Renewable Energy - Physics vs Economics

Subtitle: The Physics is Inescapable - But Economics Matters Most

A question posed on WUWT today, "Why is it that people who shout “It’s simple physics” about global warming immediately shout “It doesn’t matter about the physics” when it comes to renewable energy?"

My reply:

The physics always matters, it cannot be overcome. However, renewable energy is all about the economics, which are improving rapidly year over year. Wind power in the US is now profitable at US $0.043 per kWh, of which $0.02 is paid by the utility, and $0.023 is by the government as a tax credit. Note: the wind power producer must have profits from somewhere to take advantage of the tax credit. The proof of this (profitability) is the rapid growth of wind power installations in the US, both onshore and now offshore.

Solar PV at grid-scale is not far behind.

From the US Dept of Energy, “2015 Wind Technologies Market Report”: link is here.  

o Installed cost in the windy Great Plains is $1,640 / kW, continuing the downward trend of the past several years.

o Also, wind power is sold at very low prices under a Purchase Power Agreement, for $20 / MWh. The federal tax credit continues at $23 per MWh.

o Finally, capacity factors for 2015 are higher than ever, at 41.2 percent among projects built in 2014.

More about renewable economics: California residential prices have not increased due to renewable power installations and production. Wind is a minor player in California, with almost all the available sites already built out. Solar PV has substantial future growth potential.

Installed generating capacity in California is about 70,000 MW, of which 40 percent is renewable (24 percent solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and 12 percent large hydroelectric). We don’t have grid instabilities, nor blackouts, nor huge price increases from renewables. On an annual basis, total kWh supplied to the grid by renewables in 2016 was approximately 27 percent (excluding large hydroelectric). Large hydroelectric supplied approximately 5-6 percent in a drought year. In average rainfall years, large hydroelectric contributes 15 percent.

Now that the California drought is over, 2017 is expected to have 45 percent combined renewables plus large hydroelectric power (approximately 30 percent solar, wind, etc, and 15 percent large hydroelectric.)

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here 

California Worst Drought Ever - Myth or Fact

Subtitle: Current Drought is Short and Not Severe Compared to Past

Update 9/5/2016:  Added the NOAA precipitation chart showing droughts. -- end update

One of the cornerstones of the present mantra in California government circles is that man-made global warming has created the current drought conditions.   In fact, language in some California laws and bills that may become law include such statements.  An example is given below.

The following quote is from a bill in the California legislature, SB 1161, from Section 2 paragraph 10.  The bill has the following over-the-top title, "California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016."  (this is nothing, really, as California about a decade ago passed a real whopper, the "California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.")

"(10) Climate change has been tied by scientists to the severity and intensity of the historically unprecedented and costly drought that California has been experiencing since 2011 that has resulted in communities running out of water, agricultural water cutbacks, and unprecedented groundwater use that has caused subsidence and a loss of storage capacity in the state’s critical aquifers."   (emphasis added)

It is unclear if the Legislature, in this case the California Senate, knows what they are talking about in terms of climate change, man-made global warming, and drought.   For example, the underlined section above mentions three things:

1  historically unprecedented drought
2  costly drought
3  that has existed since 2011. 

These claims are examined against the evidence, below. 

Figure 1, source:  USGS 

The link for Figure 1 is available here.   Figure 1 has a red bar added to indicate the runoff for water year 2016, still in progress until September 30, 2016.    

Point 1 - Historically Unprecedented Drought

It is a trick of statistics to use a running average (the gold line in Figure 1) that drops near the end as this does in 2014-2015.  As can be seen in the 1977 year, and also in 1923, the running average climbs back up when subsequent years are included.   

Another point that is evident from Figure 1 is that the drought from 1917 through 1933 was much longer in duration and much more severe than that of the past 4 years. 

Also, the eight years from 1986 through 1994 had only 2 years with more than 5 inches of runoff, compared to the current drought of 4 years. 

Figure 2 - California Precipitation 1919 - 1998, source NOAA

Also, from Figure 2 above, multi-year droughts are shown in red ovals for the 1930s, late 1940s, and late 1980s.  Another important point from NOAA's data is the long-term trend of precipitation is quite positive, at +5.6 inches per century over the period shown. 

I show this with the deliberate purpose of copying what climate scientists do when they want to deceive the public.  The data in Figure 2 starts in a drought and ends in a wet period, which forces the linear trend to be positive.   If one uses the entire record from 1890 to 2016, a slight negative trend is obtained.  

Thus, it can be seen that the first point is false, this drought since 2011 is certainly not an historically unprecedented drought.  In fact, this drought may already be over. 

Point 2 - Costly Drought

This current short-term and not very severe drought is costly only because the California population has grown over the years, and more importantly, the state water managers and policy makers have failed to provide adequate water storage.  This is much like a family of four, Mom and Dad plus two small children, sitting down at the table to eat a roast chicken.  There is plenty to go around.  But, when friends and neighbors are also seated around the table, one roast chicken is simply not enough.   I wrote on this earlier on SLB, the Us Four and No More article  see link.   The evidence is quite clear that California long-term goals are to limit population growth, and have population decline.  Limiting water availability is a sure way to accomplish that.

Meanwhile, there are substantial costs to those that run out of water and must pay dearly for imported water, sometimes by truck. 

Point 3 - Drought Has Existed Since 2011

As above, Figure 1 shows the current drought is minor and short compared to earlier droughts.  

Man-made Climate Change As Cause of Drought

The evidence is quite clear that any increase in CO2 in the atmosphere from man's consumption of fossil fuels could not have had any impact on the severe drought in the 1920s.   It is false to claim that today's minor drought is due to man-made CO2.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved. 

The Case Against Carbon Dioxide - Fatal Flaws

Subtitle:  Alarmism Is Unfounded Due to Ignored Causal Effects

The oft-stated belief among the alarmist climate science community (the IPCC and others) is that natural sources and sinks of carbon dioxide, CO2, are constant (or close enough to constant as to not matter), but the formation of CO2 by mankind's burning of fossil fuels over the past century is a serious, calamity-inducing problem. 

Support for the above proposition can be found at numerous locations, below are just a few.

"According to leading climate scientists from around the world, anthropogenic climate change (that caused by humans) is a significant and growing problem that must be addressed in order to avoid the worst effects.  Climate change is the result of various GHGs that are emitted into the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), which have a heat forcing effect on the atmosphere.  Sharp rises of GHGs over the last century and a half have led to higher overall worldwide temperatures, reduced snowpack in the higher elevations, greater fluctuations of temperature and precipitation, global sea level rise and more frequent and severe extreme weather events, including hurricanes, heatwaves and droughts."  -- California Air Resources Board website summarizing the state's Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32).   

"Over the past century, human activities have released large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The majority of greenhouse gases come from burning fossil fuels to produce energy, although deforestation, industrial processes, and some agricultural practices also emit gases into the atmosphere.


"Greenhouse gases act like a blanket around Earth, trapping energy in the atmosphere and causing it to warm. This phenomenon is called the greenhouse effect and is natural and necessary to support life on Earth. However, the buildup of greenhouse gases can change Earth's climate and result in dangerous effects to human health and welfare and to ecosystems."  -- US EPA website on Climate Change

What then, does a seasoned, experienced chemical engineer make of the above?  The first thing one sees is that the standard practices of good basic science, and by extension good engineering practice, do not support the above conclusions that a) the atmosphere is warming, b) CO2 is causing the warming, and c) future events will be catastrophic if no action is taken to reduce or eliminate CO2 emissions from man's activities. 

