DOCSLIB.ORG

Forget Nuclear by Amory B

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Forget Nuclear by Amory B Rocky Mountain Institute Spring 2008 Volume xxiv #1 Forget Nuclear By Amory B. Lovins, Imran Sheikh, and Alex Markevich Uncompetitive Costs Ā e Economist observed in 2001 that “Nuclear uclear power, we’re told, is a vibrant power, once claimed to be too cheap to meter, industry that’s dramatically reviving is now too costly to matter”—cheap to run because it’s proven, necessary, but very expensive to build. Since then, it’s Ncompetitive, reliable, safe, secure, widely used, become several-fold costlier to build, and in increasingly popular, and carbon-free—a a few years, as old fuel contracts expire, it is perfect replacement for carbon-spewing coal expected to become several-fold costlier to power. New nuclear plants thus sound vital run. Its total cost now markedly exceeds that for climate protection, energy security, and of other common power plants (coal, gas, powering a growing economy. big wind farms), let alone the even cheaper Ā ere’s a catch, though: the private capital competitors described below. market isn’t investing in new nuclear plants, Construction costs worldwide have risen far and without fi nancing, capitalist utilities aren’t faster for nuclear than non-nuclear plants, buying. Ā e few purchases, nearly all in Asia, due not just to sharply higher steel, copper, are all made by central planners with a draw nickel, and cement prices but also to an on the public purse. In the United States, atrophied global infrastructure for making, even government subsidies approaching or building, managing, and operating reactors. exceeding new nuclear power’s total cost have Ā e industry’s fl agship Finnish project, led failed to entice Wall Street. by France’s top builder, after 28 months’ Ā is non-technical summary article compares construction had gone at least 24 months the cost, climate protection potential, behind schedule and $2 billion over budget. reliability, fi nancial risk, market success, deployment speed, and Figure 1: Cost of new delivered electricity 15 energy contribution of new 2007–08 industry estimates 14 nuclear power with those Credit for 13 recovered and Keystone (June 2007) reused heat of its low- or no-carbon 12 Fuel minus heat MIT (2003) credit competitors. It explains 11 10 Transmission why soaring taxpayer and Distribution 9 subsidies aren’t attracting Firming and investors. Capitalists instead 8 integration 7 Operation and favor climate-protecting Maintenance competitors with less cost, 6 5 Capital 2007 cents per kWh construction time, and 4 fi nancial risk. Ā e nuclear 3 industry claims it has no 2 serious rivals, let alone 1 those competitors—which, 0 -1 however, already outproduce Nuclear plant Coal plant Large combined- Large wind farm Combined-cycle Building-scale Recovered-heat End-use efficiency cycle gas plant industrial cogen cogen industrial cogen nuclear power worldwide and are growing enormously faster. By 2007, as Figure 1 shows, nuclear was the Most remarkably, comparing all options’ costliest option among all main competitors, ability to protect the earth’s climate and whether using MIT’s authoritative but now enhance energy security reveals why nuclear low 2003 cost assessment,1 the Keystone power could never deliver these promised Center’s mid-2007 update (see Figure 1, benefi ts even if it could fi nd free-market pink bar), or later and even higher industry buyers—while its carbon-free rivals, which estimates (see Figure 1, pink arrow).2 won $71 billion of private investment in Cogeneration and effi ciency are “distributed 2007 alone, do off er highly eff ective climate resources,” located near where energy is used. and security solutions, sooner, with greater confi dence. continued on page 24 container is linked to several other sectors In for the Long (and Heavy) Haul in the transportation system that together RMI Tackles the 17 percent of U.S. fuel use and 30 percent represent a large source of environmental of U.S. nitrogen oxide emissions.2 degradation (see Figure 2). Ubiquitous Shipping While freight has accomplished massive So how could a new shipping container gains in effi ciency and productivity in the help this system? Ā e possibilities are Container last hundred years, RMI is researching huge, and our research reveals new options how we can reduce the 10 percent of every day. One intriguing option would be reducing the weight of the container, By Laura Schewel greenhouse-gas emissions due to freight by tackling systematic ineffi ciencies that waste which would lead to a variety of benefi ts energy and produce unnecessary pollution. including: Like the wires hidden inside my computer Lighter loads (and less fuel) for Ā e freight system’s complexity has • as I tap out this sentence, or the billions equipment that carry containers: derailed many attempts to reduce its most of neurons that fi re before your eyes can containers are fi lled with low-density blink, global goods transportation—the energy used and pollution (including some of RMI’s own past projects). Based on this products (like Barbies or paper cups) so the network of boats, trucks, cars, ports, weight of the container itself can be 10 to warehouses, roads, and railroads that get experience, RMI recently came up with a new approach: organize the system around 20 percent of the gross weight. Reducing our stuff to us—is a dizzyingly complex the container weight would decrease the system. Also known as “freight,” this is one simple, common denominator and see if it can be used as a lever to both better amount of fuel needed to haul these loads. a system that must function around the Ā e ability to put more goods in each understand and improve the entire system. • clock for the most simple acts of our container, thereby reducing the total Fortunately, freight has at least one iconic daily lives to work: making coff ee in the number of containers: some containers morning, taking notes in class, or reading and ubiquitous rallying point: the shipping container. aren’t fi lled to their maximum capacity this RMI Solutions after dinner. Figure 1 because they hit weight limits. Reducing illustrates the transportation involved in the container’s weight by 300 pounds creating and delivering this newsletter to The shipping container: thinking means putting 300 more pounds of goods you. inside the box inside each container, which can reduce Ā is system is not just complex, it’s Ā ree-quarters of all general cargo is the total number of containers and save essential to modern life: in 2005, an transported in shipping containers. Ā ese trips. average of 68 tons of goods moved 15,310 steel boxes, now familiar sights on massive • Reduced burden from moving miles in the United States for each U.S. ships or stacked up in ports, are a relatively 1 empties: the trade imbalance between the citizen. And that’s only for the goods recent invention. In 1956 transport mogul producing and consuming nations (e.g., shipped to, from, and within the nation. Malcolm McLean fi rst developed the China and the U.S.) means that up to 50 percent of container “trips” are empty, and repositioning empty containers to meet cargo requires a lot of truck and barge trips (and money). Reducing the weight of empty containers will reduce engine loads and the amount of fuel necessary for this currently unavoidable ineffi ciency. So if lightweighting would be such a great boon for fuel (and hence, cost) savings, why isn’t it happening? Ā e problem lies in the fi nancial structure of the container industries. Lightweighting means each container will cost more to build. Ā e chief benefi ciaries of better tracking (terminal operators, truckers, rail companies) don’t always have a fi nancial role in the design or purchase of containers (where the decision Figure 1: Geographical distribution of freight transport involved in to invest in lightweight materials would delivering this newsletter to Washington DC be made) and when they do, working together to allocate the benefi ts would be It doesn’t include international travel, such shipping container as a way to improve quite complex. Even though the whole as the journey raw materials from South his trucking business. Today, only 50 years system would save money from reduced Africa take to reach factories in China later, containerized shipping has enabled fuel use, the incentives aren’t properly where they are processed into electronic globalization, and containerized shipping aligned to push the lightweighting decision goods before being sent to the United and port services alone are a $370-billion forward. States. business.3 Of course, lightweighting is just one Yet while essential, freight comes with a At fi rst glance, the container seems to innovation we’re exploring. Others include large and growing environmental cost: at directly aff ect only the shipping industry, tracking to optimize the use of container- least 10 percent of global greenhouse-gas which accounts for only 1.5–3 percent of transporting vehicles, improving security emissions are linked to freight, along with global greenhouse gases. But the shipping 2 Spring 2008 systems to reduce scanning bottlenecks, improving the effi ciency of refrigerated containers, and more. Ā ese ideas underscore the most important aspect of RMI’s whole-system approach: combining our knowledge of the best environmental options with a detailed understanding of the business, fi nancial, and cultural systems that infl uence goods transportation—and, working on innovation that incorporates all those systems. To accomplish this we’re seeding the development of Figure 2: How containers play into the freight system a consortium of companies, with one representative from each section of the value chain shown for processing purposes, and we would Formulation, and Analysis, Energy in Figure 2—such as a port operator, a probably not concern ourselves about the Effi ciency and Renewable Energy.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hisham Zerriffi
    CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY CARNEGIE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS UNDER STRESS: AN EVALUATION OF CENTRALIZED VERSUS DISTRIBUTED SYSTEM ARCHITECTURES by Hisham Zerriffi ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC POLICY Major Professor Date Major Professor Date Department Head Date APPROVED BY THE COLLEGE COUNCIL Dean Date Carnegie Mellon University Electric Power Systems Under Stress: An Evaluation Of Centralized Versus Distributed System Architectures A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC POLICY by Hisham Zerriffi Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania September, 2004 © Copyright 2004 by Hisham Zerriffi. All rights reserved. Hisham Zerriffi ii Electric Power Systems Under Stress In memory of my grandfather, Dr. Henri M. Yaker, whose great intellect, diverse academic and professional pursuits, and love of life and family have been an inspiration. I only hope to live up to his example. iii Hisham Zerriffi iv Electric Power Systems Under Stress Abstract It is well recognized that electric power systems do not always perform perfectly and that maintaining reliability of supply is one of the important tasks for power system planners. However, there are circumstances under which power systems can face persistent stresses or have the possibility of being under high stress conditions. These stresses arise from and affect both the technical systems designed to generate and deliver electricity, as well as the commercial and political organizations designed to undertake those tasks and to govern these activities. The issue of electric power systems under persistent and high stress conditions and possible changes to electric power systems to deal with this issue is the subject of this dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • Pioneering Cultural Initiatives by Esalen Centers for Theory
    Esalen’s Half-Century of Pioneering Cultural Initiatives 1962 to 2012 For more information, please contact: Jane Hartford, Director of Development Center for Theory & Research and Special Projects Special Assistant to the Cofounder and Chairman Emeritus Michael Murphy Esalen Institute 1001 Bridgeway #247 Sausalito, CA 94965 415-459-5438 i Preface Most of us know Esalen mainly through public workshops advertised in the catalog. But there is another, usually quieter, Esalen that’s by invitation only: the hundreds of private initiatives sponsored now by Esalen’s Center for Theory and Research (CTR). Though not well publicized, this other Esalen has had a major impact on America and the world at large. From its programs in citizen diplomacy to its pioneering role in holistic health; from physics and philosophy to psychology, education and religion, Esalen has exercised a significant influence on our culture and society. CTR sponsors work in fields that think tanks and universities typically ignore, either because those fields are too controversial, too new, or because they fall between disciplinary silos. These initiatives have included diplomats and political leaders, such as Joseph Montville, the influential pioneer of citizen diplomacy, Jack Matlock and Arthur Hartman, former Ambassadors to the Soviet Union, and Claiborne Pell, former Chairman of the U.S. Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee; eminent Russian cultural leaders Vladimir Pozner, Sergei Kapitsa, and Victor Erofeyev; astronaut Rusty Schweickart; philosophers Jay Ogilvy, Sam
    [Show full text]
  • 2006 FIRST Annual Report
    annual report For Inspiration & Recognition of Science & Technology 2006 F I R Dean Kamen, FIRST Founder John Abele, FIRST Chairman President, DEKA Research & Founder Chairman, Retired, Development Corporation Boston Scientific Corporation S Recently, we’ve noticed a shift in the national conversation about our People are beginning to take the science problem personally. society’s lack of support for science and technology. Part of the shift is in the amount of discussion — there is certainly an increase in media This shift is a strong signal for renewed commitment to the FIRST T coverage. There has also been a shift in the intensity of the vision. In the 17 years since FIRST was founded, nothing has been more conversation — there is clearly a heightened sense of urgency in the essential to our success than personal connection. The clearest example calls for solutions. Both these are positive developments. More is the personal commitment of you, our teams, mentors, teachers, parents, awareness and urgency around the “science problem” are central to sponsors, and volunteers. For you, this has been personal all along. As the FIRST vision, after all. However, we believe there is another shift more people make a personal connection, we will gain more energy, happening and it has enormous potential for FIRST. create more impact, and deliver more success in changing the way our culture views science and technology. If you listen closely, you can hear a shift in the nature of the conversation. People are not just talking about a science problem and how it affects This year’s Annual Report echoes the idea of personal connections and P02: FIRST Robotics Competition someone else; they are talking about a science problem that affects personal commitment.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3: the Rise of the Antinuclear Power Movement: 1957 to 1989
    Chapter 3 THE RISE OF THE ANTINUCLEAR POWER MOVEMENT 1957 TO 1989 In this chapter I trace the development and circulation of antinuclear struggles of the last 40 years. What we will see is a pattern of new sectors of the class (e.g., women, native Americans, and Labor) joining the movement over the course of that long cycle of struggles. Those new sectors would remain autonomous, which would clearly place the movement within the autonomist Marxist model. Furthermore, it is precisely the widening of the class composition that has made the antinuclear movement the most successful social movement of the 1970s and 1980s. Although that widening has been impressive, as we will see in chapter 5, it did not go far enough, leaving out certain sectors of the class. Since its beginnings in the 1950s, opposition to the civilian nuclear power program has gone through three distinct phases of one cycle of struggles.(1) Phase 1 —1957 to 1967— was a period marked by sporadic opposition to specific nuclear plants. Phase 2 —1968 to 1975— was a period marked by a concern for the environmental impact of nuclear power plants, which led to a critique of all aspects of nuclear power. Moreover, the legal and the political systems were widely used to achieve demands. And Phase 3 —1977 to the present— has been a period marked by the use of direct action and civil disobedience by protesters whose goals have been to shut down all nuclear power plants. 3.1 The First Phase of the Struggles: 1957 to 1967 Opposition to nuclear energy first emerged shortly after the atomic bomb was built.
