I’m going to agree with the others. The writer is talking beyond his competency.
His main point is that, since nuclear plants don’t lend themselves to being peakers, that they are not the answer. This is his sleight of hand. We’re not looking for “the” answer, we’re looking for answers, of which nuclear power can be a key part of the answer.
This is a sleight of hand that is used to undercut any and every action we try to take; since its not “the” ultimate and definitive answer, we ought not do it. Is ANWR going to solve all of our energy needs? No? Then we’re kidding ourselves to drill there at all. Is drilling off California going to solve all our needs? No? Then best not drill at all. Is a new wind farm going to solve all our needs? No?
You can see how the game is played. The end result is always paralysis.
If nukes don’t make great peakers, that should stop us from building about a hundred of them to take up the base load. That will take a while, and the question of “surplus” nuclear energy isn’t going to be an issue for quite a few years.
And when we get to the day that surplus nuclear power is a “problem”, isn’t that what we want? How else are we supposed to power those electric cars we’re supposed to want? And when would they be charging? At night?
At night. Exactly. Build enough nukes to cover daytime requirements, and at night while we all sleep, we’ll all charge our cars. Nat gas plants will be our peakers, just as they are now. Its not a problem.
My answer to questions like this, nuke versus wind versus bio versus natgas versus coal is let a thousand blossoms bloom. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. But nuke is another basket we have hardly begun to use.
Excellent post. I agree with all of it. I wish I had wrote it myself.
Meant to say "that shouldn't stop us"
Nuclear power as a piece of our energy puzzle sounds reasonable.
But I wonder what quantity of uranium reserves we have access to for the future? Also, have we actually found a feasible solution to removal of the waste - the old NIMBY argument always comes up.
You're right!!! Analysis paralysis, generated by GANG-GREEN!!!
Exactly. I’ve tried to make the same point twenty to thirty times, and have been shot down for having made the case.
This topic is so frustrating. You’re exactly right, and it baffles me why folks don’t understand why.
I think that the author’s point was the nuclear power isn’t going to be the panacea that McCain or anyone else(including me) thought it was going to be. Seriously, I thought outside of the need for potable fuels, nuclear power could solve all our problems if it wasn’t for those lefty “I watched China Syndrom” idiots who dismiss the benefits of nuclear power out of hand. This article puts forth the idea that nuclear power can be only part of the mix(and to a much lesser degree than I had previously thought).