Skip to main content

Commentary on President Obama's Speech Last Night

Jason Ribeiro at Pro-Nuclear Democrats wrote an excellent, fact-based piece on why President Obama should have included nuclear energy in his not-the-State-of-the-Union speech last night. As well, Ribeiro includes some data Obama needs to see that explains the limitations of several of his proposed "innovations" on energy:
The important thing to understand about this graph is the line on top is hydro energy. Wind generation would have to increase at least 5 times to start to reach the output of hydro. But with a 25% or less capacity factor we also know that such an expansion of wind power requires a 4x build redundancy for a given output, so the actual build out expansion would be over 20x for wind to approach hydro. Thus, doubling from what it is today won't do much at all. In addition, adding the needed power transmission lines to and from windy areas to population centers will cost a bundle. The lower green line is solar, but since it has a lower capacity factor and output than wind energy it might have to increase some 500x just to equal the current output of wind energy.

Comparing all the energy sources in a chart, we can see the gargantuan growth the renewables sector would have to do to replace fossil fuels. In this chart, the whole renewables sector, the light green line, scrapes near the bottom. Nuclear is the blue line that was only recently overtaken by natural gas, the green line. Upgrades at nuclear plants have kept its market share at what it is even though no new plants have come online in years. Instead of having to multiply by factors of hundreds, thousands really, nuclear can reach the output of coal by increasing 2.77 times taking into account a 90% capacity factor.
Well said! Be sure to check out the rest of Ribeiro's piece.

Comments

Jason Ribeiro said…
Thanks again for the props!!
Charles Barton said…
Jason has produced a great post.
RightDemocrat said…
Obama isn't calling for expanded nuclear power because he is afraid of the environmentalists within his own party and the nuclear industry is going a poor job of selling the importance of atomic energy to the public. Where are the ads on cable TV promoting expanding nuclear power as a means of attaining energy independence and reducing carbon emissions ? As pointed out in a comment on Jason's blog, the nuclear industry has to be willing to take on the organized environmental groups and make the case for expanded nuclear to all Americans including those who with progressive and environmentalist leanings. We can't afford to wait for the next Republican era. And were Republicans willing to expend much political capital on advancing nuclear power when they controlled the White House and Congress ?

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 …