    [Show full text]
  • Momentum Contents
    REPORT OF GENEROSITY & VOLUNTEERISM, 2017– 18 166 Main Street Concord, MA 01742 MOMENTUM Together Together CONTENTS 2 SPIRITING US FORWARD Momentum: A Foreword Letter of Thanks 6 FURTHERING OUR MISSION The Concord Academy Mission Gathering Momentum: A Timeline 10 DELIVERING ON PROMISES The CA Annual Fund Strength in Numbers CA’s Annual Fund at Work 16 FUELING OUR FUTURE The Centennial Campaign for Concord Academy Campaign Milestones CA Houses Financial Aid CA Labs Advancing Faculty Leadership Boundless Campus 30 BUILDING OPPORTUNITY The CA Endowment 36 VOICING OUR GRATITUDE Our Generous Donors and Volunteer Leaders C REPORT OF GENEROSITY & VOLUNTEERISM 1 Momentum It livens your step as you cross the CA campus on a crisp fall afternoon, as students dash to class, or meet on the Moriarty Athletic Campus, or run to an audition at the Performing Arts Center. It’s the feeling that comes from an unexpected discovery in CA Labs, the chorus of friendly faces in the new house common rooms, or instructors from two disciplines working together to develop and teach a new course. It is the spark of encouragement that illuminates a new path, or a lifelong pursuit — a spark that, fanned by tremendous support over these past few years, is growing into a blaze. At Concord Academy we feel that momentum every day, in the power of students, teachers, and graduates to have a positive impact on their peers and to shape their world. It’s an irresistible energy that stems from the values we embrace as an institution, driven forward by the generosity of our benefactors.
    [Show full text]
  • Amory B Lovins Adjunct Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering
    Amory B Lovins Adjunct Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering Bio BIO Physicist Amory Lovins (1947– ) is Cofounder (1982) and Chairman Emeritus, and was Chief Scientist (2007–19), of Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org), with which he continues to collaborate as an independent contractor and a Trustee. He has designed numerous superefficient buildings, vehicles, and industrial plants, and synthesized an "integrative design" method and practice that can make the energy efficiency resource severalfold larger, yet cheaper, often with increasing returns. Since 1973 he has also advised major governments and firms in more than 70 countries on advanced energy efficiency and strategy, emphasizing efficiency, renewables integration, and the links between energy, resources, environment, security, development, and economy. Lovins has received the Blue Planet, Volvo, Zayed, Onassis, Nissan, Shingo, and Mitchell Prizes, MacArthur and Ashoka Fellowships, 12 honorary doctorates, the Heinz, Lindbergh, Right Livelihood, National Design, and World Technology Awards, many other energy and environment recognitions, and Germany’s highest civilian honor (the Officer’s Cross of the Order of Merit). A Harvard and Oxford dropout, former Oxford don, honorary US architect, Swedish engineering academician, and 2011–18 member of the US National Petroleum Council, he has taught at ten universities (most recently the US Naval Postgraduate School and Stanford's School of Engineering as spring 2007 MAP/Ming Visiting Professor, returning in 2020– as Adjunct Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering)— teaching only subjects he hasn’t formally studied, so as to cultivate beginner’s mind. In 2009, Time named him one of the world’s 100 most influential people, and Foreign Policy, one of the 100 top global thinkers.
    [Show full text]
  • Mowat Research #137 | December 2016
    MOWAT RESEARCH #137 | DECEMBER 2016 Future Drivers and Trends Affecting Energy Development in Ontario LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE U.S. MowatENERGY MOWAT’S ENERGY POLICY RESEARCH HUB MowatENERGY MOWAT’S ENERGY POLICY RESEARCH HUB Mowat Energy’s Emerging Energy Trends is a comprehensive study of how technological and consumer disruptions in the energy sector could affect Ontario and beyond. This paper is part of a series of background reports informing the final report. Initial funding for this research was in part provided by the Ministry of Energy of Ontario. The final report and all other background reports are available at mowatcentre.ca/emerging-energy-trends. The Mowat Energy research hub provides independent, evidence-based research and analysis on systemic energy policy issues facing Ontario and Canada. With its strong relationship with the energy sector, Mowat Energy has provided thought leadership to stakeholders, decision-makers and the public to help advance discussions on the challenges that energy is facing in Ontario. Authors This paper produced by National Regulatory Research Rajnish Barua Institute (NRRI) . Ken Costello Kathryn Kline Dan Phelan Tom Stanton MOWATCENTRE.CA @MOWATCENTRE 439 UNIVERSITY AVENUE SUITE 2200, TORONTO, ON M5G 1Y8 CANADA DECEMBER 2016 ©2016 ISBN 978-1-77259-025-8 Executive Summary Mowat Centre’s Energy Hub (Mowat) contracted with the National Regulatory Research Institute (NRRI) for a study and report on emerging trends facing the energy sector in the United States, with a particular focus on distributed energy resources (DER) and their potential role in the electric utility of the future. This research focused on four different major portfolios and three future scenarios.
    [Show full text]
  • From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945-Present
    From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945-Present The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Thomson, Jennifer Christine. 2013. From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945- Present. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11125030 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945-Present A dissertation presented by Jennifer Christine Thomson to The Department of the History of Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of History of Science Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts May 2013 @ 2013 Jennifer Christine Thomson All rights reserved. Dissertation Advisor: Charles Rosenberg Jennifer Christine Thomson From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945-Present Abstract This dissertation joins the history of science and medicine with environmental history to explore the language of health in environmental politics. Today, in government policy briefs and mission statements of environmental non-profits, newspaper editorials and activist journals, claims about the health of the planet and its human and non-human inhabitants abound. Yet despite this rhetorical ubiquity, modern environmental politics are ideologically and organizationally fractured along the themes of whose health is at stake and how that health should be protected.
    [Show full text]
  • Unedited Preprint, Strictly Embargoed to Release, of Article to Appear Soon in Electricity Journal (Elsevier), July 2017, Doi:10.1016/J.Tej.2017.06.002
    Unedited preprint, strictly embargoed to release, of article to appear soon in Electricity Journal (Elsevier), July 2017, doi:10.1016/j.tej.2017.06.002 Do Coal and Nuclear Generation Deserve Above-Market Prices? Amory B. Lovins [sole and corresponding author] Cofounder and Chief Scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute 22830 Two Rivers Road, Basalt, CO 81621, USA [email protected], office +1 970 927 7202 Abstract All 14 current rationales for mandating or subsidizing uncompetitive coal and nuclear plants lack technical merit or would favor competitors instead. Subsidizing distressed nuclear plants typical- ly saves less carbon than closing them and reinvesting their saved operating cost into severalfold- cheaper efficiency. Carbon prices, not plant subsidies, best recognize decarbonizing attributes. Grid reliability needs careful integration of diverse, distributed demand-side and renewable re- sources, using competitive market processes and resilient architectures, but does not require “baseload” plants. Keywords Coal, nuclear, carbon, competition, efficiency, renewables Author biography Physicist Amory Lovins has advised major firms (including utilities) and governments world- wide for over 40 years; written 31 books and over 600 papers; and received the Blue Planet, Volvo, Zayed, Onassis, Nissan, Shingo, and Mitchell Prizes, MacArthur and Ashoka Fellow- ships, 12 honorary doctorates, the Heinz, Lindbergh, Right Livelihood, National Design, and World Technology Awards, and Germany’s Officer’s Cross of the Order of Merit. An honorary architect, Swedish engineering academician, and former Oxford don, he has taught at ten univer- sities. Time named him one of the world’s 100 most influential people, and Foreign Policy, one of the 100 top global thinkers. Acknowledgments The author thanks Peter Bradford, Mark Dyson, Virginia Lacy, Ryan Laemel, Chris Nelder, and several anonymous reviewers for research and editorial help.
    [Show full text]
  • AN ENERGY REVOLUTION for the 21ST CENTURY to Tackle Climate Change, Renewable Energy Technologies, Like Wind, Can Be Embraced by Adopting a DE Pathway
    DECENTRALISING POWER: AN ENERGY REVOLUTION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY To tackle climate change, renewable energy technologies, like wind, can be embraced by adopting a DE pathway. ©Greenpeace/Weckenmann. Cover: Solar thermal installation. ©Langrock/Zenit/Greenpeace. Canonbury Villas London N1 2PN www.greenpeace.org.uk t: +44 (0)20 7865 8100 DECENTRALISING POWER: 1 AN ENERGY REVOLUTION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY FOREWORD KEN LIVINGSTONE, MAYOR OF LONDON I am delighted to have been asked by Greenpeace to contribute a foreword to this timely report. Climate change has now become the problem the world cannot ignore. Addressing future global warming, and adapting to it now, will require making fundamental changes to the way we live. How we produce, distribute and use energy is key to this. My London Energy Strategy set out how decentralised electricity generation could deliver huge CO2 reductions in London by enabling the convergence of heat and power generation, leading to massive growth in renewable energy production, and providing the cornerstone of a renewable hydrogen energy economy. Decentralised energy allows the financial costs and energy losses associated with the long-distance national transmission system to be reduced and savings passed on to consumers. Bringing energy production closer to people’s lives helps in our efforts to promote energy efficiency. Security of supply can be ©Liane Harris. improved, with power blackouts reduced. The UK could take the opportunity to develop expertise and technologies, leading the developed world, and facilitating the developing world’s path to a sustainable energy future. In London the opportunities for decentralised energy supply range from solar panels on Londoners’ homes, to adapting existing full-sized power stations to more efficient combined heat and power systems supplying thousands of businesses and residential buildings.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Sustainable Personal Vehicles
    The Evolution of Sustainable Personal Vehicles By BRYAN DALE JUNGERS B.S. (Humboldt State University) 2004 THESIS Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Civil and Environmental Engineering in the OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS Approved: _________________________________(Chair) _____________________________________ _____________________________________ Committee in Charge 2009 - i - Abstract Through mechanisms of industrial globalization, modern societies are moving ever closer to capitalist ideals, emphasizing consumer choice and free competitive markets. Despite these ideals, relatively few choices currently exist for the typical personal vehicle consumer with respect to powertrain technology, fuel selection, and vehicle weight/size. This lack of market diversity is often blamed on the auto industry, the energy industry, the ignorant or fickle consumer, and/or the lack of long-term government support and financing of alternative technologies. Though each of these factors has certainly played a part in maintaining the status quo of a perpetually stagnant personal vehicle market, I will argue here that the existing problems associated with personal vehicles will be addressed most effectively by the fundamental reorientation of personal & institutional values. Such evolutionary shifts in perspective should be applied broadly by designers, engineers, business leaders, and government officials. I have explored several fundamental value shifts toward the evolution of sustainable personal vehicles. The personal vehicle serves as an apt metaphor for both the freedoms and follies of modern experience. By way of modeled examples, I define and evaluate the qualities of a sustainable personal vehicle and its infrastructure. Many of these concepts should also be applicable for other segments of the industrialized World.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power Undermining Climate Protection
    Nuclear power undermining climate protection Briefing 2008 g r o . CASE STUDY & e c ALTERNATIVES a e BRIEFING OCTOBER 2008 p n e e r g Nuclear power undermining climate protection Introduction “The question is not whether climate change is happening or not but whether, in the face of this emergency, we ourselves can change fast enough.” Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the United Nations, November 20061 There is a clear scientific consensus that we must halve global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2050 or suffer changes to the global climate with catastrophic consequences. Avoiding the most severe impacts of climate change requires governments, individuals and businesses world-wide to take immediate action. Between US $ 11 - 14 trillion are projected to be invested in new electricity generation capacity between now and 2030.2 The energy investment decisions taken today will determine whether or not the world achieves the necessary CO2 emission cuts in time. The nuclear industry, which has been in decline in the US and Europe, has seized upon the climate crisis as a revival opportunity, claiming to offer a carbon-free contribution to our future energy mix. Nuclear power is an expensive and dangerous distraction from the real solutions to climate change. Greenhouse gas reduction targets can only be met through using the proven alternatives of renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency. Every dollar spent on nuclear power is a dollar stolen from the real solutions to climate change. DESIGN & LAYOUT onehemisphere.se DATE October 2008 COVER IMAGE GPI REFERENCE JN 178 © Jura/Dreamstime Printed on 100% recycled post-consumer waste with vegetable based inks.
    [Show full text]