Does Nuclear Power Compete With Conservation, Wind, Solar and Biomass?
One of my frequent frustrations is getting involved in an energy policy discussion with someone that goes something like this:
Them: I am deeply concerned about global climate change and the effects of mankind’s continued use of dirty fossil fuels on our planet’s health.
Me: I used to operate power plants that produced zero emissions. What do you think about taking a new look at using nuclear power to replace fossil fuel consumption? Them: I do not like nuclear power. We can get all the power that we need by conservation, wind, solar and biomass.
Me: How do you expect for windmills and solar panels to produce power when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining? Can you really shut down fossil plants if you build wind turbines and put solar panels on buildings?
Them: No, but the grid can provide all the back-up we need. We already have paid for building the existing plants and should not spend any money on building new ones while we transition to a new economy where we can live within our natural energy income.
Me: But that means that we have to continue extracting and burning fossil fuels when we could be building plants that make them unnecessary.
Them: I do not like nuclear power and do not want to replace one poison with another.
These conversations often go on far longer until either I or my opponent gives up from frustration or exhaustion.
- » See also: DARPA Joins Blue Energy and World Energy in Race to Harness Ocean Power
- » Get CleanTechnica by RSS or sign up by email.
As a technically trained power plant operator, I have apparently not learned the right words to use to convince people that comparing wind and solar power to a reliable electricity supply is a bit like comparing a bicycle to a city bus or a metro rail.
Sure, the sun and wind are forces that man can harness to do work or make electricity, just like a bicycle is a pretty good form of transportation in certain circumstances. However, I would look pretty silly trying to carry dozens of people on my bicycle. In fact, it gets pretty challenging just to carry enough stuff with me to provide a change of clothing and a raincoat in case of inclement weather. My legs are in pretty good shape, but I need a rest after about 25 miles.
When it comes to reliable power that is available on demand, it is hard to beat a fossil fuel powered generator, unless, of course you have a generator that runs off of the heat produced by an atomic fission reactor. As a guy who used to operate an electric power grid that ran almost exclusively on fission power - granted, it was a small, self-contained grid on a ship - I can personally testify that the system works fine and lasts a long (long, long) time. I have been an ocean sailor and spent enough days becalmed to also be able to testify that the sun sets every single day, making solar cells worthless as a power source until well after sunrise the next day, and the wind changes direction or disappears without any warning more often than many people care to admit.
Reducing fossil fuels for power production so that humans cause less damage to the planet is a big, difficult endeavor. It seems silly to undertake that challenge without using the best available tools. The photo accompanying this post is from just one of hundreds, perhaps thousands of the world’s operating coal mines that currently supply about 6 Billion tons of coal each year. That is my target competition when I think about the benefits of investing the time, effort and treasure required to build new nuclear power plants.
Help me, folks. Why is it so difficult to agree that uranium fission competes with fossil fuel combustion and that conservation, wind, sun and biomass “alternatives” are simply not in the same power generation league?
Related links:
First High Resolution Wind Map
Cost of Wind vs Cost of Nuclear to Replace Coal
Nuclear vs. Wind Farms Debate - rather misses the point.
Update (posted May 20, 2008 at 1800 EDT) There is a great article on the front page of Wired dated May 19, 2008 titled Inconvenient Truths: Cutting Carbon Is the Only Thing That Matters. One of the 10 inconvenient truths listed is that environmentalists should EMBRACE NUCLEAR POWER: Face It. Nukes Are the Most Climate-Friendly Industrial-Scale Form of Energy
Solar is available during the daytime if there are not too many clouds. It cannot power factories, vehicles, or ships. It is fine for certain applications, but it cannot support the world’s human population. I like humans and like their inventions. The ones that need power need something that is not dependent on the weather.
I think a lot of people don’t know that we actually DO build new nuclear powerplants, and they are getting better and better! They are sealed units that operate for 20 years without needing complex refuels/defuels! They are small, quiet, and efficient. They are run almost completely by computer, and are completely shielded and safeguarded. They power our newest submarines and aircraft carriers. Yes, they do not produce the power that a large nuclear plant would need. However the technology DOES exist to create a plant with the same safeguards, etc. And we trust these units to be put into a metal container with up to 5,000 people in close proximity, and place them in high threat environments near enemy waters. You can’t tell me that a nuclear plant in wyoming will be under more threat than a symbol of American military might abroad in the open seas.
I’m not making an arguement for or against nuclear power, that’s above my pay level, I wanted to simply throw some more information out for you take make your own mind up. If nothing else, the fact that these newest reactors can go 20 years without being opened for refuel/defuel is pretty amazing, IMO.
true, the sun can’t make energy when it isn’t shining. but it can be stored.
the assertion that renewable (and non-harming) energy sources are not dependable is just false. just as the original poster said, the sun rises and sets every day. that mean it will, regardless of what happens, be shinging sunlight on the earth. that’s dependable. the night time is just a down time for solar power. that’s what energy storage is for. energy storage can come in many forms. Either chemical, like batteries; or physical, like compressed air or other forms of potential energy.
those who say solar and wind are not dependable just aren’t thinking about that hard enough.
I try to be open on the subject of energy storage, but I’ve done the arithmetic. Please look at http://gwperplexed.niof.org/pumped.htm and tell me what’s wrong with it. And batteries? Be serious.
Actually, the sun isn’t shining for much of the daylight hours. On average, most places only get about five hours of effective full sunlight on average, less in winter. Not only is the economic cost of solar energy higher than the cost of nuclear energy, the environmental cost is just as high. Please see http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/energy/
pdf/externe_en.pdf
Solar energy can be stored with 90% high efficiency when using solar thermal technology that stores heat. A recent study found that 90% of our national supply of grid power can be generated using this.
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/03/27/solar-thermal-electricity-can-it-replace-coal-gas-and-oil/
Sarah:
Though it is possible to store thermal energy with “up to 93% efficiency” that is not the same as saying that solar thermal energy plants can compete with coal or nuclear power to supply energy on demand.
The warm up period that you mention in the linked article applies to all large steam power plants, including those where the ultimate heat source is a stored container of hot fluid that was heated up by concentrating the sun’s energy. The steam cycle is an old, reliable system, but it depends upon high pressure piping and a working fluid (H2O) that changes phase between liquid and vapor.
When the steam piping is cold, the steam put into it first warms the piping. Some of that initial steam becomes water and must be removed from the piping before it can enter the turbines; high speed water droplets are quite damaging to rapidly spinning turbine blades.
Once the thick piping is fully warmed up, the loss of energy to keep it warm is rather small and the system works pretty well with just moderate condensation that has to be removed by a system of traps and drains. If power demands drop to the point where a steam plant can be shut down, it must continue to expend energy to keep the piping warm or go through the whole warm up process again.
Another thing to consider is Red Craig’s comment about the effective sunlight. If a given solar thermal plant only gets 5-7 hours of good strong sun and is planning to store some of that energy to provide power for a 24 hour day, it should advertise its capacity as the average power that it can produce over the whole period without completely expending the stored energy.
Unfortunately, solar promoters normally prefer to advertise their peak capacity. If a solar thermal power plant produces power at its peak rate when the sun is shining, there is no energy left over to store in the working fluid. If the solar thermal plant wants to be considered as a competitive baseload or on demand plant, it needs to built 3-5 times as much collector area as would be needed for the peak power demand. Truth in advertising and capacity planning is absolutely required in order to make good choices that our children will appreciate.
One more thing - why is it that so many people latch onto to the sales and marketing literature from a company like Austra, but when a nuclear professional tries to share his hard won knowledge he is often accused of being an industry shill?
This argument or discussion needs to continue. Nuclear could possibly become a viable part of the solution including wind, solar and biomass. So far, though, there is no reasonable, economical or acceptable method for disposing of or reusing the spent fuel.
Instead of addressing the concerns over spent fuel, we have seen our government ignore the spent fuel issue, and push through lower standards for new nuclear plants. This simply is not acceptable.
Steve T, thanks for bringing the discussion around to its end.
Anti-nukes write about many things, but when pushed into a corner they fall back on wastes.
First, this argument ignores the fact that coal wastes are a problem many times greater. Failing to develop nuclear energy makes the waste problem much worse. Second, the “waste problem” of nuclear energy was always fictitious and, like all fictitious problems, was easily solved. Nuclear wastes are much smaller in quantity than coal wastes and thus are much safer. Spent fuel is being reprocessed, as it is in the UK, and more countries are setting up to do it, including the US. Reprocessing the wastes separates out the valuable uranium and transuranic actinides to use as fuel. The remaining wastes are only 3% of what was there before and lose their toxicity in much less time. chart] Many geologic places, such as caves or abandoned mines, could store those wastes safely. Besides that, proven technology exists to irradiate the wastes into other, shorter-lived materials. [source ] To deal with the wastes this way doesn’t require any technological breakthroughs, just a political decision. Meanwhile, we will have to pay the cost of the fictitious problem created by one of our least-successful presidents and we’ll be stuck with the bill for Yucca Mountain.
Red Craig:
Since the “nuclear waste issue” has been a major point of discussion since the mid 1970s, I wonder just which president you are blaming for the fictitious problem?
The failure to understand that fission byproducts are valuable raw material is a bipartisan failure that is at least partially the result of the fact that both of the major parties have a strong addiction to the power and wealth provided by the fact that American consumers need energy. Our fossil fuel habit is a very strong one whose roots date back to the 19th century when the Industrial Revolution showed people just how valuable controllable power could be.
King Coal, Big (and little) oil, railroads, natural gas and big biofuels have long had a lot of influence on our political process.
All of them have strong motives for accepting and amplifying any arguments that slow the development of a key competitor for their markets. Waste is the issue normally considered to be the trump card in any discussion that points to fission as a solution to our energy challenges - especially by those people for whom a solution is a threat to their wealth and power.