Nuclear Energy: A solution looking for a problem ??
By Joliphant Posted in Archived — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Has the Right's position on energy been hijacked by the left without us realizing it ? Are we playing on their field with their bat ,ball and the umpire they hired ?
I ask because currently the hot button topic is energy. It's not as big as it was in the 70s when it was a fighting issue but it's big again and everyone seems to have an answer to the problem. (Well except the people in the business, clueless lot aren't they that people on the street know their business better than them ?)
Our presumptive nominee Senator McCain has proposed that the U.S. should try and build 45 Nuclear power plants by 2030.
"If I am elected president, I will set this nation on a course to building 45 new reactors by the year 2030, with the ultimate goal of 100 new plants to power the homes and factories and cities of America," he said.
To me this is an amazing statement. I am very pro nuclear myself and applaud the idea of new plants being built. They provide abundant reliable power at a low cost. I have to ask though, just what does our nominee know about running a power utility ? Further why does he feel he should set the agenda for them ?
Second let me ask, Will nuclear power do anything to solve our current energy problems ?
The answer is not one bit.
WE DON'T HAVE AN ENERGY CRISIS OR EVEN A MINOR ENERGY PROBLEM
The problem is so completely misstated and characterized by the media we can't even speak about amongst ourselves in a meaningful framework.
Our nominee speaks of adding nuclear plants to solve our energy independence needs. Well they won't.
We Don't have an energy shortage: We have a shortage of transportation fuels
See the difference ? We don't use "ENERGY" to fuel our cars we use petroleum distillates. If we had the additional hundred nuke plants now they wouldn't reduce the price of gas or even electricity. We can't use what they make to get around.
If we build nuke plants to be green we will only wind up displacing coal fired plants. This is where the bulk of our electrical power comes from. (Over 50% of our current capacity is coal, 20% combined cycle gas, 3% oil (guess what building the nukes isn't going to get rid of the oil either)).
Just how does getting rid of a fuel source we have more of than anywhere else in the world help us ???
Why are we speaking of nuclear power in terms of fixing our reliance on foreign oil ?
Well we have adopted the lefts position on Man Made Global Warming and are looking at the problem with their eyes instead of our own. The left seeks power sources that don't violate the holy carbon content of the atmosphere. They have sold us on the idea that the only good power sources are those that are somehow or someway green. Instead of looking at how to meet our needs, we look at how we can be "GREEN".
We have to ask ourselves are we about solving problems or supporting an ideology that's not our own ? Nuclear power can play a big part in our energy picture but if we build the plants just so we can be more green we will be in a worse place than we are now.
Do you trust the government to redesign our transportation system ??
Remember their part in building it was the roads. We the people have driven everything from jackasses to coalfired vehicles on them. So the question is do we let them pick the winners and losers this time ?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Maybe there's more in his statement than what you quoted, but McCain only said he wants to put the country on the path to building nuclear plants. That doesn't mean we're going to have the Department of Energy build them, just that he's going to move us toward building them.
Given the current mess of regulation in this area, putting the country on the path to nuclear power could be limited to cutting the red tape and perhaps assisting private companies with investment credits. It would also include pushing for an end to the political deadlock over what to do with reactor waste - which is also an issue without an optimal answer at present.
And that's taking the issue on your limited grounds. I don't think you need to be a radical environmentalist to believe that nuclear power would not only insure cheap abundant energy sources into the future but would also serve to reduce carbon emissions through replacement of coal-fired plants. Whether you believe in the global warming thing or not - replacing coal plants with nuclear plants seems like a pretty easy way to reduce emissions without ruining the economy in the process.
That also doesn't address the transportation issue - again, there's no indication that McCain intends to mandate electric cars - but the manufacturers are developing hydrogen fuel cell and electric vehicles based entirely on market forces (expensive gas increases the demand for things like hybrids and alternative power vehicles without any intervention - and if there's money to be made, the car companies will go that way to fill the demand).
In sum - I think you may be looking for reasons to disagree with things the nominee says because you don't particularly care for him. While you are right about energy vs. transportation fuel, I don't see why McCain's quote is so gravely offensive - he is capitalizing on a situation to try to advance an issue that most conservatives agree on - that nuclear power should be part of our plans regarding energy consumption and serves to address greenhouse gas emissions in the process.
