Avoiding a nuclear renaissance, Part 2

A couple of posts ago I wrote about an alternative to the proposed nuclear renaissance, namely efficiency. I focused on industrial motors and refrigeration. Pursuing efficiency in just those two sectors would offset half the power now produced by nuclear. The question that comes to my mind is, “What would it cost to go the efficiency route as opposed to the nuclear route?” What follows is an exploration of this question.

According to a recent paper on the subject by the Earthtrack Institute, the U.S. federal government subsidizes nuclear power with about nine billion dollars a year. Just for comparison, the same report puts oil and gas subsidies at $39 billion annually, and all renewables combined at $6 billion.

What else could we do with that $9 billion a year?

I noted in the previous piece that we have about 125 million refrigerators in the U.S., about 31 million of them manufactured before 1993. A $500 a pop subsidy for buying the most efficient model would get most of these least efficient ones into the recycling pile. That would run $15.5 billion, sucking up our first year of subsidies and leaving us $2.5 billion left in the second year.

The U.S. Department of Energy study on industrial motor efficiency I referenced in the other piece quoted a price tag of $11 to $17 billion to upgrade industrial motors and controls. If we picked the high number and treated this as a straight giveaway program, we'd be into year four of our program, at least in terms of funding. Of course, the replacement and upgrading of that much electrical equipment would take more than just a few years. There would also be program administration costs, but with $3.5 billion left over in year four, I think it's covered.

If the feds wanted to be frugal, the industrial program could be part giveaway, part no-interest revolving loan fund.

There are many more places to look for savings. According to a report by the Energy Information Agency, refrigeration yields first place on the domestic consumption list to air conditioning (182.8 billion kWh annually), and is closely followed by electric space heating (115.5 billion kWh). Water heaters (104.1 billion kWh), lighting (100.5 billion kWh), and clothes dryers (65.9 billion kWh) are just below that.

In the previous back-of-the-envelope exercise I theoretically reduced our national demand for nuclear power from 787.22 billion kWh annually to 377.7 billion kWh. Where can we go from there?

Electric space heat is simply an abomination. Fully 55-65% of the fuel energy that goes into a power plant comes back out as waste heat. Using U-235 in a massively complex power plant to create low grade heat is ridiculous. Let's say, through an aggressive retrofit program, that we could eliminate half of that demand. (The city of Burlington, Vermont, has virtually eliminated electric heat within its boundaries) There's 57 billion kWh.

Electric water heat is similarly inefficient. Between fuel switching, end-use efficiency, and solar hot water, it wouldn't be a stretch to cut that in half as well. That is another 52 billion kWh.

What with global warming and incremental increases in air conditioner efficiency, I won't be ambitious on that front. We could do a lot of work with architectural refits to lower home heat inputs: light colored roofing, insulation upgrades, better attic ventilation, better windows, and improved seals against air infiltration. Let's say that a serious weatherization program plus higher air conditioner efficiency standards, plus better building codes nets us a 25% reduction. That is 45.7 billion kWh.

A compact fluorescent bulb cuts energy use by two-thirds compared to a standard incandescent. Between bulb upgrades and daylighting retrofits we would be slackers if we couldn't cut residential lighting use by a third. Ring up 33.5 billion kWh.

Clothes dryers? Yes, a major convenience, but let's try fuel switching for the same reasons as space and water heat. A one-third reduction would be 22 billion kWh.

So, this brings us another 210.2 billion kWh a year in savings and we haven't regressed to cave dwelling. In fact, most of these changes would be invisible to the homeowner, except when the electric bill arrives in the mailbox. We have reduced our nuclear needs to 167.5 billion kWh a year, about 21% of our present nuclear generating capacity, and I haven't even started on non-motor industrial uses.

Another thing to consider is that most of the economic activity generated by this kind of effort would be in the large appliance, industrial equipment, and construction industries. That is domestic spending on services and durable goods, which would boost the economy. The construction trades are going to need something to do after the housing bubble anyway.

I realize that I have been blithely throwing big round numbers around, but I don't think I have been extravagant in my aims. As I noted in the previous piece, Europeans use half the electricity per capita compared to us, and they seem to be living decent lives. I see energy efficiency as the next big economic engine in this country. It is structured to create many jobs per million dollars spent, it keeps cash inside our borders, and it pays for itself many times over in savings. Some of those savings are right there on the power bill and some are about absence: nuclear waste not produced, new power lines not strung, and pollutants not in the air.

Comments

[Gary Flo]

I did a little research on the Price-Anderson Act which provides imited liability to nuclear power operators. see: http://vtcommons.org/node/282
I spoke to the insurance company that provides the $300 million private insurance and nuclear plants are required to get (Uncle Sam covers them up to $10 billion.) I asked them what would happen if Price-Anderson was cancelled. The agent I spoke to thought that the nuclear industry would be able to purchase insurance privately to cover the risk. If that was the case, then I wonder why the government keeps extending Price-Anderson? Why not call their bluff. See if nuclear can compete in the "free market" without major government handout in the form of liability protection.

It is noteworthy that Price-Anderson was challenged all the way to the US Supreme Court and upheld (No surprise there). So what option does that leave? Congress? fagetaboutit. Here is an idea. What if the neighboring towns, counties, or states NULLIFY Price-Anderson. Revoke liability protection in their jurisdiction. That might cause a shitstorm....

Just a thought.