Solar Energy | July 29, 2009 |
Nuclear Power Probes Deep Into the Heart of Texas
Utility company City Public Service (CPS) of San Antonio has voted to construct two new nuclear power plants as a means of generating power for the growing city, which is faring decently in this recession. Right about now you just reread that sentence and are in shock. Yes, somehow, against decades of halting new nuclear power plant construction, a handful of new reactors have been approved.
Championing this effort is former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency head (under the Bush Administration), Christine Todd Whitman, who says, "Everyone is watching; what happens here (at the south Texas plant) will set the pace for nuclear energy elsewhere." Need I say more? Whitman is correct though, but remember, all eyes were on Chernobyl and Three Mile Island too.
Nuclear power promises an immense amount of energy without the conditions that wind, solar and even fossil fuel energy requires. Some environmentalists strongly support nuclear power because air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions are nonexistent. In fact, without instances like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, nuclear power would likely be a shoe-in for energy generation.
Local support on the issue is quite varied. Some San Antonians support additional nuclear because, well, heck, it is working well in Europe and has been working in the states for years. Others vividly remember the horror scenarios we all know so well. Still, a growing number of citizens support finding additional energy supplies, but are pushing for solar power, which seems to be in an infinite supply in the south Texas city that receives less than five inches of rain during its typically rainy month.
While nuclear power may be blessed by energy companies and a former environmental protection specialist, renewable power, while more expensive, offers greater safety, and safety is a force the public can stand behind.
Reddit
Digg
Stumble
ShareThis
Comments By Readers
While I am not a nuclear energy supporter, I am unhappy with Andrea
Nocito's article. There are several inaccuracies and glossy areas that make me believe she "phoned this one in".
1. CPS Energy already gets 36% of its electricity from South Texas Nuclear Plants #1 & 2. They got approval from the city to become 40% owners of the right to build units 3 & 4. Assuming approval of their license and despite millions already invested, the decision whether to pursue construction or abandon this project WILL BE voted on by the San Antonio City Council in September.
2. Clean energy is not just solar and wind energy, Andrea. While the conditions necessary for solar and wind power are intermittent, geothermal generation is a base-load technology available 24 hours a day. Actually more reliable than nuclear since they need less downtime. (Google MIT geothermal, SMU geothermal department, Ormat, Pratt & Whitney. Solar and wind vs nuclear is a false choice.)
3. Nuclear power plants regularly and routinely release "permissible" amounts of radioactive gas to the atmosphere. The basis for this threshhold is more practical than scientific, and there have been many documented but unreported non-compliant release events.
3. There is a tremendous amount of CO2 released in the mining, processing, and transporting of uranium, not to mention terrible pollution at the mine site of waterways and destruction of ecosystems. CPS buys uranium from Canada, not in our backyard, out of sight. (Google Canada uranium mines.)
4. If anyone, environmentalist or not, think nuclear power is clean and the only solution to base-load demand, they need to do more research. See #2 & 3.
5. Nuclear is far from working well in Europe. Heck, France had to shut down nuclear power plants because a recent heat wave made the cooling water too hot to cool. Well, that could never happen in south Texas.
6. Geothermal, according to the google sites above, is NOT MORE EXPENSIVE than nuclear power. Similar capacity can be had from geothermal plants at costs equal or less than conventional generation.
MIT says geothermal generation COULD SUPPLY ALL the US ELECTRICAL DEMAND BY 2050!
Geothermal generation is by nature distributed, carbon and bio-neutral, and...security bonus - run unattended and unguarded, outdoors.
I give you a C-, Andrea. Much of what you wrote just reinforces pro-nuclear stereotypes. I believe many people who are pro-nuclear are so because they think there is no real, base-load, economic alternative. Please do some research and then help get the word out.
I think the article is pretty average in its investigative research and agree the comments additional info was helpful as well.
In the end Nuclear will win out because the public is use to it and too afraid of new technology like solar and geo / it doesnt have massive millions for lobbying and so the TV and paper ads will portray ONLY nuclear as the ONLY 'reasonable' option. Of course solar, wind and geo are wonderful and cleaner but most humans wont spend more than 10 mins of their lives about this issue, until one starts to have a meltdown within 25 miles of their home/ its happened here in USA and will again.
Then with the help of fundamentalist who are sterilizing our kids science and history books, they will only know 'what the bible says' and thats it.
Ya Texas :(
Post Your Comment