NationRight

We’ve all heard a great deal this week about nuclear power; Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are very much in favor of increased use of nuclear power, while the Democrats are far less enthusiastic.  Although I don’t agree with Sen. McCain on many issues, this is one where I couldn’t agree more.  To understand why nuclear power must become an essential part of our energy portfolio, we must understand a little bit about the electricity industry, or, as it is normally referred to, the utility industry.

First, we need to understand how electricity is made.  In all significant sources of electricity generation, except solar, the electricity is made by spinning a turbine connected to a generator.  This generator is basically a coil of wire (spinning from the turbine’s action) in another coil of wire that is stationary.  When the spinning coil rotates in the stationary coil a small electric current is produced.  By having several sections of stationary coil, several small electric currents are produced; these can be added together to create a large electric current, which ends up, ultimately, in our walls.  So, what makes the turbine spin?  In the case of hydroelectric power (dams), it is the force of the falling water.  In all other cases it is steam.  So, where does the steam come from?  That depends on the energy source.  In the case of coal, oil, gas, or other fossil fuel-fired utility plants, the steam comes from burning the fuel in a boiler which, as the name suggests, boils water to make steam.  In the case of nuclear power, the steam comes from boiling water using the heat generated by the nuclear fission reaction.

Second, we need to understand electricity demand curves.  The electric demands of your city, state, or nation is not constant.  As you can imagine, there is more demand in the summer than the winter, because of air conditioners running.  Also, there is more demand during the afternoon, because it is hotter and, of course, air conditioners run more.  Conversely, there is less demand during the overnight hours, because air conditioners run less and lights are usually not on.  There is also more demand during the weekdays than there is during the weekends, because office buildings (and some retail establishments) are closed, or at least are open shorter hours, on the weekends.

All that leads to a demand curve that has a certain minimum power requirement and a certain peak requirement, similar to what is shown in this graph for a fictional day.  All demand curves are different for different towns, cities, or regions, but this gives you a general idea.  So, why does all this matter?  Because certain types of power can only be used efficiently for certain times of the day, based on the demand curve.  The “peak deamand” as indicated on the graph must be met by technologies that can be loaded up (produce more power) very quickly; natural gas is perfect for this, nuclear power is not.  Hydroelectric power is often used to meet these peaks; that is why you see your local reservoir drop during the heat of the day as the dam “lets out” more water.

As you can see from the example curve, the baseload demand makes up the largest portion of the nation’s electricity needs, so the major question becomes how do you meet that demand?  Oil and gas are too expensive and are better suited for peak demand anyway.  Hydroelectric power is perfectly suited for peak demand.  That leaves coal, so-called “alternative combustibles” (wood, etc.), wind, solar, and nuclear.  Currently, coal makes about 50% of our country’s electricity and nuclear accounts for another 20%. (The remainder is largely gas, oil, and hydroelectric… the “peaking power”).  The problem with coal is that it is carbon-based.  In other words, the fuel value of the coal is present because it has carbon in it.  When carbon is combusted, it makes carbon dioxide, which is blamed for global warming.  So, even though some of us don’t believe in man-made global warming, we have to limit our carbon emissions.  You hear a great deal of talk today about “alternative” sources, such as wood, manure, garbage, etc., but guess what?  They are also carbon-based and create the same carbon dioxide problem.  Wind and solar power are certainly viable options, but there are certain issues with them.  Both require an appropriate site (the wind doesn’t blow very hard everywhere and the sun doesn’t shine much in some places), the costs are high (partially due to the ”newness” of the technology and partially due to the fact that these sites tend to be a great distance from where the electricity is needed and transmission lines must be built), and the capacity of these units is small (typical wind farms are about 200 MW in size, while typical coal or nuclear plants are about ten times that size).  With continued research and development, some of these issues will be eliminated and wind and solar power will become a more viable option, but, even then, they are not ideal for baseload generation, due to variations in wind speed and sun exposure.

That leaves nuclear power, which is capable of producing large amounts of electricity perfect for baseload demand, produces no carbon dioxide, and, as an added benefit, is not suceptible to the major fluctuations seen in fuel prices (coal prices have been following the same trend as prices at the gas pump) over the past several years.  There is the issue of disposing of nuclear waste, but everything comes with a price.  To me, that is a small price to pay for more reliable, cheaper, zero-carbon, non-fossil fuel generated electricity.