Skip to main content

Asking Some Uncomfortable Questions

By Eric McErlain
Our friend Norris McDonald snuck into a press event promoting the release of Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change by Bruce Smith of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER). One reporter managed to ask an uncomfortable question:
Mr. Smith provided us with a complimentary copy of the book and we will review it soon. Their reliance on wind energy as a replacement for nuclear power is the weakest of their arguments. One reporter questioned how many windmills it would take to back out their estimate of 2,500 nuclear plants needed by 2050 and the number was astronomical. It is also unacceptable to single out nuclear power for opposition while accepting all other forms of electricity generation. The world needs a mix of energy sources, particularly nuclear power, to meet current and future electricity needs.
Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Come on guys, this is dirty pool. You're well aware that no one needs to "sneak into" press conferences at the National Press Club; they're open to the public. It's irresponsible to intimate that IEER was attempting to keep pro-nuclear advocates out of the event.
June 20, 2006 at 4:44 PM
Norris McDonald said…
But doesn't the 'sneaking in' description sound so much more intriguing?
June 20, 2006 at 7:40 PM
Kelly L Taylor said…
So glad you endorsed it, Norris. I like the sound of it, but then, it sounds just like me!
June 20, 2006 at 10:45 PM
Tom Gray said…
Sorry to see the cheap shot at wind. Do we avoid such tactics or not?

Regards,
Tom Gray
American Wind Energy Association
www.awea.org
www.ifnotwind.org
June 22, 2006 at 7:00 AM
David Bradish said…
Tom,

Where's the cheap shot?

IEER says it would take 1,000 nuke plants or more to make a difference. Nuke plants are the largest sources for capacity on average.

So if nukes are the biggest how much would be needed from other sources such as wind? 5,000 wind farms? 10,000?

The largest nuke plant in the U.S.(Palo Verde) is 4,200 MW and the largest wind farm in the U.S. (Altamont Pass) is 330 MW. So if wind builds 1,000 GW instead of nuclear, that's more than 3,000 Altamont Pass'. And that's just matching GW. This figure doesn't even account for the intermittancy of wind.

These aren't cheap shots. IEER tries to dismiss nuclear by saying 1,000 nukes are an impossible build yet do not provide how much of the alternatives are needed.

David, NEI
June 22, 2006 at 12:57 PM
Anonymous said…
David, figuring a 25-30% capacity factor for wind energy sources (a reasonable average), you're looking at 9,000 to 12,000 facilities the equivalent of Altamont Pass. If 1,000 GW of nuclear capacity is an impossible build, how impossible does that make putting up 12,000 Altamont Passes?

But the real Achilles' Heel of intermittant, dispersed, low-capacity energy sources is managing a grid-type system based on these sources. Having been in the hot seat of the dispatching center of a "traditional" transmission company trying to balance load and supply with more conventional, intense sources, I can say that doing even that is often a challenge. Trying to manage tens of thousands of little bitty generators, all subject to local variations in environmental conditions, is truly a nightmare of monumental proportions. And, no, it isn't just a matter of "software". There's a lot more to it than just updating computer programs.
June 22, 2006 at 3:16 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

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

By
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...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more