Skip to main content

Nuclear or Renewables? Why not both?

The blogger City Hippy wants to know why anyone would want a nuclear power plant in their backyard:
[W]hat if someone wanted a Nuclear power plant in THEIR backyard???

I had a chat with a friend the other day...he is convinced Nuclear is the Green solution, our salvation to climate change. When I asked him if he would have a Nuclear power plant in his backyard he surprisingly said yes. That makes him nuts in my eyes. Why choose a Nuclear power plant when you can just have some harmless wind turbines in your garden or on your roof.
Actually, there are more people who feel this way than you might think. According to a recent survey conducted for NEI by Bisconti Research, 76% of people living within 10 miles of an existing nuclear power plant are willing to have a new reactor built near them.

Other findings of the survey:
  • 83% favor nuclear energy;
  • 85% give the nearest nuclear power plant a “high” safety rating;
  • 88% are confident that the company operating the plant can do so safely.
And now that it looks like a new phase of reactor build may be just around the corner, municipalities that already have a nuclear power plant are clamoring to get another -- like Oswego, New York.

But Oswego isn't the only one. Click here for a list of cities and states that have passed resolutions in support of new nuclear build in their own backyards.

One last note: Saying that the world has to decide between nuclear energy or renewables is a false choice. The fact of the matter remains that future energy demand will rise so much, that there will be more than enough room for nuclear energy and renewables in the marketplace. It's just that over the next few decades, we're going to need baseload power generation, and right now, the only technology that can provide that baseload power is nuclear energy.

UPDATE: Opinion is shifting overseas as well. From Time's European edition:
Opinion surveys commissioned by Areva for internal use show that nuclear's reputation has been improving. As recently as 2002, more people stressed the drawbacks of nuclear power rather than its advantages, according to the surveys. But that trend has reversed, and a clear majority now cites the pros rather than the cons. Critically, the surveys show that most respondents say concern about greenhouse gases and climate change are the key reasons for their views.
Technorati tags: , , ,

Comments

City Hippy said…
Hi there

Thanks for talking up the Carnival of the Green.

The Nuclear power issue is a biggie for sure.

I do not think that Nuclear is an option for various reasons. I wrote a post called 'When the Wind Blows' about why I think Nuclear energy is not a climate change solution back in May 2005 and would love to hear your response.

Please prove me wrong. Please prove to me that Nuclear is the best way forward in terms of energy supply.

Namaste

CH
Anonymous said…
Before you make wind power the solution, ask who wants the wind turbines in their backyard??? After living in a town that experimented with ONE large wind turbine and hearing (and feeling) the annoying turn of the blades, AND not getting very much power, I certainly would not want a wind turbine farm near my home. The amount of land it would take is tremendous... and what do we do when the wind does not blow.
City Hippy said…
Hi Anonymous

Which town was it?

I want wind turbines in my back yard. Small personal ones via a company called Windsave - www.windsave.com.

3-4 metres per second is all that is required to start generating power with a max of 15 metres per second and that range falls comfortably into most of the UK's wind speed averages across the country as far as my research shows.

For less than £5000 I can get three of these babies installed that pumps power directly into my grid and should give me all the energy I need. And no more bills!!! Which means that it easily pays for itself after a few years.

Plus when I get extra energy out of them the national grid buys the surplus off me at the billable
rate. So instead of a bill I get a cheque!

I am also reducing the amount of energy I need without sacrificing my lifestyle.

Just being efficient and not wasteful really.

Namaste

CH
Matthew66 said…
City Hippy, you'll find that you probably get around 30% availability from your wind turbines (which is about average), 70% of the time the wind won't be blowing hard enough or will be blowing too hard. For example, today in New York City, the wind is blowing at 8 km/h (2.2 m/s) so you wouldn't get any electricity here today. Unfortunately you'll need 100% availability for your refrigerator and freezer, and maybe other appliances as well. Before you pay out GBP5,000 for wind turbines, contact the local bureau of meteorology to find out the number of days each year the wind is in the right speed zone. If possible get information about your immediate locality. Companies selling products might gloss over that piece of information.

Most utilities send a "net" bill, which means if you buy more from them during the billing period than you sell to them, you pay, or they send a cheque if you sell them more than you pay. In Australia, solar panels are promoted with the same promises of energy buy back, however the rate is the spot rate at the time of production. Unfortunately, most solar panels don't provide surplus electricity at the peak times (6 a.m. - 9 a.m. & 5 p.m. - 9 p.m.). The average cost to replace a standard roof with a solar panel roof is AUD30,000.

You are fortunate that you have land available to create your own mini-grid. Those of us who live in apartments do not have that luxury and seek emission free base-load electricity generation to improve the quality of air in our cities. Here in NY, a lot of microgeneration is done with gas or oil fired generators, and even one or two coal burners within the borough of Queens. None of these help the quality of air in New York. If Indian Point Energy Center were to close it's two reactors, and the capacity were replaced by fossil fueled capacity or bio-mass, the air quality in this city would deteriorate even further. Lung disease is a health issue in this city, granted most of it is caused by smoking tobacco, but air pollution does not help.
Anonymous said…
That 30% availability average is the real Achilles' Heel for "renewable" sources. Having a significant portion of baseload supply available only one out of three times you need it is a prescription for disaster. It will probably be okay for hobbyists who like to putter around with niche applications, but is a poor choice for large-scale use by an industrialized and technologically advanced society.
City Hippy said…

Energy minister Malcolm Wicks described the research as "a nail in the coffin" of the "myths" perpetuated by opponents of wind power, and said that wind power in the UK is a "vast and dependable" resource.


An office in Manchester England is using wind turbines and solar to reduce their grid needs by 5%.

Would we need to build more power stations after that? Maybe...Nuclear or Coal? Well not sure. Am actually a rationalist on this to be honest...

But until we have exhausted renewable alternatives and lifestyle issues simply suggesting Nuclear as the answer implies a panic or bias.

Namaste

CH
Anonymous said…
Well, the one article notes a capacity factor of about 27% for wind generators. You've got nuclear plants out there that are posting numbers around 100% for their capacity factors. Which of those would you say is making more efficient use of installed capacity?

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