Even the white papers they list on their site, if one really reads them, don’t make their case at all. The first paper was a PhD thesis sponsored by the Fusion Technology Institute. The author uses two metrics (LCE and EPR) to evaluate technologies, but admits that you can’t use either one on all the technologies. CleanTech (nuclear and renewables) should only be measured with EPR. Naturally, fusion wins on the EPR scale. Well, we don’t have fussion reactors and the author admits it could be another 100 years before we do. Interestingly, wind came in a close second, well ahead of fission.
Also, the paper and the website brush aside the waste disposal and de-commissioning costs ($ and environmental and moral) of nuclear energy. How does one amortize 20,000 years? It’s not that I’m against nuclear; I need to be convinced it’s the best option before such a long-term commitment is made. If our transmission lines won’t allow more wind capacity in Texas, then couldn’t CPS use that $13 billion to build more T-lines? They could then become a transmission provider and make revenues off the capacity that the market would certainly add. What about water storage? What about clean coal or solar? Again, these ideas may not be feasible or the best options, but let’s see the studies that say so. I would like to see them, and I think the situation merits closer scrutiny. We have time and shouldn’t rush this, especially when they themselves admit we won't need the additional power capacity for at least another decade! (With the current pace of wind and solar, think of where they'll be in 10 years!)
I agree that Nuclear is not the answer, but for several different reasons. First of all the world that we live in today is very volatile and 1 of the lessons we should have learned from 911 is that it is not a good idea to build something that can be taken out with 1 act of agression. If we become dependent on "A" Nuclear power plant 1 successful act of terrorism could turn off all the lights in TX (not controlled by wind or solar). The obvious fallout of the destruction of that plant is far greater than just darkness.
The second reason is that it is not the most efficient way to accomplish the job. It would be far less expensive to invest that $13 billion in solar/wind resources that could be deployed locally. Energy is lost when it is converted from DC to AC and it is also lost when moved across long distances on Transmission lines. Overloaded systems have blackouts. Storms and hurricanes cause more blackouts. If these local systems were deployed on the rooftops of local businesses, residences and government buildings enough power could be generated to provide power for all of us. In addition, many new jobs would be created that would help to improve the economy.
I agree that Solar and Wind Energy are a big part of our future, specifically small-scale distributed energy, but what do we do in the short term when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing? I'm all for avoiding the cost of a nuclear plant, but no one has figured out how to store solar and wind energy on a large scale basis, and small-scale distributed networks are decades away. In the short term, I think nuclear is the best option in that it is the 'greenest' of all options ... well, as green as radioactive decay can be.
Regarding terrorism, from what I've seen, nuclear reactors are encased in so much re-inforced concrete that it would take a bunker-buster bomb (or more) to take it out. If terrorists find a way to get a bunker-buster bomb AND get it into a bomber AND drop it on STP, well, God help us.
© 2008-2010 San Antonio Clean Technology Forum