First new reactors in the US in 30 years!
October 4th, 2007
|
| Share |
For the first time in my lifetime, the United States will be getting some additional nuclear power capabilities. Two new reactors will be added to a South Texas nuclear power plant. It will roughly double the plant’s current capacity of 2.7 gigawatts to a whopping 5+ gigawatts of clean power. This is great news for Texas and the environment, because the growth of development in Texas combined with increased need for electricity in surrounding areas has lead to the building of several new coal plants in the state. Furthermore, although Texas currently leads the way in wind power and has been building wind farms at a feverish rate, the new nuclear capabilities will dwarf the combined output of all the wind farms in the state.
No doubt there will be continued struggle, thanks to the ECO-STUPID movement, which opposes all things nuclear. However, it’s worth pointing out that a comparably sized coal fired plant would burn over 400,000 tons of coal… PER DAY! (not to mention sulfur dioxide, mercury and other nasties) That’s a lot of coal and a lot of CO2. And wind and solar power has no hope of coming close to the power production of the new reactors.
The new reactors will be of a type which has been in operation in Japan for some time. The Advanced Boiling Water Reactor features improved efficiency and new active and passive safety systems. By reducing the number of pumps and piping, combined with the use of a self-regulating boiling moderator, the reactors will reduce the (already low) probability of a cooling accident causing internal damage, such as was the case at Three Mile Island.
It’s estimated that the whole project will cost six billion dollars by it’s completion in 2014. Much of this cost will likely be due to the redundant site and planning studies needed and the huge amounts of red tape which come with the territory. It’s worth noting that construction of civilian nuclear plants cost vastly more than the construction of naval reactors. The US Navy, which has an impeccable record of safe and reliable nuclear reactor operation, does use much smaller reactors. But in general, the cost difference comes more from the regulations and stupidity which are imposed on nuclear plant construction.
The plant construction will be receiving some subsidies from the federal government, although the amount pales in comparison to the subsidies which solar or wind energy gets. Some sources have falsely reported that the owners of the plant will be getting $500 million from the DOE. This is not actuate. The DOE will in fact be providing $500 million in subsidized risk insurance coverage. Just like your car insurance might pay $1 million in maximum coverage in an accident, the actual price of the insurance is not $1 million. And, of course, that money will not be going anywhere unless there is a major credible claim against the plant. Which I highly doubt there ever will be. In the US, where we subsidize EVERYTHING, that ain’t so bad, especially considering the benefits.
I just really hope this materializes and the eco-stupid folks don’t manage to make a big enough stink to stop the construction and thereby cause a lot more coal burning.
This entry was posted on Thursday, October 4th, 2007 at 8:30 am and is filed under Announcements, Enviornment, Good Science, Nuclear. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
October 4th, 2007 at 11:25 am
You know what I think is *really* eco-stupid? The thought that because something isn’t a 100%, absolute and perfect replacement, it is therefore worthless. You said, “wind and solar power has no hope of coming close to the power production of the new reactors.”
Wind and solar aren’t the perfect 100% replacement. If your boss told you, “I’d like to give you a 10% raise.” Would you turn him down because it wasn’t doubling your salary? Of course not. You’d take the extra, because every little bit helps!
Wind and solar may only help, not replace. Would you turn down a 20% bonus, merely because it isn’t 100%?
Quote Comment
October 4th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Damn Texans. They always have to be first and number one.
I have to agree with Steve, a little, in that we should stop the stupid “my technology is better than your technology” arguments. We need all the energy sources we can get our hands on. We need to use and develop all sources intelligently. They should be efficient. They should provide inexpensive energy so our poor don’t suffer or choose to burn down everything burnable to cook and keep warm (think of areas in Africa). Given the clear correlation between the amount of energy available and life span, we should expand the use of every energy source. Coal would be fine, if we can solve the emissions problem. Wind is fine, when/where it is windy. Solar is fine, when/where it is sunny. I wish I could harness my grandchildren’s energy.
I think nuclear has a clear advantage in almost every facet you can think about (I personally don’t see the waste issue as a problem), and it is wonderful to see it resurging.
Quote Comment
October 4th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Well, wind and solar would be great if they didn’t involve billions and billions of dollars of money spent for a small payback. I’m not sure that’s a good analogy. Wind and solar aren’t exactly worthless.
It’s more like the cost-benefit. Your boss offers you two options. Either get a 50% raise if you work 8.25 hour days instead of 8 hour days OR get a 2% raise if you work 22 hour days.
The “every little bit helps” mentality is why lots and lots of money have been spent on wind and solar and they are still not at 1% of the power production. Meanwhile, coal plants are being built because all those wind farms aren’t enough to even keep up with demand.