This post addresses a part of the issue, the question of how much, if any, the atmosphere has warmed in the past 100 years, more or less.   A part of this discussion was already

Fig 1: Land atmospheric temperature Anomalies,
(figure 3-1-1, IPCC AR4, global extent)

published on SLB, in November 2015 as "Cities and UHI Warming Corrupt Temperature Databases."  see link    (note, UHI is Urban Heat Island, in which cities are warmer than surrounding low-population areas)

From that article, "the key point: cities will have energy consumption and heat rejection issues no matter what type of system produces that energy.  Considering for the moment electricity use, even if a city were all-electric for heating, cooling, cooking, and transportation, and even if that electricity were produced by zero-carbon-dioxide power plants (see below), the UHI would exist.  In essence, a building has no idea what produced the electricity that heats (or cools) the building, runs the lights and elevators, and heats the hot water.  An electric car, or bus, or delivery truck, or train, also has no idea what produced the electricity that each of those consumes.   Therefore, even if all the electricity is from a zero-carbon-dioxide source, the cities would still have UHI and would corrupt the climate scientists' data.   Such zero-carbon-dioxide sources include, but are not limited to, hydroelectric, wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, wave, tidal, ocean current, ocean temperature-difference, water pressure recapture, river mouth osmosis, and river current.   There are also carbon-neutral sources: landfill methane, cattle operation methane, Municipal solid waste (MSW), human waste sludge, plant-based ethanol, and other bio-fuels."

The issue is, then, what steps are properly taken in a scientific study, and were those steps followed in reaching the alarming conclusions of catastrophic global warming from above?

The four essential steps are:

1.  Obtain valid experimental data, or collect existing data records if past history is part of the data

2.  Determine causal factor(s) for the data via proper analysis

3.  Develop a model based on the causal factor(s), test and validate the model, and

4.  Predict future outcomes with the model, and check accuracy of predictions.

As support for the above, the chemical engineers' society in the US, AIChE, has this regarding models: 

"Modeling is the art of simplification of complex physics underlying the chemical (and physical) processes to account for observed phenomena and make falsifiable predictions."  -- note, "and physical" added by the author.  

Now to more detailed analysis of cities, towns, pristine areas, and the temperatures measured there over the decades from approximately 1900 until 2015.   

It is abundantly clear that no human influences on temperatures measured near ground level approximately 5 feet above grade, have existed or do exist in pristine locations.   Human influences occur where people change their environment, as for example cooking, heating or cooling a house, lighting living space, using electricity to run various motors, using gasoline or diesel fuel to power engines in cars, trucks, and machinery.   Where one solitary house is built on a large farm, there would be such activities and the house would radiate away the heat.   We know that, over a long period, all of the heat input in the house is lost to the environment; to believe otherwise would require the house to continually increase in temperature.  Clearly, that does not occur.  

It is also clear that, prior to the widespread use of electricity, farming communities consumed fuel as wood, oil, kerosene, coal, and diesel as the opportunity occurred along with the need.    The Rural Electrification Administration brought electricity to farmers during the 1930s and 1940s.  

What is also known, as the UHI article above referenced states, is that two effects exist in cities that create urban warming without any influence from man-made CO2.  The first of the two effects is more buildings in a small area, with the buildings each having a constant energy consumption over time.   The second effect is the buildings each consuming more energy over time.   It is clear that cities have grown since 1900, as almost all cities are larger in population and land area now compared to then.   It is also clear that the energy consumption per capita has also grown.  Using electricity data for the US, only 80 billion kWh of electricity were produced nation-wide in 1930.  Eighty-five years later in 2015, the amount has increased by 50 times, to 4,000 billion kWh.   The corresponding population growth was from 122 million (1930 Census) to 309 million (2010 Census), a factor of only 2.5.  In addition, petroleum use greatly increased in the same period.  

Yet, alarmist climate scientists include cities in their data for showing the Earth has increased in average temperature.   That fact is not in dispute, as it is certain that temperatures measured in cities show a warming trend.  The dispute is, and should always be, whether increases in atmospheric CO2 caused any of the measured warming.  In cities, clearly there are at least two, and probably three or more causes of increased temperature in addition to any warming from CO2.   The first two causes having just been discussed, more buildings in a small area, and more energy consumption per building or per capita, the third cause is now discussed.

The third cause of long-term temperature increase is an increase in local humidity, as measured by either absolute humidity or relative humidity.   In some regions, this effect will not occur since the regions have been very humid for centuries.  Such regions occur in the US in the deep South, in Florida, along the mid-Atlantic, and a few others.   However, the dry western states and southwestern states certainly show the effect of local humidity increase.   

The humidity effect has long been known, even to pre-teens and teen-aged children who spend time outdoors overnight, perhaps camping with various organizations.  When camping overnight in humid areas (as I did on a monthly basis for several years near Houston, Texas with a well-known organization), one did not worry about getting too cold at night in the Spring, Summer, and early Fall.   High relative humidity kept the air fairly warm.  But, when camping in dry regions of west Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, it was much colder at night in the same seasons.   The lack of humidity allowed heat to easily radiate to space through the atmosphere, and the early morning temperature would be quite cool and even cold.  

The effect on long-term temperatures in cities is obvious, as homeowners built houses with lawns that required watering, and cooling systems using water evaporative coolers were installed.  Even commercial chilling systems for buildings and industries used cooling towers that sent out clouds of water vapor into the skies.   Electric power plants with cooling towers, and industries such as refineries and chemical plants with cooling towers also contribute water vapor to the skies in and near cities.  

Yet a fourth cause of a heating trend is now discussed.  This, too, occurs in the dry desert regions.  It is well-known that rain in the desert, and semi-arid regions, causes the atmosphere to cool.  Therefore, the effect of prolonged drought on long-term temperature measurements must be considered.   One effective way to measure long-term drought in the western US is to consider the annual water flow through the Colorado River, that flows through Lake Powell and Lake Mead.   The long-term, at least over the past century, has been a decrease in annual flow of approximately 10 percent since 1905 (per USGS).   It is also noted that droughts also occurred recently in non-Western states, in particular Texas.

There are, therefore, at least four causes of measured warming in addition to the warming (if any) caused by CO2 in the atmosphere.  As discussed above, these four include more buildings (or population) in cities, more energy per capita in cities, increased humidity in arid and semi-arid regions, and natural droughts in various regions.  

As stated above in the four points of valid science and good engineering practice, we require good experimental data and proper causal factor identification.  Where multiple causes are known to exist, it is error to include data points in the database.  Clearly, cities have many if not all of the four causes of increased warming discussed above, and must be excluded from any valid climate change database.  

It is entirely inappropriate to adjust the temperatures in cities to account for known UHI influences of city growth, energy per capita growth, relative humidity increase, and increased drought.   The proper treatment is exclusion from the data set.  

UPDATE - 5 June 2016:  Other non-CO2 factors also exist, in addition to the four discussed above.   Three additional effects are discussed below: aerosols, measurement siting, and wind shadows.  The effect of atmospheric soot, fine ash, and aerosols above a city impact the temperature measurements.  Also, the location of the temperature measuring equipment impacts the temperature trend over time.  Finally, buildings that deflect wind above or away from the temperature measurement site creates issues. 

Cities in the 20th century had serious air quality problems due to uncontrolled burning of wood, coal, and heating oil.  The smoke and soot from such fires are legendary and factual.  There is no dispute over these occurring, as reports in newspapers were frequent on the impacts of the smell, difficulty in breathing, soot settling onto clothing and buildings, and entering homes and other buildings via open windows.   London, England had especially bad days with the smoke in the 1950s.  see link  and this link  The smoke, soot, and other airborne particulates blocked out the sun.  Yet, when clean-burning natural gas was used in later decades, the air cleared, the sunshine reached the ground, most assuredly causing measured temperatures to increase.  

The same thing occurred in the US with the Clean Air Act of 1973, and its implementation over the next decades.  Particulate emissions as well as chemicals such as NO2, NO3, and SO3 were reduced, greatly improving air quality.  

It should be expected that temperatures measured in cities would show an increase as the air became cleaner and cleaner after 1973.  

The sixth non-CO2 impact on temperature measurements over time is the change in character of the measurement site.  Much work has been done on this, with the US measurement sites documented and compared to official standards.  The central issue is a measuring station may have been located in an acceptable area initially, many decades ago.  However, urban growth and "progress" brought buildings, paved roads, parking lots, and other artificial heating impacts to the location.  

The seventh non-CO2 impact on temperature measurements over time is measuring temperatures in a wind-shadow.  Buildings in cities are usually multiple stories, and some of course are skyscrapers with dozens of stories.  Clusters of such tall buildings can impact the wind, deflecting the wind upwards, or to the side.  Where temperature measuring stations are located downwind of such buildings, the normal wind flow is obstructed.  Over time, the measured temperature is higher and higher.

Finally, a temperature graph from IPCC's AR4 is now included above as Figure 1.   That graph shows a steadily increasing trend from 1975 through 2005, rising approximately 0.9 degrees C in only 30 years.   This is the basis for the false-alarmism of a 2 to 3 degree C increase in the next century.   The temperatures in cities may, in fact, be somewhat warmer in the coming decades, but the increase has nothing to do with CO2.  As noted above, there are at least seven causal factors that create the appearance of warming in cities, and none of them are CO2.   Even if all electricity in all the cities was replaced overnight by hydroelectric power that produces zero CO2, cities would still be warmer today than 100 years ago.  --- End Update 



Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 
Marina del Rey, California

copyright © 2016 by Roger Sowell all rights reserved

California Water Restrictions - 2014

Subtitle: Drought Welcome, Brings Population Decrease

[Update: 7-15-2014, the State Water Resources Control Board approved the new measures, as outlined below. -- end update.]

California is in one of its periodic droughts.  Snow in the Sierras has been below average for the past three years.  Rainfall also has been below average.   Water reservoirs are getting low. (see Lake Shasta photo below)  Farmers are not receiving enough water for irrigation.   The State writes: 

"More than 400,000 acres of farmland are expected to be fallowed, thousands of people

Lake Shasta, California showing low level from drought 2014
source: USGS

may be out of work, communities risk running out of drinking water and fish and wildlife species are in  jeopardy. Many communities are down to 50 gallons a day or less per person for basic sanitation needs. With our inability to predict the effect of the next rainy season, water saved today can improve a region’s water security and add flexibility to systems that may need to withstand another year or more with precipitation below average."

Tomorrow, July 15, 2014, the state Water Board will vote on additional measures to conserve water. ( it passed)  These restrictions apply to outdoor water used in cities and towns.  The restrictions are expected to pass, probably unanimously.   They include:

"1)  The direct application of water to any hard surface for washing. 
2) Watering of outdoor landscapes that cause runoff to adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways, parking lots or structures. 
3) Using a hose to wash an automobile, unless the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle. 
4)  Using potable water in a fountain or decorative water feature, unless the water is recirculated. 

Violations of prohibited activities are considered infractions and are punishable by fines of $500 for each day in which the violation occurs."

This is the type of issue that is very controversial in California.  Some, including myself, believe that the lack of water is a primary means to discourage growth.   In fact, nothing would please the establishment more than to see the population shrink to pre-1960 levels.  If less water is available, people will eventually leave the state.  Perhaps this explains the foot-dragging and roadblocks in the way of any serious water projects.  Whether proposals involve new dams, desalination, or ceasing water-intensive agriculture e.g. rice farming, all are met with fierce opposition.

California has come a long, long way from the days of diverting the Owens River high in the Sierras through an aqueduct into Los Angeles (in 1913).   Yet another river was partially diverted to Southern California, the mighty Colorado River of Grand Canyon fame.   Those days brought surplus water and millions of people.  No more. 

The fact is, though, that only four or five years ago there was a surplus of snow, and water from reservoirs was intentionally sent down-river into the oceans.  This was done to make room for the coming snowmelt and runoff.   To go from a surplus where water is wasted in that fashion, to extreme drought only four year later is a clear sign of incompetence or worse, deliberate imposition of water shortages.  

If, and it is a big if, the snows are below average again this winter (2014-2015), California will experience water rationing as it has seldom seen, if ever.   The ENSO predictions are still 70 percent for an El Niño this winter as per NOAA.   Only time will tell.  

