Page 16 RAIN February/March 1976 Th~ returns are.coming.i.n already from all over the industrialized world, and they say what many have long suspectedenergy conservation and use of solar and wind energy are considerably cheaper and more desirable means to meet our energy heeds than building new fossil fuel or nuclear electrical power plants. The purely economic incentives favoring conservation efforts are over~helming (see A Time to Choose: America's Energy Future, Ford Foundation Energy Policy Project). Many areas are already enacting plans to convert from expensive fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources to conservation and income energy: ' Long Island, New York-A study recently completed by the well-known energy en,gineering firm of Dubin-Mindell-Bloome for Suffolk County, NY, concluded that planned new electrical generating plants on Long Island would not be needed over the next 20 years if cons·ervation mea_sures we~e implemented. They further concluded that Long Island was well adapted for solar and wind energy use and that mo're than 400 million gallons of oil could be saved per year-in addition to fuel saved at electrical generating plants through conservation-by adapting existing buildings for simul~aneous energy and heat generation (total energy system~), and conversiqn to solar energy use. C~mservation measures would be paid back in ten years and solar and wind energy systems costs could be repaid within 20 years-all at significantly lower cost than new generating facilities. Contacf Dubin-Mindell-Bloome Associates P.C., 42 W. 39th Street, New York, NY 10018. ~alifornia-Two recently.:released ERDA-supported studies by David Goldstein anµ Arthur Rosenfeld of the Physics Department and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley, CA 947f0, conclude that it is almost always cheaper to save a kW of peak power than to invest $1000 for new capac'ity. They claim that with an affirmative energy managemtint' progra,m, planned hydro and geotheima~ plants will satisfy California energy demand for the next 20 years, and that such conservation scenarios would result in cost savings to consumers, lower electric. rates, greater employment, and no sacrifice in well-being. "Conservation and Peak Power: . Cost and Demand," LBL 4438. Reprinted in the February 1976 Not Man Apart ($10/year from Friends of the Earth, 529 Commercial Street,' San Francisco, CA 94111). Also; "Projecting an Energy-Efficient California," Goldstein and Rosenfeld, LBL 3274. Vermont-Depending on our owri resources can be good for us. Skyrocketing petroleum prices ·caused Vermont to look into using waste wood for home heating and electrical geperation. Not surprisingly, they found that wood could be ecoi10mically competitive 1n both areas and could provide at least 25% of Vermont's energy needs. But, more interestingly, t,iey realized that using their own renewable fuel resources instead of imported fuel could be expected to provide direct employWASTE -N·OT, ment for 3,500 Vermonters, plus additional,secondary employment, and produce $63 million in gross income within the state per year by 1985. See Vermont Governor's Task Force on Wood as a Source of Energy (free) from E. J3radford Walker, Director of Forests, Agency of Environmental Conservation, Montpelier, VT 05602. ' Japan-A 1974 study by Amory Lo~ins, author of World Energy Strategies and Non-Nuclear Futures, indicated that careful examination of countries even as dependent upon imported oil as highly-industrialized Japan would show conservation and income energy options to be significantly cheaper and easier to develop than new fossil fuel or nuclea·r power generating capacity. Conservation, wind, solar heat, use of agricultural wastes, and co-generation of industrial heat and electricity were shown to be a practical and desirable policy _direction. "Energy Strategies and Nuclear Power: An International·Perspettive," presented to the Centre Party Symposium on Energy, Development and the Future, Stockholm, 25 • Sweden, 6 Nov. 1974, by Amory Lovins, Frie_nds of the Earth, Ltd., 9 Poland Street, London Wl, England. Denmark-A plan has been outlined for c9nversion of Denmark's er:iergy supply to wind and solar energy sources by the year 2050, indicating their technical and economical feasibiJity. "Energy and Resources," by Brent S0renson, Science, 25 July 1975, pp. 255-260. Sweden-In a recent article in the Christian Science Monitor, 31 December 1975, p. 19, Ruth Link reports on th·e decision of Sweden to cancel plans for building-any further • nuclear power plants and to limit its growth in energy use through conservation, use of total energy systems, and increased use of solar and wind energy. The new-policy resulted from e_xtensive debate in the country on the costs,·safety and political implications of various energy policy options. Norway-seems prepared to move even further away from wasteful, high-energy lifestyles. Norway has had the third highest stana-ard of living in the world and faces even greater wealth through the export of newly-developed oil reserves. Both the government and the people seem alarmed at the pro~- pect of what that wealth would do to the country and are taking measures to limit the release o.f the oil profits within the country..A recent Gallup poi! revealed that an overwhelming majority of Norwegians-between 81 and 88 percent- believe that 'more wealth will not bring happiness but rather more problems, such as increased materialism and pollution. Seventy-six percent felt their standard of living was already too high, and 35 perc~nt of those in the lowest tax bracket felt that more money would not improve their lives. "Poll Shows Norwegians Yearn for Simple Life," The Montreal Star, Oct. 27, 1975, p. C-2 (From Conserver Society Notes; Dec. 1975). ' United States-A report prepared under a grant from the Federal Energy Administration by Denis Hayes, former Illinois Energy Chief, calculates that conservation' efforts alone co'uld meet all new energy needs in the U.S. for the next quartercentury without lowering the nation's standard.ofJiving. Prime targets for more efficient energy use include auto gasoline mileage, building insulation and use of waste heat, elimination of inefficiency in food production, and changes in how electric power is produced. Hayes says that Americans waste more than half the energy they consume, rapidly depleting energy resources with little regard.for energy needs of future-generations. Contact Denis Hayes, Worldwatch Institute, 1776 Massachusetts Ave., Wasl1ington, DC 20036, 202-45:2-1999.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz