Skip to main content

Assume a Can-Opener

An economist, an engineer, and a physicist are marooned on a deserted island. One day they find a can of food washed up on the beach and contrive to open it. The engineer said: "let's hammer the can open between these rocks". The physicist said: "that's pretty crude. We can just use the force of gravity by dropping a rock on the can from that tall tree over there". The economist is somewhat disgusted at these deliberations, and says: "I've got a much more elegant solution. All we have to do is assume a can-opener."
In an op-ed appearing in the August 31 Washington Post, David A. Fahrenthold discusses the practical realities glossed over in former vice president Al Gore's call for converting to "clean electricity" in 10 years. Central to Mr. Fahrenthold's piece is the recognition that the nation's electrical infrastructure represents the cumulative investment of trillions of dollars. Replacing this massive amount of capital assets in an orderly, affordable (i.e., responsible) manner will take time - more than Mr. Gore's impressive-sounding, but unrealistic 10-year deadline.

Electricity providers are compelled by their state public utility commissions to manage capital assets responsibly. "Responsibly" means shepherding those assets to ensure that in the long term a fitting balance is maintained among all the competing interests, including costs to rate payers, environmental impacts, return to shareholders, and so forth. This requires careful analysis and long range planning. It isn't done with sound bites or easy assumptions.

Comments

Ed said…
I saw the article over the weekend and noticed an error. In his 'local' calculation for wind turbines to account for anticipated demand increases around the DC area, the author neglects the fact that capacity factors associated with wind (unlike nuclear) are only around 30-35%. He arrived at 3,700 1.5 MW turbines required to satisfy this demand when in actual fact it's over 10,000.

I Emailed him the correction, but the report wasn't corrected when last I checked.

The concept of capacity factors is critical, particularly to renewables with intermittancy issues. Sadly this is often confused or overlooked by the MSM.
Pete said…
Ed-
In the best locations, wind turbines might give a 35% CF. They can't just build them anywhere and expect to get that kind of performance.
KLA said…
@ed,

What's overlooked also, but very rarely mentioned, ist that unlike with conventional power plants with low capacity factors, you CANNOT just up the number of wind turbines or solar panels to make up for it. A capacity factor of 30-35%, because the wind does not blow at times, is NOT made up by building 3 of them. Because if the wind does not blow for one, it does not blow for three either.
Wind power advocates would basically build a 12 cylinder engine into a car that needs only a 4-cylinder. They would add on another 8 cylinders in case the fuel for 4 cylinders runs out.
Ed said…
Yes, I realise the facts pertaining to both comments. For me (as I expect for the reporter in the quoted article) it was just a mental exercise of scale.

I 'gave' them 35% to keep the calculation conservative and easily defend-able. You are correct though, as the capacity factor drops, more (theoretical) turbines would be required.
Anonymous said…
The "12 cylinder engine" analogy is appealing, but this does not solve the problem with wind, because with wind power over 60% of the time none of the cylinders are working. And when the cylinders do work, it's a lot more power than one would need. This drives wind to need storage. Storage, like pumped hydro or hybrid cars, makes sense when coupled to nuclear because it gets cycled every day to collect cheap nighttime electricity. With wind the storage needs to be much larger, so it can accommodate the weekly and monthly variation of the weather.
Anonymous said…
anon - The idea that "60% of the time none of the cylinders are working" is precisely the point - if the gas tank is empty it doesn't matter how many cylinders you have, and if the wind is not blowing, it doesn't matter how many windmills you have...
D. Kosloff said…
"if the wind is not blowing, it doesn't matter how many windmills you have"
A good windmill salesman can overcome that consideration; especially if he is selling windmills to somebody who is spending other people's money so that he can feel good.

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 …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…