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.
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
Rod, I am referring to Pres. Carter. His reasoning was that, if the US reprocessed its spent fuel, North Korea or other unreliable governments would make bombs. And if the US didn’t reprocess, they wouldn’t make bombs.
The error in logic is apparent. When countries like North Korea decide to have weapons programs, the presence or absence of reprocessing in the US is not one of the considerations. And, of course, its absence didn’t prevent North Korea from proceeding; nor did it prevent any of the other newer bomb-possessing countries.
It’s just the way Mr. Carter did things. Not much else he did went right, either.
If it wasn’t for the anti nuclear crowd we would have developed fast breeder reactors by now and the nuclear waste wouldn’t be much of a problem. But because idiots continue to try and “help” the world, we are all worse off.
Looking at the list though it would seem that many people understand the merit in Nuclear power. I’m all for wind power, and even thinking of installing solar panels on my house. However I realize that while this can power my own needs many people in cities cannot choose to install or access these types of power sources. True it can be shipped to them but should we sacrifice the land of the west(where most of these power sources are found) to shade it with solar fields or wind fields. Nuclear power presents a way to concentrate our energy production, while creating virtually no emissions. The storage of the waste, which in some case may be reused if refined, with current regulatory standards in sufficient to protect the environment and humans from it’s baleful effects. While their is risk in some cases this risk has been greatly reduced with improved technology and procedures.
Let us not tear ourselves apart but recognize our need for zero emission technology which can be found in nuclear, wind, and solar power.
iknoick:
I certainly wish that we could put together a coalition of the people focused on low emission sources. I tried for years to convince Tom Gray of the American Wind Energy Association that nuclear and wind have similar interests.
Unfortunately, he and his association have a strong interest in advancing the argument that wind pairs nicely with natural gas. Perhaps a good look at the membership of the organization and their funding sources provides an explanation for this position.
There are 358 members listed in the member directory at awea.org including such companies as Calpine, Chevron-Texaco Technology Ventures, Gastops, and others that love gas friendly official statements of the AWEA like “System operators can control, or dispatch, generators on their system such as natural gas-fired and hydroelectric generators.”
solar charger> Solar is not safer than nuclear. Wind for instance demonstrated that is is about 100x more dangerous than nuclear energy.
Early last spring I was walking through Barnes & Noble and, on the spur of the moment, I picked up a copy of the book, “Power to Save the World The Truth about Nuclear Power” by Gwyneth Cravens, published by Knopf with ISBN 978-0-307-26656-9.
This is a very careful and very interesting examination of the nuclear power industry starting with mining of uranium through power production to disposal of wastes. I’ve read the darn book three times and am now starting a fourth and I would recommend it for the uninitiated.
The author, once a Long Island anti-nuclear activist who participated in efforts leading to the tragedy of the closing of the Shoreham plant by judicial decree before it produced a single watt of power, as a result of her study of the nuclear power cycle, is now a nuclear power supporter.
Other notes: The nuclear power disasters at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island Unit Two incidents were vastly overplayed by a minimally competent, non-understanding media and have lead to the idea that a nuclear accident could endanger millions. Hogwash! The carbon dioxide emitted by coal fired power plants has done and will do far worse damage.
Yes, we (including France) can have and do have fool proof, safe nuclear power plants. Yes, we can reprocess spent fuel rods to extend the life of uranium deposits which are plentiful. Yes, we can store spent fuel rods safely and the Wast Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico is an example of how to do this.
Yes, we need to also use renewables such as hydroelectric, wind power and solar energy but with the recognition that they will never suffice to provide all the electric power the world needs and the world needs more electric power every day.
Finally, the best newspaper article I’ve read in twenty years announced this spring that the Southern Company had applied for permission to construct two new nuclear steam generators in addition to its two existing 1215 megawatt units that have been on line near Waynesboro, Georgia since 1987. Finally! A bright, shining light in the gloom.
It is truly amazing how the media pushes the liberal agenda. It is always referred to as the Three Mile Island DISASTER! Oh no! Scary.
The facts are that not one person was killed or even injured as a result of this incident. I toured the TMI plant, and heard a step-by step recount of the incident from the man who was the control room operator at the time. What should have happened as a result of TMI is that we should have LEARNED. Instead of taking our new knowledge of these largely human factors problems, the media painted this incident as a dangerous and catastrophic disaster.
The media continues to push this agenda today. What is the liberal media’s answer to our energy crisis? Conservation? Really?
We cannot force conservation. We cannot regulate conservation. Any attempts to would be silly. Are we going to monitor individual citizen’s houses to make sure they turn the lights off when they leave the room? Don’t be ridiculous.
We need more efficiency. And, as I think most of you fine posters have pointed out, you just can’t beat nuclear at efficiency. (or safety for that matter…check out some of the European news stories concerning wind turbine accidents.)
Joe:
Thank you for your comment.
The nuclear industry workers and designers did indeed learn a lot from TMI. It has been used as a case study in countless training sessions, not just for the specifics of that particular incident, but also for some general understanding of how to respond in cases where there are confusing indications.
Designers have learned a lot about how to provide operators with better warnings and indications that do not overwhelm with thousands of flashing lights.
Unfortunately, the industry has not done a good job of advertising its improvements.