Here’s my question: Is it worth a $500 billion investment in a technology which holds the promise of reducing global warming by .0001 degrees in the next hundred years. I mean if it’s only increased by 6.9999 degrees instead of 7.000 thats something, right?
If “every little bit helps” then I suppose we could start packing co2 into little cans and launching it into outer space. That would be “something” Then again, how much Co2 would the rocket produce? But then again… how much co2 did building the wind farm create?
Quote Comment
October 4th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
drB:
I agree 100%.
My comments “…We need to use and develop all sources intelligently. They should be efficient. They should provide inexpensive energy…” include the comments and ideas you expostulate. One of the problems in energy debates is that so many folks get so wrapped up in their “pet” cause, they don’t see the big picture. The cost-benefit concept (when intelligently derived) too often gets lost in the rhetoric, when it should be a strong driving factor in our political decisions. Nuclear is by far and away the leading choice when rational cost-benefit analysis is done.
Will solar and wind power survive? The market place will eventually decide this. Personally I think they have certain niche applications, and are useful in some cases, thus “the every little bit helps mentality” has a practical side to it. On the other hand, I agree that for the amount of money being spent on research in these areas, we aren’t getting much in return lately. I’d bet that a graph of efficiency improvements in these technologies would show a rather strong leveling in the last 10 years. I’ll see if I can find one.
Quote Comment
October 4th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Well, the major problem with those technologies is that there’s a limit to what you can get from them. This is especially true with solar. Wind can actually be economical and make sense in some situations. If you have an area that has a constant wind of relatively good strength and is within a reasonable distance from where energy is needed, then that can work, although it can only do so much.
The problem is you hit a brick wall on efficiency at some point. Solar right now is about 20% efficient in practice in converting light energy into electrical energy. Some cutting-edge laboratory stuff is 30% maybe even approaching 40%. Getting over 50% is tricky, because thermodynamic factors come into play when trying to make radiant energy useful. And more than 100% is absolutely impossible. But lets use 50% as the highest reasonable efficiency you could ever expect.
In North America you’re looking at somewhere around 200 watts per square meter. That’s the total amount of light energy from the sun on average. That’s it. You can’t get more than you have in that area. So 50% you’d do 100 watts. Of course, current technology, you’re looking at 40 watts.
Now that is going to have to be voltage regulated, because the voltage will vary depending on the sunlight. You also need to invert it to AC Current. Generously we’ll say that’s 80% efficient, because voltage regulation can actually use a fair amount of energy. So now we’re at 80 watts. That doesn’t even include if you want the power constantly from solar. Then you factor in storage for the energy. You’ll always need some storage because you don’t want a brownout if a cloud comes by. The power grid does not like having major fluctuation in the source.
Work it out and you find you’ll need tremendous real estate and raw material to get a really large amount of power. Wind is better, but not that much. I once calculated that with a sustained 12 mile an hour wind, you’d need to line the entire coast of long island with large windmills spaced 300 feet apart to get all the energy needed by the population on an average day.
Efficiency is great. I hope they improve it more and more. But you can’t do better than what is there. There is a theoretical 100% efficiency point. That’s *all* you have to work with.
Actually… if you want an application for solar that totally makes sense, how about those solar water heater panels?
They’re cheap. On a hot day they can completely heat your water. No water heater required. They’re simple and efficient, since you’re trying to get heat, which is the most basic form of energy. At worst, they’re neutral. If it’s a cold winter night, they do nothing, but also don’t really hurt, because the convection prevents them from radiating heat.
That’s a good example of “Every bit helps” There’s almost no investment and if everyone did it it would save a good chunk of fuel.
Solar and wind are also a no-brainier for certain applications like remote sensors or radio relay links. Stuff like that which is away from power sources and doesn’t need that much energy.
Quote Comment
October 4th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Your numbers seem a little out of whack. First, a very quick search on Google produces this page for solar energy density:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/ManicaPiputbundit.shtml
It shows more like 1.4 kilowatts per square meter, not 200 Watts (about 7 times your numbers).
In addition to that, there’s more than one kind of voltage regulation or conversion. If properly designed, you can get better than 95% conversion efficiency.
Your comments about solar water heating are quite sensible, though. It’s much easier to use the heat for heat than it is to convert the solar radiation to electricity.
Quote Comment
October 5th, 2007 at 4:31 am
1.4 kilowatts would be the energy density during a very sunny day at noon or similar. 200 watts is taking the whole day into account. Since night has roughly zero energy you have to figure that will drive down the average by a very lot. The voltage conversion efficiency of 95% might be right. I’ll have to look that up.
Quote Comment