He didn't speak of clearing a path, or unshackling our utilities. He spoke of having a specific number of plants by a specific date.
There is also the matter of the context this is occurring in. Last time I checked (Except for california( A state that might consider letting someone build a power plant)) there is no shortage of electricity in this country at reasonable prices.
We currently have some problems with the grid. There is the matter of potential software vulnerabilities and transmission capacity problems but they are solvable.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I definitely don't want the government picking winners in energy (ethanol anyone?) I was just pointing out that I think that electricity (however it's generated) is going to be the transportation fuel for the next several decades. So, it does make sense to talk about future nuclear energy as part of the solution to the issue of $5 gas.
-exits
Then something much like oil, unless batteries can be improved radically.
Using electricity as a transportation fuel is intriguing. (Electricity as currently delivered costs about 50 cents/ gallon equivalent) The problem is the extra 10,000+ cost to the vehicle to make it electric or hybrid.
Then you get the problem of how are we going to provide all that electricity ? Our grid stretched a bit thin currently (Witness the northeast blackout of a few years ago
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
But unless the bottom absolutely drops out of oil prices (and I don't see what could happen to precipitate that), I don't see how it doesn't happen. Shale is the only possible wild card, but there's as many questions there as there are answers and, importantly, to gain any traction it would have to fight against the global warming people which would be an uphill battle.
Regarding providing the electricity, it might not take as much as you think. If our entire automotive fleet were to convert to electricity overnight, the added electrical burden would be something like 20%. Obviously that's a lot of electricity but it's absolutely doable even with just nuclear.
-exits
That does not seem right.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I'm certain that that's what I've read. Though it's not as though I crunched the numbers myself. Let me see what I can find ...
-exits
Here's a blurb from an article just today which happens to be on the forthcoming Chevy Volt PHEV.
"Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), a prominent Boston consultancy, estimates that if the entire U.S. vehicle fleet suddenly became electric, gas consumption would drop 70 percent, and electric-power consumption would jump about 17 percent"
It looks like CERA puts the number at 17%. Other sources I've seen have had it slightly higher, eg, low 20s. Either way, it's not hard to imagine increasing our electrical output by those sorts of numbers.
-exits
that is from the DOE for world usage
This is for U.S. specifically.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/consump.html
Now comparing Transportation vs Electrical we get 28 billion BTU/39 billion BTU
Or something close to 75%
CERA May be correct. I don't know there is obviously things going on in their calculations than presented.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
But two quick thoughts are: (1) a large chunk of PHEV recharging would occur off-peak when the power plants are running at far below capacity and (2) I have a feeling that CERAs definition of transportation doesn't include aviation while the EIA numbers do.
-exits
a lot more than 20%. I did the calculations in this blog
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/ehosterman/2008/apr/11/the_difficulty_with...
and the additional capacity required was closer to 50% to replace gasoline as a transport fuel with electricity. Of course, I didn't account for offpeak reserves for recharging. However, if we replace the whole fleet of gasoline powered vehicles, we're going to be recharging a lot of vehicles on-peak as well as off-peak. Also, this doesn't address the additional transmission capacity we'll need to get all of this additional electricity to the end users.
It backs the AGW crowd into a corner by forcing them to fight against a clean fuel. It discredits the doomsday whackos.
If its smokes them out and shines a light on them as being insincere and McCain can make them defend fighting a clean fuel then it is worth it even if we never build another one.
Which we need to do BTW.
For me it boils down to, do I want to take a lead pipe to the heads of the environuts if it means I have to have bigger government to do it ??
I'd have to go with trying to keep government in check. A large government is these people's goal and tool of achieving their goal. If you take it away from them they become irrelevant.
BTW I want nuclear power. I live in Florida my Utility is FPL which may be the stupidest in the nation. Their generating breakdown, is something like 70% combined cycle gas, 17% oil, and 10% nuclear, (the rest is other).
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
So we can have rational transportation fuels.
And we need nukes long term anyway.
But kudos for seeing the problem of nukes vs. oil.
It's true that new nuclear plants wouldn't do anything to reduce transportation costs today, but I think that it's very likely that we're going to moving to electric vehicles - with PHEV as the stop gap measure. So, I think that nuclear is definitely a big part of the transportation fuel solution in the medium/long term. That said, I certainly don't want the government in the nuclear energy business - we definitely agree there.
-exits