Should a green energy strategy include new nuclear generation? Several applications for licenses for new nuclear plants in Texas are pending at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Luminant (formerly TXU Generation) has forecasted that the cost of new nuclear units will be $2,500 to $6,000 per kW. That compares to a Texas-specific study of likely costs for renewables made last year that predicts wind, geothermal, fuel cell and solar projects can each be constructed in a kW cost range of $1,900 to $4,000. Add the uncertain future cost of long term storage of nuclear waste and the nuclear green light may turn red.
However, the question of whether Texas should proceed with more nuclear power should not simply be a question of future cost. We need to consider whether the financial commitment of billions of dollars in new transmission to tap millions of dollars spent on West Texas wind generation would become wasted if we proceed with more nukes. Nuclear generation is designed to run 24 hours a day, not simply at times of high demand. Why would there be any need for off-peak power from wind turbines if we add a couple more large scale nuke plants to the grid? Having committed to a wind generation agenda several years ago, should not Texas policymakers encourage generation options that complement that strategy rather than undermine it?
Furthermore, the billions of dollars being spent on West Texas transmission will not facilitate the transmission of nuclear energy. The most likely placement of new nukes will be where nukes currently reside -- at Comanche Peak and the South Texas Project. A critical ingredient for nuclear power generation is water, and lots of it. Water is scarce in West Texas and becoming scarce throughout the state. Forty percent of all the fresh water in the state is devoted to electric power generation from fossil fuels. Can we afford to devote more fresh water for a nuclear generation agenda?
-- Geoffrey Gay
No comments:
Post a Comment