Skip to main content

Solar vs Nuclear Energy in Hawaii

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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …