Skip to main content

Setting the Record Straight on California and Nuclear Energy

The California Energy Commission wrapped up two days of hearings on nuclear energy yesterday, and there was a passage from a story in today's Contra Costa Times that I think is worth examining.

Let's take a look at a claim about renewable sources of energy, and whether or not they could possibly replace the state's nuclear generating capacity:
Not everyone agreed, however, that nuclear power is a necessary component in the energy mix. Environmentalists and some state regulators say that renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, could replace the 4,000 megawatts [actually 4,324, EMc] of power produced by Diablo Canyon and San Onofre.

"There are superior ways to deal with global warming than nuclear power," said Robert Kinosian with the California Public Utilities Commission.
As it turns out, I've been working on a project with my colleague David Bradish on California's energy future, and we discovered some interesting data from the Energy Information Administration.

In 1977, California declared a moritorium on new nuclear plant construction until a permanent solution to spent fuel storage was developed by the federal government. Since that time, the amount of wind, solar and geothermal generating capacity built in the state combined –- that’s 115 plants in all -- still doesn’t provide as much electric capacity as the four reactors at Diablo Canyon and San Onofre.

So after 28 years of building plants, and we're counting plants that were built before San Onofre and Diablo Canyon opened in the 1980s, the vaunted big three in renewables still can't match nuclear energy in generating capacity. Yet the claims still get made.

Here's something else to think about. As we've said before, because nuclear energy has a higher capacity factor, it's referred to as a "high density" energy source. In other words, you can generate a lot of power and not have to use a lot of space to do it.

So what if you wanted to replace California's 4,324 megawatts of nuclear capacity with solar power? To do that, you would need a solar farm covering almost 850 square miles. That’s an area about one-third larger than the city of Los Angeles.

Wind? That's even more daunting, as it would require more than 2,500 square miles of turbines – about four times the area of Los Angeles. These calculations are based on figures from the NRC, which states that 1,000 megawatts of wind requires 150,000 acres of land, while solar capacity requires 35,000 acres for every 1,000 megawattts.

Keep it all in mind the next time you hear or read about renewables being able to completely replace nuclear energy.

Technorati tags:

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin