Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!dyer@vaxuum.DEC
From: dyer@vaxuum.DEC (Example #22)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Nuclear Odds & Ends
Message-ID: <7667@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4-May-84 12:11:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.7667
Posted: Fri May  4 12:11:14 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 5-May-84 07:32:27 EDT
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 56

Re: Nuclear Odds & Ends________________________________________________________

> If I'm not mistaken, though, much of the energy saved by conservation is/has
> been in heating, which is not usually related to electrical power.  Thus,
> most conservation-of-energy arguments don't apply to whether or not we need
> nuclear power.

	I don't have any statistics on this, but I have some generalizations
based on fact, along with some solid observations and a few inquiries.  Conser-
ving ideally involves more than turning down the thermostat and huddling in
sweaters.
	For one, it can involve retrofitting your building (or even (*gasp!*)
building it properly in the first place) so that your heat energy doesn't es-
cape to the outdoors.  A side-benefit of this is that the building will not
need to be air-conditioned as much in the summer (air-conditioning is, of
course, electrical).
	Also, one can conserve electricity by using lower-wattage light bulbs,
or replacing incandescent bulbs with fluorescent bulbs where appropriate.  Of
course, not having lights on when not using them helps.  This is often the case
in homes, but I think we could do a better job in business and industry.  Note,
though, that we should keep the *entire* energy picture in focus:  the resource
cost of making incandescent or fluorescent bulbs, the resource cost of proximi-
ty devices that turn lights off when you're not around, etc.  I honestly don't
know how these balance out, but that should be considered.
	Another potential source is to evaluate the electrical appliances you
have.  Does that electric hot pot use more energy than the stove does to heat
up the same amount of liquid?  I don't know (though I would guess that the hot
pot would use less energy than an electric stove, but more than a gas stove).
Again, these things should be looked at with the *entire* energy picture in fo-
cus, including the resources and energy spent in the manufacture of the appli-
ance.
	More efficient electrical appliances are also available:  water heaters
that heat faster with less heat, smaller computers (!), and so forth.

	Of course, conservation can also help extend our other non-renewable
energy sources.  Just keeping a car well-maintained can save fuel (and money).
If pilot lights were eliminated, we could cut residential use of natural gas
in half (and probably cut industrial use by a good amount; I don't know)!

	On a larger scale, I think we can do without a lot of the waste that
goes into the manufacturing of faulty products dressed up in excessive packag-
ing; but let's not unzip that pair of pants just yet...

	Co-generation is an application of a conserving approach.  Industries
produce a lot of heat as a by-product, and that heat can be used for (among
other things) heating (believe it or not) and the generation of electricity.
In the early 1900's, co-generation supplied a very substantial amount of indus-
try's energy.  (Over 20%, if my memory serves me right; but don't take my word
for that, I don't have references handy.)
	Finally, the use of renewable energy applications can be viewed as a
conserving approach.  By collecting the power from the wind, the waves, the
river, and the sun; we're not using anything up.

	So you see, conservation is more viable than you might think!
		<_Jym_>
: Jym Dyer : Nashua, NH : ...{allegra,decvax,ucbvax}decwrl!rhea!vaxuum!dyer :