Skip to main content

Solar vs Nuclear Energy in Hawaii

By
Michael R. Fox Ph.D. for Hawaii Reporter debates the topic but finds solar doesn't have the answers:

In response to a recent article I wrote about nuclear energy - "Why Not Nuclear Energy in Hawaii?" - an advocate with a United Kingdom (UK) email address pushed his preference for a solar facility as an energy source for Hawaii.

One of the areas he questioned was: “If there is space and flat land in Hawaii sufficient to build nuclear power stations, (given that you probably wouldn't want to put them too close to human habitation) isn't there probably enough space and flat land to build a CSP plant (Concentrating Solar Power) to harvest the rays of the sun and turn them into carbon free electricity?”

Sound familiar? Looks like Mr. Fox was spammed by Gerry Wolff whom we and many other bloggers have been spammed by as well. Needless to say Mr. Fox wasn't impressed and had these thoughts on the technology.

This author spent many years of professional experience in the world of engineering development. It will make most engineers highly skeptical and highly demanding of any new technology. Solar technology is certainly one of these.

Without engineering, performance, life cycle, and cost analyses involving full scale commercial equipment and technology, no serious engineering evaluations can be made. This is the template we all should use when someone promotes any alternative energy source such as this.

Too often we see enthusiasts promote these technologies without these crucial backup analyses. In this case the Solar Concentrating Power facility fails all of these tests. In fact the actual analyses are nearly impossible to find, if they exist at all. This calls into question the motives of the promoters who don’t provide such analyses.

My response: I am surprised that someone still supports this technology, especially from someone in the UK, where sunshine is a true daytime treat. In am reminded of an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists decades ago, entitled "Solar Sweden." Sweden is one of those nations in the land of the midnight sun and 6 months of darkness. As a reminder, darkness spells trouble for a solar facility.

I personally am a fan of solar especially after growing up in Arizona but it still has a long way to go.
Labels:

Comments

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