For the Fact Sheet from California State Water Board, see link. 


Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 
Marina del Rey, California

Drought and Dust

Next time anyone thinks the present drought is bad, consider this: 

Vehicle almost buried in fine soil, or dust, in US Dust Bowl 1930s.
source: Kansas State University

On this day [April 23] in Iowa weather history...

1934: The Dust Bowl was in full swing and Iowa was in the midst of its driest spring on record. In April of that year dust storms were reported in the state on 22 days with the worst storm coming on the 23rd. It covered everything across the state with dust and the fine particles penetrated all buildings, cars, and enclosed spaces. Automobile travel was impossible at times due to low visibility and dust drifting across the roads in high winds. Snow fences were in some cases buried with dust and plows were called out to clear 1 to 3 foot drifts off the roads in Montgomery County. Airmail pilots reported that the dust extended to a height of more than 2 miles above the ground. -- NWS

There is no doubt that some areas of the US are experiencing drought, a lack of precipitation.  However, the climate alarmists who insist that man-made carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is making drought worse should pay attention to recent history.  1934 was only 80 years ago.  As the quote above from NWS (National Weather Service) states, the dust from the wind and drought was many times, many orders of magnitude, worse than today's drought.   The 1930s dust bowl and drought were certainly not caused by man's activities, burning fossil fuels, because population was much less and there was far less fuel burned in those days.  The drought was entirely natural.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 

Marina del Rey, California 

(where we, too, are experiencing a mild drought.  Just a few years ago, we had more rain and snow than we could use, so naturally the state's water managers ran the water out of the reservoirs and into the ocean.  Great planning...) 

The Truth About Nuclear Power - Part Four

Subtitle: Nuclear plants use far more fresh water than other power plants

Nuclear power plants, as currently designed and built, consume prodigious amounts of water for cooling.  Compared to combined-cycle gas turbine plants (CCGT), nuclear plants use 4 times as much water for the same output of electricity.   Some plants use cooling towers, and others use once-through cooling where the water is pumped through the plant once, then sent off usually into a lake, river, or ocean.   

South Texas Nuclear Plant with Cooling Reservoir
source: Texas Water Development Board

For this article, the example of the South Texas Nuclear Project is used.  This power plant is a twin-reactor, pressurized water reactor design built near the mouth of the Colorado River in Texas, USA.  The photo nearby shows the location, just north of the small town of Matagorda, on the Gulf of Mexico.  The plant is roughly 50 miles northeast of Corpus Christi, and 100 miles southwest of Houston.   The photo shows the nuclear power plant in the middle foreground, the 7,000 acre cooling reservoir at center, and the Gulf of Mexico at the top.  The Colorado River can be seen, barely, at the left center. 

The plant, known as STNP, is designed to use approximately 50,000 acre-feet (AF) of river water per year for cooling.  The reservoir receives water pumped from the nearby Colorado River, plus any rain that happens to fall.  Rainfall is important in this case, as it averages 30 inches per year over the long term.  Recently the rainfall has been much less due to a prolonged drought.  However, in an average year, the rainfall provides approximately 17,000 AF per year for the plant.   That then, requires the river to provide 50,000 - 17,000 = 33,000 AF per year.  

The water requirements for various types of power plants are shown below, in AF/yr/1000 MW of electrical output.  These are based on the design where hot water that is discharged from the plant evaporates in the cooling reservoir to lose its heat.  

1.  Nuclear power.........................20,300 AF/y/1000 MW
2.  Gas powered steam plant......12,700
3.  CCGT plant................................5,070

From this, it can be seen that nuclear power requires 4 times as much water (20,300 / 5,070 = 4) compared to a modern CCGT plant.  In areas where fresh water is scarce, this is an important consideration when selecting power plant technology.  

Lake Travis and Mansfield Dam, TX
source: LCRA

For the STNP, the Colorado River water is impounded far upstream by Mansfield Dam and held in Lake Travis, a 1.1 million AF reservoir north of Austin, Texas.  Lake Travis is near historic low levels as this is written (March, 2014) due to an extended drought.  The lack of water could cause the STNP output to be reduced. 

