LA Weekly

Judith:

I am having a problem with the math backing the assertion that spending $3.2 Billion to purchase 3,000 MW of solar power CAPACITY is a bargain compared to spending between $1.2 Billion and $2.0 billion to add another 25 years of life for plants that represent a bit more than 4,300 MW of nuclear plant CAPACITY.

Even without complicating the problem with the not so minor issue of the average annual production percentage of the two types of fuel, it seems apparent that the nuclear power option is cheaper.

3.2 billion for 3,000 MW is almost 1,110 per kilowatt of solar capacity

Using the high estimate for the nuclear plant maintenance is 2.0 billion for 4,300 MW is about $465 per kilowatt or less than half as much.

Now throw in that capacity factor issue - since the sun sets every single day like clockwork, and since days are shorter in winter, and since even California has a cloud now and then, the average capacity factor for solar panels is less than 25%. Those 3,000 MW of panels will produce about 6.5 million MW-hours of power each year.

Both of California's nuclear stations have lifetime capacity factor averages of about 80% (http://www.nei.org/documents/U.S._Nuclear_Power_Plant_Capacity_and_Capacity_Factors.pdf).

That means that each year, California receives about 30 Million MW-hours of electrical power each year from those "expensive" nuclear plants - nearly 5 times as much as they would from the "bargain" solar power program described.

One more complicating issue - the CPUC has already told the utilities that own Diablo Canyon and San Onofre that they will not be able to recover costs in excess of the lower of the above estimate. What mechanisms are in place to compensate taxpayers if people improperly install those solar collectors and thus do not produce as much power as expected?

Hi Rod --

Factoring in the rising cost of uranium, the inevitable looming expense of building better on-site waste-storage facilities (because Yucca Mountain's future looks bleak) . . . I'm not sure how the math works out. I'd have to sit down with a pencil and a spreadsheet, frankly.

But I don't think it's an either/or proposition. I think we should use every energy source that doesn't spew CO2 we can get our hands on, as fast as we can.

Solar offers a certain kind of decentralized energy nuclear can't possibly compete with. And it isn't that terribly hard to set up. I'm running a considerable length of holiday lights on two solar panels and a couple of deep-cycle batteries. I keep thinking, "What if everyone did this?"

Never in my lifetime will I run my lights off my own little backyard reactor. We all know what happened to the boy scout who tried.

Thanks for writing, Rod. I enjoy the discussion.

Judith

Judith:

Agreed. Backyard nuclear plants operated by a boy scout or a journalist might not be such a good idea.

However, how about a neighborhood, shopping mall, industrial park, or college campus reactor where the system is operated by a small team of trained professionals each with several years worth of experience and formal certifications under their belt?

Not quite as decentralized as home power, but perhaps more practical and more likely to result in real life coal fired power replacement.

I need some clarity - is the goal putting a little power into the hands of everyone, or putting enough power into the hands of some new thinkers to get rid of some of our dependence on fossil fuels?

I, too enjoy discussion and learning from other people's points of view.

Find search engines across the world with Search Engine Colossus

Gain quick, efficient access to search engines from countries around the world with Search Engine Colossus - International Directory of Search Engines...