Skip to main content

Nuclear Energy and Renewables Can Work Together

By Eric McErlain
In today's edition of the Guardian (U.K.):
Surrounded by some of the world's roughest seas, Britain could generate a fifth of its electricity by harnessing the power of tides and waves.

The potential of marine energy is revealed in a report by the government's energy advisers. Wave and tidal power could replace the electricity that is currently produced by UK nuclear power stations, they state, and could prevent the need for Britain to rely on increased Russian gas imports.
To which Tim Worstall replied:
Wave and tide power are indeed interesting sources of electricity. But, umm, why use it to replace nuclear? Why not get 20% (roughly the current share) from nuclear, 20% from tide and wave? Then we'’d be even better little global citizens, wouldn'’t we?
Once again, we see yet another example of blinkered thinking. Worstall is correct here: There is no reason why nations can't leverage both wave energy and nuclear power in order to offset imports of natural gas. In fact, forgoing either option would put the world that much further away from achieving any sort of meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions while building the new baseload electric generating capacity the world will need so much in the years to come.

Thanks to Filibuster for the pointer to the Guardian article.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
I think "environmentalists" are going to kill any proposals for large-scale development of tidal energy. There will be all sorts of arguments about interference with littoral currents, impacts on marine ecosystems, installation of transmission lines, etc. Just look at the NIMBYism surrounding the proposed Cape Cod wind farm. That is what will face any proposals for tidal/wave power development.

But, that aside, Worstall's point is a good one. If there is any development of alternate sources of baseload electricity that are reliable and economical, probably the LAST thing you want to "replace" with that added capacity is nuclear capacity. Better to replace natural gas-fired generation first, then coal, and finally what little oil-fired capacity there is still out there. NG has better uses than being burned in utility boilers or gas turbines. Displacing coal will help on the GHG issue. Less oil use is just common sense. So keep nuclear around, and maybe supplement it, where feasible, with (so-called) renewables.
January 30, 2006 at 8:18 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more