Energy efficiency more effective, more economic, than nuclear power

Nuclear power is also capital intensive and job poor. By contrast, energy efficiency is more labour-intensive – and efficiency creates jobs in every community.

Renaissance reconsidered, Corporate Knights, 13 February, 2014 Why build nuclear when we can meet growing demand less expensively through energy efficiency by Jim Harris, “……..The fall of nuclear power has been driven in part by the estimated cost of nuclear catastrophe. The Japanese Center for Economic Research, for example, has estimated that the cost of dealing with the Fukushima disaster alone will exceed $250 billion. Governments are also beginning to understand the magnitude of decommissioning costs. In the U.K., the cost of the Sellafield nuclear plant’s decommissioning has skyrocketed to $122 billion, all borne by taxpayers……

No insurance company will insure nuclear power without government guarantees, and no business will run nuclear plants without a government assuming the liability, construction cost overruns and decommissioning costs.

At the same time, nuclear costs are rising sharply while the price of renewable energy has dropped significantly, and continues to do so. In 2013, new installations of renewable energy in the United States are on pace for the first time to exceed new capacity of new fossil fuel plants (coal and gas fired) and nuclear combined.

Solar power, in particular, is enjoying cost reductions typically associated with computers and smart phones. In the early 1980s, telephone giant AT&T estimated the number of cellphone subscribers in the United States by the year 2000 would be 900,000. The actual number was 107 million: AT&T was off by a factor of 120 times. The discrepancy was driven by three powerful trends:…….

the cost of solar power is dropping dramatically.

Why build or refurbish expensive nuclear power plants when by the time they are ready to operate we may have reduced demand for power?

The potential for energy efficiency is huge. Take LED lighting. Its price performance is improving 200-fold per decade, putting it on track to be the dominant form of new lighting worldwide by 2020. Lighting accounts for 24 per cent of North American electricity consumption and 18 per cent worldwide. And LED lights use 80 per cent less electricity than traditional light bulbs. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, adopting LEDs will save Americans the energy equivalent of 334 million barrels of oil a year.

Fact is, there are trillions of dollars of highly profitable energy efficiency measures available that are currently not being pursued, according to McKinsey & Company. Energy efficiency is the cheapest form of new energy – because every kilowatt-hour of power I save in my home or business due to energy efficiency is a kilowatt-hour made available to someone else on the grid……..

Nuclear power is also capital intensive and job poor. By contrast, energy efficiency is more labour-intensive – and efficiency creates jobs in every community. As well, efficiency has the added benefit of insulating homeowners and businesses from rising energy prices. http://corporateknights.com/article/renaissance-reconsidered

February 17, 2014 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized

1 Comment »

LED’s (light emitting diodes) are great as far as light efficiency goes but there are large potential problems in that at least some of them (not sure what %) contain highly toxic materials such as gallium arsenide. Such materials are hazardous for the workers who manufacture the materials and for those involved in the disposal of old lamps.

I support energy efficiency/conservation as a very high priority but it has to be done in a responsible way. Energy efficient buildings – insulation, double glazing, etc – seems to be the way forward.

LikeLike

Comment by Dennis Matthews | February 19, 2014 | Reply