GP: Re: green-power Digest 10 Feb 2002 18:52:23 -0000 Issue 39

[Stephen Bray <ste_bray@yahoo.com>]

Cornelius
Britain's nuclear plants are privatised. They are
mostly owned by a privatised company called British
Energy who are currently having some issues in Britain
with the political climate which seems to be edging
towards this policy of greener energy.

They were protected though by statutory purchasing
contracts with UK power suppliers which are currently
being challenged in the courts as being potentially
out of sync with the New Electricity Trading
Arrangements. This was supposedly put in place because
of the inability of nuclear power stations to fuctuate
their output as traditional coal and gas fired plants
can.

 --- green-power-digest-help@crest.org wrote: >
green-power Digest 10 Feb 2002 18:52:23 -0000 Issue
> 39
> 
> Topics (messages 343 through 344):
> 
> Re: [GBlist] USA imports 55% of its oil was Should
> we be subsidizing  nuclear and  fossil fuels?
> 	343 by: Cornelius Suchy
> 
> PV Economics (solar electric)
> 	344 by: Ron Byrd
> 
> Administrivia:
> 
> To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
> 	<green-power-digest-subscribe@crest.org>
> 
> To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
> 	<green-power-digest-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> 
> To post to the list, e-mail:
> 	<green-power@crest.org>
> 
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: 	Thu, 07 Feb 2002 15:24:34 +0600
> To: Ron Byrd <byrdelc@directcon.net>,
>         "'green-power@crest.org'"
> <green-power@crest.org>
> From: Cornelius Suchy <c.suchy@consultants.mvv.de>
> Subject: Re: GP: Re: [GBlist] USA imports 55% of its
> oil was Should we
>   be subsidizing  nuclear and  fossil fuels?
> Message-Id:
>
<5.0.1.4.0.20020207141741.00a42ec0@mail.consultants.mvv.de>
> 
> --=====================_22182676==_.ALT
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1";
> format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> Let me give you a non-American, non-CNN view on the
> matter:
> Yes, I believe a lot of the wars the US has been
> involved in after the=20
> break-down of the Soviet Union are related to
> securing access to=20
> inexpensive fossil fuels. Even the Afghanistan war
> is - to my point of view=
> =20
> - indirectly connected to this. The Taliban regime
> has been a terrorist=20
> regime ever, way before Sept 11, and it didn't only
> dawn on Mr. Blair then=
> =20
> that they are flooding the streets of London with
> heroin. The West knew=20
> that and accepted this for reasons of securing
> future access to natural gas=
> =20
> and oil. There have been plans of building a
> pipeline from Turkmenistan=20
> through Afghanistan to Pakistan and the Indian
> Ocean, as all other routes=20
> did not materialize. As a matter of fact the State
> Department has supported=
> =20
> the Taliban for the longest time, calling them a
> stabilizing force in the=20
> region. CNN and the western media have sucessfully
> market this as a war on=
> =20
> terrorism, while operation 'Infinite Justice' and
> 'Desert Storm' are, at=20
> least partly, necessary to obtain respectively
> maintain access to fossil=20
> fuels. The costs of these operations have thus to be
> allocated to the costs=
> =20
> of oil, an externality of around 0.5% of the US'
> GDP, according to some=20
> recent figures. I predict that these fights for
> resources will become more=
> =20
> frequent as the resource gets scarcer. Get this
> across to the American=20
> taxpayer and it should not be that hard to turn the
> tables in favor of=20
> renewables and energy efficiency.
> 
> The scenario that you are predicting, Ron, is,
> however, not very realistic.=
> =20
> The Middle East will not close off its oil export
> over night. They, as much=
> =20
> as the consuming West, depend on selling their
> crude. All they can do - if=
> =20
> OPECs goes along with this - is reducing the
> production and thus increasing=
> =20
> the price. That will not come overnight. Moreover,
> the horror of having to=
> =20
> pay 5US$ per gallon of gasoline can't be that bad -
> most of Europe pays=20
> around 1$ per liter (4.4$/gallon), and still the
> economy is somewhat=20
> operative and competitive. Except for some primary
> industries the share=20
> that energy expenditure has on the overall
> production costs are marginal,=20
> in most cases below 5% of the total annual
> expenditure. Raising the price=20
> even by 50% will not but them all out and you on the
> streets.
> 
> Subsidizes always distort the economic reality.
> Nuclear power has been=20
> subsidized for the longest time, both in terms of
> R&D, as well as in=20
> operation cost (Paul mentioned the costs of nuclear
> waste storage). Yet,=20
> this has not managed to bring nuclear anywhere close
> to an economic=20
> operation. And it never will if you take the
> half-mean time of e.g.=20
> Plutonium (25'000 years, I believe) into
> consideration. When Britain=20
> privatized its national power stations in the
> 80/90ies they got rid of all=
> =20
> plants - except the nuclear ones. No profit-oriented
> company wants to deal=
> =20
> with them.
> Subsidies, nevertheless, do make sense to help a
> technology take off. The=20
> computer industry would have never got anywhere
> close to where it is now,=20
> without the massive support from the US Government,
> notably from the=20
> military budget. Put a share of the money given for
> the development of=20
> nuclear power stations into research for renewables
> and the next generation=
> =20
> might see some cost competitive technologies.
> 
> Likewise a market introduction of RES will not
> happen without a changed=20
> regulatory framework and some sort of financial
> incentives. Denmark,=20
> Germany, and Spain are prime examples of how to
> boost renewables. The=20
> feed-in regulations has made Germany N=B01 in terms
> of installed wind=20
> capacity, despite the rather poor wind condition the
> country offers (at=20
> least compared to other countries like the US). In
> Germany now critics are=
> =20
> forming, which indicates a next step in a transition
> towards an altered=20
> energy supply system. According to Schopenhauer
> there are always three=20
> stages in a sociological development: Firstly, the
> majority laughs about=20
> your ideas. In a next phase the critics start
> fighting you with increasing=
> =20
> vehemence, while finally they completely agree with
> you, considering it the=
> =20
> most normal thing on the face of the earth. The
> question arising from this:=
> =20
> Is Mr. Bush's announcement to support renewables to
> be classified as the=20
> last phase, or only a fig leaf to cover his bare
> support for the old oil=20
> industry?
> 
> Cornelius Suchy
> Almaty, Kazakhstan
> 
> At 08:18 05.02.2002 -0800, Ron Byrd wrote:
> >I think Paul has missed my point. I am in favor of
> a cleaner environment
> >and peace on Earth. I happen to believe that most
> things are accomplished
> >though some kind of economic means.
> >
> >I believe that our dependence on foreign oil is
> actually holding us bake
> >from making progress in other renewable energy
> sectors. The sooner we make
> >the change from a fossil fuel society to one that
> relies more on renewable
> >resources the sooner we can stop protecting our
> future 
=== message truncated === 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

____________________________________________________________________________
This discussion group is sponsored in part by: 
  * Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology, http://www.crest.org
  * Global Environmental Options, http://www.geonetwork.org
Archives and related documents can be found at at: http://www.green-power.com