Your name and email are interesting, but optional. Thanks for participating.
Sounds like your roundtable will generate some interesting debate. Congratulations on tackling this vital subject.
You ask: "Is there another way to meet the electricity needs of America in a global warming world without using nuclear power?" and "If we shut down the nation's nuclear power fleet, how will it be replaced?"
The answer to the first is YES, to the second, the answer is: with intelligent use of renewables, including Concentrating Solar Power (CSP).
CSP is a simple mature technology available that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.
It concentrates sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then uses the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and half a million Californians currently get their electricity from this source. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.
CSP works best in hot deserts and it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient 'HVDC' transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may be transmitted to anywhere in the US. A recent report from the American Solar Energy Society says that CSP plants in the south western states of the US "could provide nearly 7,000 GW of capacity, or about seven times the current total US electric capacity".
Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk and www.trecers.net . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from www.trec-uk.org.uk/reports.htm . The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm .
I'm not sure I understand how the CSP works. Is it correct to say that there is no hazardous radio active waste, spent fuel rods etc?
I'm more interested in the greenhouse gas emissions of CSP, since, as I understand it, the facilities require a natural gas supply for heat to keep the salts molten at night.
See you at the conference!
Here's my conmment... we never got around to answering these questions.
Timewise, it turned out to be more an atomic cheerleading session led by Entergy Nuclear (operators of Grand Gulf Unit 1)which undisputedly is in smack dab in the middle of a historical ripoff of one of the poorest African American minority counties in whole USA along with the Nuclear Energy Institute.
The makeup of the panel was clearly biased(7-3)towards supporting a no-holds-barred approach to accelerated nuclear power development, particularly overlooking the many environmental justices issues posed by this uranium-fired industry, like uranium heavy metal poisoning of groundwater for the Indian minority communities leaving around the uranium mines and enrichment facilities.
Paul Gunter, NIRS
Glad you were there, Paul! Sorry you didn't enjoy it. I learned a lot.
George, I've been doing some internet searches and found out more references you can check on CSP.
Concentrating Solar Power (or CSP) is an interesting technology, but it's currently inefficient, expensive, and has notable environmental impacts.
Inefficient
According to the California Energy Commission, http://www.energy.ca.gov/
electri...stem_power.html , all of the utility-generated solar power in the state amounts to two-tenths of one percent of the state's electricity production. Because of the limited availability of sunlight, these systems have notoriously low capacity factors and therefore cannot be relied upon for baseload power.
Expensive
According to the California Energy Commission, http://www.energy.ca.gov/
electri...tive_costs.html , at 13 to 42 cents per kWhr, solar power is *the* most expensive way to generate electricity, hands down. In a time when energy prices are skyrocketing, few people can afford a large-scale conversion to solar power. What's more, due to its low capacity factors, solar capacity must be backed up with additional stand-by power generation, which adds to the overall cost of solar.
Environmental impact
Solar collectors also require a huge area of land, which must be dedicated to solar generation. Even in the desert, this would disrupt the ecology. Additionally, in order for the salts to remain molten at night, CSP requires fossil fuels to be burned for heat. According to a US Department of Energy study, http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy9.../fy98/
24496.pdf , these systems are "hybridized" with up to 25% natural gas. Ironically, this renewable technology is a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions!
Nevertheless, concentrating solar technology, along with many other renewable power sources such as wind, tidal, and geothermal, should continue to be supported in hopes that a breakthrough will someday allow them to be a significant source of energy generation. Today however, CSP is no replacement for baseload energy generation sources. In the medium term, we cannot abandon the proven, effective, and efficient source of low-emission energy that nuclear power has to offer. To learn more about the benefits of nuclear energy, check out http://www.nei.org/index.asp?cat...tnum=1&
catid=11 and http://www.casenergy.org/WhyNucl...66/
Default.aspx
Oh, I enjoyed it. Would not have missed it for the world and thank you Norris for the inivitation.
Its just that I would rather we have talked more about the broader EJ issues of nuclear power than the promotional blather.
The panel by and large was a showcase for a minority of African Americans selectively profiting from nuclear power at the expense of many communities languishing under environmental injustices.
Claiborne County, Mississippi being a prime example.
I thought remarks by Mike Espies' , as the county's attorney, to let "bygones be bygones" regarding how to address the disproportionate adverse impacts that come from the injustice of the Mississippi legislature stripping the predominately black, poor and rural county of 70% of its dues in property tax assessment from the nuke was worse than worthless from a civil rights point of view. It has alle the appearance to defend this long standing situtation in Mississippi of all places. I understand his wife is a lobbyist for Entergy, Grand Gulf's operator who are looking to compound those effects with new nuke construction. That's pretty outrageous from an EJ point of view.
Too bad we did not get into the interesting set aforementioned questions to whoevers credit it was to put them together. That's all.
Paul, NIRS
Commenting by HaloScan
