I believe that when people talk about distribution losses and end use
losses, they are talking about electrical heating, which is about 1/4 the
efficiency of on-site fuel heating. Cause: the generation of 1.0 power
factor electricity is very inefficient to start with (a lot of heating at
the generator) and the transmission lines lose about 30% (at least they did
25 years ago when I was an anti-nuclear activist, I don't know whether
they've made the transmission lines more efficient somehow). Think of it
electrically. If you have a generator at one end and a heater at the other,
the generator has the same V*I as the heater, so you're starting with 50%
efficiency (half the energy thrown into the ocean or lake).
There is a wonderful 1978 article published in, of all places, Readers
Digest, written by an energy scientist, that presented a model for more
efficient use of fuels (conservation), insulation of homes and businesses,
and co-generation that would about double the energy efficiency of the US,
ending need for any nuclear power plants (only a few percent of our power
needs anyhow) and dramatically reducing CO2 emissions. One of the big
bugaboos is electrical resistance heating, which should have been banned
because it shoves the power factor closer to 1.
Furthermore, there is a transport fuel which is hydrogen-based, called
hydrogen-adsorbed ammonium hydride. This was proven viable by Consumers
Solar Electric Power back the 1980s, but the oil companies and the Reagan
admin scuttled it, framing the principal (Gerald Schaflander) with mail
fraud. He probably died in prison. The system could have completely replaced
gasoline and diesel as a transport fuel. Sad, as he was our last chance to
stop global warming.
See: Somebody doesn't like Hy-Fuel, published in The Nation.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Entemann" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 7:19 AM
Subject: Re: Pelosi calls for nuclear power to offset global warming
> Thank you, Rich.
> Of course I'm anti-nuke, but wild rantings don't help the cause.
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: Richard Rosen <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Pelosi calls for nuclear power to offset global warming
> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 02:01:28 -0500
> Sorry, but your figures are wrong. Total transmission and distribution
> losses from a nuclear plant or any other plant are about 7% in the US, and
> conservation contributes to a 100% reduction in emissions immediately from
> the marginal units generating electricity.
> -- Rich Rosen
> From: Science for the People Discussion List on behalf of Mitchel Cohen
> Sent: Fri 2/9/2007 5:59 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Pelosi calls for nuclear power to offset global warming
> From: Andy Caffrey <[log in to unmask]>
> My fellow Earthlings,
> At 12:59 PM today (pacific time) C-SPAN 2 will rebroadcast
> yesterday's House Science and Technology committee hearing on the
> IPCC report.
> It was rebroadcast twice yesterday on C-SPAN 1, and if you miss this
> broadcast, check the C-SPAN schedule page throughout this weekend and
> into early next week, as they are likely to show it some more, and
> the C-Span site changes updates the schedule with scheduling changes
> many times throughout a single day. I've found things like this,
> including today's rebroadcast, often pop into the schedule at the
> last minute.
> The hearing begins with Pelosi addressing the committee (check out
> the scariest looking Republicans you've ever seen... they live on
> this committee. All pro-nuke flat earthers). She wants a 50%
> reduction by 2050. And she said that unlike when she joined Congress
> 20 years ago to fight nuclear power, mostly because of the waste
> problem, in light of the carbon crisis, she would consider nuclear as
> an option (say, by letting China trade nuclear for coal)
> if you miss the first 50 minutes, don't worry about it, it's just the
> Pelosi part. The meat of it is when the four IPCC scientists talk
> during the following 2 1/4 hours.
> And that is following by the insane petro-fascist denial rantings of
> the moron Dana Rohrabacher. Scary to see the madness in him, but a
> hoot too.
> You lose 80% of the energy generated by nukes in the transmission to
> the end use.
> You can get a 50% reduction in emissions almost immediately with
> The supplies of uranium for nuclear power generation can only last
> for one hundred years unless humans go to plutonium-spewing fast
> breeder reactors. In which case the next 250,000 years of humanity
> will have to tax itself to protect itself from our 100-year nuclear
> profligacy, without getting any benefits! To any Republicans reading
> this, this is your Big Government Gone Mad!!
> Contact Nuclear Nancy and demand No Nukes! Ever! Anywhere! Under any
> circumstances! Shut down the nukes or we'll shut y'all down!
> Andy Caffrey
> Climate Action NOW!
> Turn searches into helpful donations. Make your search count.