For some perspective, had a CCGT design been used along with the 7,000 acre reservoir, the plant would be more than self-sufficient in water needs.   In fact, a much smaller reservoir could have been constructed, approximately one-third the surface area.  

Conclusion:   Nuclear power plants consume 4 time as much water for cooling compared to a modern CCGT power plant.  

Previous installments in The Truth About Nuclear Power can be found below:

Part One - Nuclear Power Plants Cannot Compete
Part Two - Preposterous Power Pricing if Nuclear Power Proponents Prevail
Part Three - Nuclear Power Plants Cost Far Too Much to Construct
Part Four  -  This article
Part Five - Cannot Simply Turn Off a Nuclear Power Plant
Part Six –  Nuclear Plants are Huge to Reduce Costs

Part Seven -- All Nuclear Grid Will Sell Less Power

Part Eight – No Benefits from Smaller Modular Nuclear Plants

Part Nine -- Nuclear Plants Require Long Construction Schedules

Part Ten - Nuclear Plants Require Costly Upgrades After 20 to 30 Years

Part Eleven - Following France in Nuclear Is Not The Way To Go

Part Twelve - Nuclear Plants Cannot Provide Cheap Power on Small Islands
Part Thirteen - Nuclear Plants Are Heavily Subsidized
Part Fourteen - A Few More Reasons Nuclear Cannot Compete
Part Fifteen - Nuclear Safety Compromised by Bending the Rules
Part Sixteen - Near Misses on Meltdowns Occur Every 3 Weeks
Part Seventeen - Storing Spent Fuel is Hazardous for Short or Long Term

Part Eighteen - Reprocessing Spent Fuel Is Not Safe

Part Nineteen - Nuclear Radiation Injures People and Other Living Things
Part Twenty - Chernobyl Meltdown and Explosion
Part Twenty One - Three Mile Island Unit 2 Meltdown 1979
Part Twenty Two - Fukushima The Disaster That Could Not Happen
Part Twenty Three - San Onofre Shutdown Saga
Part Twenty Four - St. Lucie Ominous Tube Wear

Part Twenty Five - Price-Anderson Act Protects Nuclear Plants Too Much

Part Twenty Six - Evacuation Plans Required at Nuclear Plants

Part Twenty Seven - Power From Nuclear Fusion
Part Twenty Eight - Thorium MSR No Better Than Uranium Process
Part Twenty Nine - High Temperature Gas Reactor Still A Dream
Part Thirty - Conclusion

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

Solution to Water in the West

It is becoming more and more apparent that the U.S. must transfer some of the excess water that floods the Mid-Western states to the dry Western states. My colleagues and I have been researching this for several years, and have some ideas. We conclude that it is in the national interest to do, and should be a no-brainer. The figure below shows the status of river flooding in the U.S. as of March 20, 2010.

Ancient civilizations realized the critical need for water, and did what it took to move the water to where it was needed. The Romans of course built their famous aqueducts, and the ancient Chinese routed water also. Many others did, too.

While the current Presidential administration is passing out money as if it grew on Sequoia trees, this is a project that should be on the list.

California has an extensive history with water projects, with routing water from the Sacramento River south to Los Angeles, from the Owens Lake area to Los Angeles, and more recently the Colorado River to Los Angeles and San Diego. However, none of these is adequate given the growing California population, droughts, and decreased snow in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

An amazing fact is that water pumps consume approximately 10 percent of all the power sold in California. Some of that is recovered as hydroelectric power. The recovery of power from water factors in this.

One possibility on the national level is a water transfer system from the Missouri River at Kansas City, that runs approximately 800 miles southwest to the continental divide in New Mexico, just south of Interstate 40. From there the water would flow into tributaries of the Colorado River. The hydroelectric plants are already in place on Hoover Dam and Glen Canyon Dam. Therefore, some of the power expended to pump the water uphill and 800 miles would be recovered. The elevation change is on the order of 6,000 feet.

