Skip to main content

Wind, Nuclear and Playing with Cars

This caused  a mathematical synapse to fire:

Wind energy reduced power sector emissions by more than 5 percent last year, saving the same amount of CO2 as taking 20 million cars off the road, according to a new report.

Well, if you don’t mind your car sputtering to a stop when the wind stops blowing. Okay, that’s not really fair. It’s a question of how many carbon emissions were displaced by wind power and that was 126.8 million tons or the equivalent of about 20 million cars. That’s fairbut consider:

Nuclear energy facilities avoided nearly 590 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2013 across the U.S. This is nearly as much carbon dioxide as is released from 113 million cars, which is more than all U.S. passenger cars. The U.S. produces more than five billion metric tons of carbon dioxide each year.

That 113 million car figure seems right enough, but is that (or less, actually) really the number of passengers vehicles in the car crazy U.S? Seems too few.

Ace NEI statistician David Bradish said a fair number of things are excluded, including trucks, buses and other conveyances which might carry different emissions standards and outputs. So this works for that purpose. And impressive, too – we could probably scoop Canada’s cars into the emission-displaced hopper, too, especially if you counted the country’s six reactors.

We’re making fun, but really, good for the wind folks. It is a milestone, wind is emission free and it’s all to the good. The only conclusion to reach is that since nuclear energy has gotten all the cars off the road, let’s let wind have the flatbed trucks.

AWEA’s report is here.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Canada has 19 active power reactors in 6 'plants' (Pickering A / B, Bruce A / B, Darlington and Point Lepreau)...
Anonymous said…
The problem is that there are 3 levels of lies; lies, damn lies and statistics. When anyone cites statistics, I always look at who is doing the statisticing. Note that the citer is the AWEA. Of course, they want the best spin on anything they do. Just remember that Al Gore would have made a good chunk of change out of "carbon trading".
trag said…
Did that emissions reduction figure for wind energy simply take the number of KWH4s wind produced and assume that it displaced the same amount of gas or coal generated electricity and then claim credit for the emissions reduction?

If so, it is utterly misleading and flat out wrong.

The back-up generating capacity which is on standby to take up the load when wind falters must also be added to the CO2 emissions of wind. That, in many cases, reduces the so-called CO2 reduction of wind to zero or even negative.
Engineer-Poet said…
As a point of fact, a great many vehicles driven by ordinary citizens as personal transportation are classed as "light trucks" rather than "passenger cars".  The "light truck" category includes minivans, which let them escape the stricter CAFE requirements for passenger cars and helped to popularize them when they were new.  Station wagons remained in the passenger car category, which is why the large station wagon has been replaced by boxier things.

It would be very nice if the whole lot were powered by batteries charged by nuclear power plants, making all the OPEC and CO2 issues moot.
John said…
Anon #2 is right, statistics can rarely be trusted. There are just too many ways they can be fudged or just plain wrong.

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...