Alternative Energy No Substitute For Clean Nuclear
Posted 06/09/2014 05:29 PM ET
Wind
and solar power, once viewed as our best hope for abundant supplies of
zero-carbon energy, are distracting us from what might be the real
solution: nuclear power.
The time has come for states to reconsider their mandates requiring that a share of electricity come from renewable energy sources, and instead consider a more direct and sensible policy in support of nuclear power.
Currently 30 states have renewable power standards designed to promote the use of wind and solar power, which are carbon-free, non-polluting sources of energy. Among the most ambitious, California's standard mandates that the state generate one-third of its electricity from renewables by 2020.
But the hype over wind and solar power as clean and renewable is undermined by their fatal flaw — intermittency.
Realistically, you can't produce wind and solar power when people need it. Electricity from both is only available when nature cooperates. Power production fluctuates wildly, depending on the weather.
The amount of energy that the average wind turbine produces annually is equal to just 20% to 30% of the amount of energy that would result from year-round operation at full capacity, and there is no proven storage technology that would make wind an around-the-clock base-load provider.
Marginal Return
The capacity factor for solar power runs closer to 20%. Together, wind and solar power contribute only marginally to U.S. energy supplies, accounting for just over 4% of U.S. electricity production in 2013, despite billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.
And they cannot come close to replacing conventional sources of base-load power generation.
Most renewables collect extremely diluted energy, requiring large areas of land. Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University has estimated that a wind farm equivalent in output and capacity to a 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant would occupy 298 square miles.
The solar photovoltaic equivalent would occupy 58 square miles. And wind turbines cause visual and noise pollution and kill huge numbers of birds.
Furthermore, as intermittent electricity sources, wind and solar power must be backed up by standby generation that can be dispatched on demand — usually from natural gas.
Emissions Washout
To use more wind and solar increases the need for backup power, and the associated emissions that come with it will largely cancel out any emissions savings from renewables.
In short, wind and solar production won't make much of a difference in reducing emissions, and meaningful levels of production have, at best, a negligible positive impact.
The time has come for states to reconsider their mandates requiring that a share of electricity come from renewable energy sources, and instead consider a more direct and sensible policy in support of nuclear power.
Currently 30 states have renewable power standards designed to promote the use of wind and solar power, which are carbon-free, non-polluting sources of energy. Among the most ambitious, California's standard mandates that the state generate one-third of its electricity from renewables by 2020.
But the hype over wind and solar power as clean and renewable is undermined by their fatal flaw — intermittency.
Realistically, you can't produce wind and solar power when people need it. Electricity from both is only available when nature cooperates. Power production fluctuates wildly, depending on the weather.
The amount of energy that the average wind turbine produces annually is equal to just 20% to 30% of the amount of energy that would result from year-round operation at full capacity, and there is no proven storage technology that would make wind an around-the-clock base-load provider.
Marginal Return
The capacity factor for solar power runs closer to 20%. Together, wind and solar power contribute only marginally to U.S. energy supplies, accounting for just over 4% of U.S. electricity production in 2013, despite billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.
And they cannot come close to replacing conventional sources of base-load power generation.
Most renewables collect extremely diluted energy, requiring large areas of land. Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University has estimated that a wind farm equivalent in output and capacity to a 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant would occupy 298 square miles.
The solar photovoltaic equivalent would occupy 58 square miles. And wind turbines cause visual and noise pollution and kill huge numbers of birds.
Furthermore, as intermittent electricity sources, wind and solar power must be backed up by standby generation that can be dispatched on demand — usually from natural gas.
Emissions Washout
To use more wind and solar increases the need for backup power, and the associated emissions that come with it will largely cancel out any emissions savings from renewables.
In short, wind and solar production won't make much of a difference in reducing emissions, and meaningful levels of production have, at best, a negligible positive impact.
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-brain-trust/060914-703954-mark-perry-nuclear-power-is-cleaner-than-the-green-alternatives.htm#ixzz34EozUAQ5
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment