Skip to main content

Setting the Record Straight on California and Nuclear Energy

The California Energy Commission wrapped up two days of hearings on nuclear energy yesterday, and there was a passage from a story in today's Contra Costa Times that I think is worth examining.

Let's take a look at a claim about renewable sources of energy, and whether or not they could possibly replace the state's nuclear generating capacity:
Not everyone agreed, however, that nuclear power is a necessary component in the energy mix. Environmentalists and some state regulators say that renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, could replace the 4,000 megawatts [actually 4,324, EMc] of power produced by Diablo Canyon and San Onofre.

"There are superior ways to deal with global warming than nuclear power," said Robert Kinosian with the California Public Utilities Commission.
As it turns out, I've been working on a project with my colleague David Bradish on California's energy future, and we discovered some interesting data from the Energy Information Administration.

In 1977, California declared a moritorium on new nuclear plant construction until a permanent solution to spent fuel storage was developed by the federal government. Since that time, the amount of wind, solar and geothermal generating capacity built in the state combined –- that’s 115 plants in all -- still doesn’t provide as much electric capacity as the four reactors at Diablo Canyon and San Onofre.

So after 28 years of building plants, and we're counting plants that were built before San Onofre and Diablo Canyon opened in the 1980s, the vaunted big three in renewables still can't match nuclear energy in generating capacity. Yet the claims still get made.

Here's something else to think about. As we've said before, because nuclear energy has a higher capacity factor, it's referred to as a "high density" energy source. In other words, you can generate a lot of power and not have to use a lot of space to do it.

So what if you wanted to replace California's 4,324 megawatts of nuclear capacity with solar power? To do that, you would need a solar farm covering almost 850 square miles. That’s an area about one-third larger than the city of Los Angeles.

Wind? That's even more daunting, as it would require more than 2,500 square miles of turbines – about four times the area of Los Angeles. These calculations are based on figures from the NRC, which states that 1,000 megawatts of wind requires 150,000 acres of land, while solar capacity requires 35,000 acres for every 1,000 megawattts.

Keep it all in mind the next time you hear or read about renewables being able to completely replace nuclear energy.

Technorati tags:

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Why Ex-Im Bank Board Nominations Will Turn the Page on a Dysfunctional Chapter in Washington

In our present era of political discord, could Washington agree to support an agency that creates thousands of American jobs by enabling U.S. companies of all sizes to compete in foreign markets? What if that agency generated nearly billions of dollars more in revenue than the cost of its operations and returned that money – $7 billion over the past two decades – to U.S. taxpayers? In fact, that agency, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), was reauthorized by a large majority of Congress in 2015. To be sure, the matter was not without controversy. A bipartisan House coalition resorted to a rarely-used parliamentary maneuver in order to force a vote. But when Congress voted, Ex-Im Bank won a supermajority in the House and a large majority in the Senate. For almost two years, however, Ex-Im Bank has been unable to function fully because a single Senate committee chairman prevented the confirmation of nominees to its Board of Directors. Without a quorum

NEI Praises Connecticut Action in Support of Nuclear Energy

Earlier this week, Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signed SB-1501 into law, legislation that puts nuclear energy on an equal footing with other non-emitting sources of energy in the state’s electricity marketplace. “Gov. Malloy and the state legislature deserve praise for their decision to support Dominion’s Millstone Power Station and the 1,500 Connecticut residents who work there," said NEI President and CEO Maria Korsnick. "By opening the door to Millstone having equal access to auctions open to other non-emitting sources of electricity, the state will help preserve $1.5 billion in economic activity, grid resiliency and reliability, and clean air that all residents of the state can enjoy," Korsnick said. Millstone Power Station Korsnick continued, "Connecticut is the third state to re-balance its electricity marketplace, joining New York and Illinois, which took their own legislative paths to preserving nuclear power plants in 2016. Now attention should