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 …

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…