The water route will be through the U.S.' great wind corridor, so it is conceivable to use windmills to provide energy to the pumps. How the water is transferred is of course an engineering problem, one solution is to use a buried pipeline, or build a series of open canals with a slight downward slope to the southwest, and install water lift (pumping) stations at regular intervals. Something of the same magnitude was done by the construction of the Erie Canal in New York, which runs approximately 365 miles, and 600 feet uphill. It took 8 years to build and was finished in 1825.

This is the type of project that has enormous benefits for almost all Americans, and would certainly be less expensive than building and operating desalination plants using reverse osmosis. The existing lakes Mead and Powell could store the water as necessary. One benefit is an assured supply of agricultural products from the fertile but arid California farmlands and dairies. California supplies a large part of the nation's foods, when there is adequate water.

An advantage of the buried pipeline alternative is no water loss due to evaporation, but a disadvantage is higher initial cost, and higher pumping costs due to friction as the water flows through the pipe.

An advantage of the open canal design is lower pumping cost, but a disadvantage is slight water losses due to evaporation.

The amount of power required to pump the water is tremendous, at roughly 800,000 HP for a flow of 1,000 cubic feet per second.

Given a simple design of 800 miles broken up into 10 mile sections of canal, with a pump at each section, would require 80 pumping stations at 10,000 HP each. The 10,000 HP is roughly 7.5 MW of energy. Of course, an actual design would follow the contour of the land and have pumps sized appropriately for each section. Even if all 80 pumping stations are built, the amount of power required is approximately 600 MW.

The Missouri River flow varies of course, but is somewhat regulated by a series of flood-control dams upstream. The USGS shows the typical flow is about 4,000 to 5,000 cubic feet per second. Therefore, diverting 1,000 cubic feet per second would not likely be a problem. Diverting twice that amount, or three times that amount, could conceivably cause problems.

This would be a job for the Army Corps of Engineers, and is a worthy challenge to their expertise.

My proposed National Excess Water Transport Aqueduct Project (NEWTAP) as described above will go a long way to solving a couple of problems. First, and obviously, is the chronic water shortage in California and other western states, and flooding along the Missouri. Second, what to do with wind power in the Plains when the power demand is in the big cities (the lack of transmission lines problem).

A further improvement on this plan is to also divert a portion of the upper Mississippi River west and into the National Excess Water Transport Aqueduct Project. One possibility is a 150-mile canal due west along US route 36 from Hannibal to St. Joseph. This would allow a water flow of approximately 2,000 cubic feet per second, or more.

The water transfer to the Colorado River would eliminate the need for power transmission lines, because power would be generated at Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam, then sent to Southern California or elsewhere through existing transmission lines. Thus, there would be some savings by not having to build power transmission lines to connect the wind-generators to cities.

A useful means of storing excess wind-generated power is to pump water uphill for later use in hydroelectric plants when the power is needed. This trans-continental, uphill waterway would do exactly that, storing the water in Lake Powell and Lake Mead.

I see no technical reasons why this would not work. Crossing existing creeks, rivers, highways, railroads, and hills, can all be done. However, on the legal and environmental side, there are more difficulties. There is a water-rights legal issue of transferring water from one water basin into another. This plan would transfer water from the Missouri water basin across a couple of other basins and into the Colorado water basin. Then there are the eminent domain issues to acquire the right-of-way. This is not a problem, if the governments decree the project is in the public interest. In practice, though, such decrees at times generate public hostility. Finally, the environmental issues are rather large. One can envision the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) for an 800-mile canal crossing several states!

Still, such a project would be of ultimate good. The money spent would provide employment for thousands, and for many years. The energy generated by the windmills would be recovered (at least in part), which is in line with the “Generate Green” movement. That is far better than building a few nuclear power plants. And the water would go to good use, irrigating farms to feed the U.S. and the world.

Note: this is a copy of two articles I wrote in February 2009, when the Spring flooding began (as usual) on the upper sections of the Mississippi, Missouri, and the Red River in the Dakotas. The flooding has started again this year, and practical solutions such as the ones suggested here should be put in place.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.