, which I think we MUST DO, then conserving energy is probably the most important step to take.

Jim Colleran
Salem, VA
 

For far more extensive news on the energy/power visit:  http://www.energycentral.com .

Copyright © 1996-2005 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.