Brittle Power- PARTS 1-3 (+Notes) - Natural Capitalism Solutions

418Brittle Powerreal prices (thus avoiding changes in the shapeof the grid: Diesendorf 1981). These assumptionsstrengthen the conclusions.46 Systems control 1980:Summ.:3.47 Appendix three; Lovins 1978.48 Systems Control 1980:5–52.49 Ibid.:5–53.50 Diesendorf 1981.51 Systems Control 1980:3–4: the grid savingsare typically about a tenth as large as thecapacity and fuel savings.52 The systems Control analysis (1980)shows that the distributed sources’ economicadvantage declines as their fractional contributionto the grid rises. One calculation (Lee& Yamayee 1980) suggests that under pessimisticassumptions the extra spinningreserve requirements for “unreliable” dispersedsources may limit the economic use ofcertain renewables to a few percent of the totalload (Systems Control 1980). But the assumedmethodology appears to treat dispersedrenewable sources and central nonrenewablesources differently by not counting such apenalty for the latter, even though they can failin much larger blocks. The cost and outagedata used for nonrenewables also appear to beunrealistic. This conclusion therefore cannotbe considered reliable. If the problem werereal, a cheaper solution could be available inthe form of system storage, since one kilowattof storage “can provide up to two kilowatts ofspinning-reserve and load-following capability”(Systems Control 1980c:14). This wholesubject is being explored further at SystemsControl and elsewhere. It is, however, a veryintricate problem, since it also depends onprice-induced shifts in demand.53 E.g., Ma & Isaksen 1979.54 Systems Control 1980c. Onsite storagemay, however, increase the end user’sresilience enough to warrant paying a largepremium for it.55 For example, a state-of-the-art review(Lovins 1978) drafted in November 1977 hadto have half its data revised by March 1978,and a quarter re-revised by May 1978, simplybecause new and better data were coming inso quickly.56 Soft Energy Notes (1978– ) is arguably thebest effort so far to shortcut the delays in circulatingthis information worldwide.57 SERI 1981.58 See national studies cited in Lovins et al.1982.59 Stobaugh & Yergin 1979.60 Hannon 1976. Up-to-date data wouldprobably raise this figure.61 Schachter 1979; Buchsbaum et al. 1979.62 Rodberg 1978; Brooks 1981:154–167.63 Congressional Research Service1978:212–219.64 Richards 1982.65 Kahn et al. 1980.66 Lovins & Lovins 1982.67 Holdren et al. 1980. The NationalAudubon Society (950 Third Ave., New York,NY 10022) is extending this research in its“Side Effects of Renewable Energy Sources”project.68 Hein 1979.69 Lovins et al. 1982.70 Lovins & Lovins 1980.71 See national studies cited in Lovins et al.1982.72 Ibid.; Lovins & Lovins 1980; Reddy1981.73 OTA 1978, quoted in CongressionalResearch Service 1978:199–209.74 Ibid.:204.75 Becker 1981a. See generally CongressionalResearch Service 1978:208ff; Reddy 1981;Lovins et al. 1982; Lovins & Lovins 1980.76 Lovins 1977b.77 Lovins 1980a.78 Congressional Research Service1978:310–329.79 Ibid.:377.80 Butti & Perlin 1980.81 Lovins & Lovins 1980, 1981.82 Electrical World 1982.83 Bupp & Derian 1978.84 Bowring 1980.85 Methanol—wood alcohol—is quite toxic,although workers and the public could bestraightforwardly protected by the addition ofodorants and the consistent use of locking fittings(like those used for fueling aircraft) on filling-pumpspouts to contain fumes and preventspills. Another exception often cited is that certaintypes of solar cells can be made with smallamounts of cadmium, arsenic, or other highlytoxic materials. The burning of a house whichused such cells could release these materials to