Subtitle: Yet Another Lame Excuse To Prolong Nuclear Plant Lives
An article in Forbes (see link) is rather long-winded but finally gets to the point in the final paragraphs:
"If we retire (carbon-free) nuclear plants prematurely, there is only one resource that can fill their place today. Gas-fired power plants (i.e. carbon-emitting) – with 40-year legacies – will step in to replace them. And those commitments, once made, cannot be easily undone."
Forbes correctly points out that solar and wind-powered energy technologies are improving rapidly, both technically and economically. Therefore, Forbes argues, it is worth keeping the uneconomic, money-losing nuclear plants (see link) running for the additional years or even decades that are required to allow the "carbon-free" (their words) technologies to replace the nuclear plants. To their credit, Forbes includes not only the power generation from wind and solar, but also grid-scale energy storage to allow on-demand, reliable power.
Apparently, it is abhorrent to build gas-burning power plants, simply because they emit carbon dioxide from their stacks. However, one must devoutly believe in the carbon-dioxide-emitted-by-man-is-overheating-the-planet nonsense to reach that conclusion. Never mind that the climate alarmists have been proven wrong at every turn.
What ridiculous analogies come to mind? Should horses pulling buggies (and heavy wagons for commerce) have been subsidized, allowed to continue running by government decree, until electric cars became available and economic? Should pocket pagers (remember those?) have been subsidized and required to be manufactured because flip-phones using cellular technology would someday be replaced by smart phones?
Plus, what of the outrageous amounts of water for cooling that nuclear plants require? It is known that a modern, gas-fired combined cycle plant, CCGT, uses one-fourth the cooling water of a nuclear plant. Should those in water-scarce areas suffer for years, or decades, while the nuclear plant evaporates the fresh water? Note, this is not a hypothetical: the South Texas Nuclear Project (STNP) near Corpus Christi, Texas, does exactly that. Texas has suffered through a prolonged and serious drought, with the primary storage reservoir, Lake Travis, sending water down the Colorado River to the plant while consumers along the river must not touch the water. see link. STNP has a small artificial pond to augment the river water, but that pond depends on seasonal rainfall. Lately, the rain has not happened.
Other nuclear plants in the arid areas have the same issue: the cooling water is evaporated into the sky, where it could be used for human consumption.
Forbes cites a nuclear industry group, apparently newly-formed, that is desperately trying to pitch nuclear plants as "good" because they are "carbon-free." The group is Nuclear Matters. This newest, lamest excuse can be added to the other excuses the industry makes for not shutting down the money-losing nuclear plants, one of which is "nuclear plants create jobs," still another is "nuclear plant closures will have a serious negative effect on the economy."
The bottom line is this, as shown in a recent SLB article on the proposed and newly-approved UK nuclear plant at Hinkley Point, (see link), renewable energy plus grid-scale storage must beat US$ 12,000 per kW installed to beat the economics of a new, grid-scale nuclear power plant. With large offshore wind turbines coupled to submerged spherical pumped-storage hydroelectric systems, the $12,000 critical threshold should be fairly easy to achieve or better. Even more, the nuclear plants cannot follow the grid load, and if they did, their economics are much worse. Meanwhile, the submerged pumped storage systems can easily follow the grid load.
In conclusion, there is no need to keep the money-losing nuclear plants running. The US should take full and immediate advantage of the strong offshore wind resources and work out the inevitable kinks in the submerged pumped storage systems.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2014 by Roger Sowell -- all rights reserved
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment