Skip to main content

From Sweden to the Green River

green riverSort of a silly article from the New York Times:

Internet companies often cloak themselves in an image of environmental awareness. But some companies that essentially live on the Internet are moving facilities to North Carolina, Virginia, northeastern Illinois and other regions whose main sources of energy are coal and nuclear power, the report said.

Virginia generates 36 percent of its electricity from nuclear, 35 percent from coal; North Carolina, 56 percent coal, 31 percent nuclear; and Illinois, 47 percent nuclear, 46 percent coal. So, where clean energy is concerned, internet companies are doing reasonably well given the world we live in.

And some want to improve their profile further:

Apple immediately disputed the report’s findings, saying that the company planned to build two huge renewable energy projects at its recently opened data center in North Carolina that would eventually offset much of the coal-fired and nuclear energy use.

To me, this sounds like the wrong way around – the infrastructure seems plausible as is. Who are Apple and Google and others trying to please, anyway?

In the language of the Greenpeace report, those sources constitute “dirty energy,” meaning nonrenewable.

Oh, them – well, there’s nothing wrong with Greenpeace issuing reports, though I’m sure some of the appeal of moving the data centers to these states is the lure of plentiful and inexpensive electricity – thanks in part to nuclear energy. Apple’s “huge renewable energy projects” will nullify those benefits. (I couldn’t find anything on what Apple has in mind here.)

I was struck by a detail in this PCWorld story that Facebook, in pursuit of renewable energy for its data center, went to Sweden to find it – the center is using solar arrays, which it could have done here as easily if it wanted to. Sweden is already fully covered on the clean energy scale: 46 percent hydro and 43 percent nuclear. Anyway: Good for Facebook and Sweden – since the baseload energy is still half nuclear and all clean. (I recognize that Facebook has an international profile – Google has one of its data centers in neighboring Finland – and just to keep the circle squared, Finland is mostly clean energy, too – 28 percent nuclear, 16 percent hydro and 13 percent coal.)

It’s a little disappointing that the Times decided to gin up one of Greenpeace’s hectoring reports – it’s doing it again today. Feh.

---

One of the problems with building a power plant is that it needs water, so if you want to build such a plant in a barren part of the country, you have to locate near whatever source exists. In Utah, that’s the Green River, described as a “robust tributary of the Colorado River.”

The problem is that the Green River cannot guarantee enough water to operate a plant year-round and there has to be an alternative source when that happens.

A company called Blue Castle, which wants to build a nuclear facility on the Green River, has settled on a reservoir:

The news release added that Blue Castle would have to have contingency plans if, for some reason, less water is available. The company plans to solve that problem by building an onsite reservoir that would hold a 30-day supply of water.

Blue Castle's chief executive officer is Aaron Tilton, who sat on the legislature's utilities committee, where he was an outspoken proponent of nuclear energy. While he was still in office, Tilton formed a nuclear energy development company, a forerunner to Blue Castle.

Blue Castle has permission to use the Green River water when it can be used and Tilton makes the case for it.

In an interview with InsideClimate News, Tilton acknowledged that "water is everything" in the West. But he also pointed out that the nuclear facility will use less than one percent of Utah's water allotment while increasing the state's electricity production by 50 percent.

Blue Castle has worked through issues diligently, as it should (and must), showing that its project will not harm fish and turning to the reservoir to cover drier spots (the river’s water has to give primacy to farming and drinking.) Environmentalists have kicked up a bit of a fuss, but Tilton seems fairly sure Blue Castle will prevail – as far as Utah is concerned, has prevailed.

There’s a lot more information in the story by David Hasemyer and it’s well worth reading for an exceptionally balanced view of the project. Whether Blue Castle can really get a facility built depends on a lot of factors – money not least among them – but so far, so good.

Correx: Made a better stab at the Finnish electricity mix. Still pretty good.

The Green River from the Deso Overlook. Not where the plant would go – but pretty none-the-less.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Your figures for finnish energy mix are wrong. There is no geothermal here. Nuclear accounts perhaps 25%, but you should check this.

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 …