Don Evans wrote on February 09, 2008 10:08 AM: All,

Nuclear has risks, I'll admit; however, they can be mitigated, if not eliminated entirely. Costs can be reduced with greater demand and limited deregulation.

Through the entire debate I've been trying to state my view of the tenuous position we're in, as a nation. We are, by definition, running out of finite fuels to use. The time to definitively decide that we must shift to non-finite fuels is here NOW. We must, however, have some stable stopgap technology to use in the interim.

There are some limiting factors for our decisions, however. Even if current scientific studies are incapable of showing definitively that burning fossil fuels is causing drastic changes to our environment; is anyone really willing to take the chance? Should we wait until we know for sure, only to find out that it may be too late to do anything about it? In short, coal should be used only if it can be PROVEN not to significantly alter the air we breathe.

You'll notice that I've consistently asked for independent, verifiable proof of assertions, for any technology. The only assertion I don't need any more proof of is global warming as, when a gun is pointed in your direction you don't wait for proof that it's loaded.

Any solution must be evaluated and debated; however, we should not dismiss any out of hand, even coal. In short, we should base our decisions on stopgap energy generation upon what we know; not what we think we know. Cost, efficiency, and RELATIVE safety for the environment are the criteria I'd like to see used.

Unfortunately, tough choices must be made currently, and the available technological options for power generation are limited.

Thank you for the debate.

Don Evans wrote on February 08, 2008 01:24 PM: Mr. Rutledge,

I use the nuclear comparison only as an example. I am in favor of any technology that can give us some degree of energy stability in the interim between our fossil fuel dependence an the inevitable need to use non-finite fuels.

I have to agree with Mr. Henderson on this one; everything I've encountered implies that alternative fuels alone will not function at the necessary levels at the current level of technology. We can change this, but it will take time, economic incentives, and the deliberate shift of policy towards this end; hopefully prior to the full expense of finite fuels.

Let me state that I am not adverse to coal plants, so long as it can be proved not to be detrimental to air quality. This is where I think the coal supporters may come into problems; I don't think the technology is near that level currently.

I suggest nuclear as a POSSIBLE option only because I see it as the lesser of two evils; which would you rather see polluted, the air we breathe, or soil over a thousand feet below the surface?

It's obvious we need the energy to be developed from somewhere, as I don't enjoy the thought of living in caves. Tough decisions need to be made, until alternative energy sources can be improved to the level needed for mass-use.

As for the 100,000 year responsibility; lest we forget that radioactive materials are naturally occurring and last substantially longer in their natural state. And yet, no one thinks that this is where they are deposited after their use. It is only the inter-state transportation of these materials that I see as risky; not the on-site (or near-site) return of these materials to their original state.

S. Henderson wrote on February 08, 2008 09:49 AM: Don Evans

I don’t really have much experience with Nuclear power, so cannot comment on specifics. However one needs look no further than France to see it’s potential. France has 59 nuclear reactors which produce 75% of its electricity. In 1974 France decided after the first oil shock that for national security reasons it needed to pursue energy independence. France has few indigenous energy resources. As a result of that decision France has achieved near energy independence and one of the lowest costs in Europe for electricity.

S. Henderson wrote on February 08, 2008 09:10 AM: Scot Rutledge wrote:

“There are more jobs created through the construction and operation of renewable power generating facilities than coal plants, especially in White Pine County.”

If you look at solar maps which give an idea of Watt/m^2/day you find that Ely is not an ideal location for solar farms, those are more than likely to be located further south. If you look at wind maps you come to a similar conclusion with respect to wind farms. Finally with respect to geothermal potential, Ely again is not the ideal location.

If you consider your statement for a bit you imply that more people are required for construction and operation of renewable power plants that in turn implies that renewables at this time cannot compete effectively with traditional coal plants. Frankly this is the bottom line, if renewables could compete and could in fact result in lower costs to the Utility and it’s consumers we would not be having this discussion.

S. Henderson wrote on February 08, 2008 09:04 AM: Scot Rutledge wrote:

“These new coal plants will still emits millions of pounds of CO2 (EEC = 1.2 million ADDITIONAL cars on the road in terms of emissions) making these new plants hardly clean.”

I find there to be a couple problems with this argument. First the idea that CO2 is a “pollutant” is bizarre despite recent rulings. Second there are around 2.5 million people in Nevada each “polluting” the atmosphere with between .5 and 1 kg of CO2/day due to natural respiration. That works out to be somewhere between 1 billion and 2 billion lbs/year. We humans are one heck of a source of CO2 “pollution”.

“Older plants would be decommissioned anyways due to the standard operating life of these plants. If we replace older plants with increased DSM programs and renewables then we won't need new coal plants. “

If the older plants cannot be replaced by new plants they will continue to operate. The utility has an obligation to provide to the customers, and will retrofit and maintain the older plants, they will not just shut them down. DSM at best is good for around 100 MW and requires cooperation of the consumers, and renewables as I have pointed out cannot be counted on to serve base load. These two factors (DSM and renewables) cannot replace the 1000’s of MW that are required to ensure our strong economy.

S. Henderson wrote on February 08, 2008 08:23 AM: Scot Rutledge

Currently 50% of the United States electricity is supplied by coal, and our energy needs are increasing not decreasing. If you think that that can be replaced in the near term by renewables you live in a dream world. Sources I find to be reliable suggest we have 250 years of coal assuming current consumption levels. Even if we accept your absurd 50 year estimate, that would be more than likely be enough to get us through a transition to other fuel sources considering the current rate of technological expansion.

As I pointed out earlier, which you seem to ignore is thermal solar is not a likely candidate for serving base load due to a couple of facts. It is not available when the sun isn’t shining, and no amount of hand waving will change that. Second there is the regulation issue, as clouds pass over or wind and sand storms obscure the sun output is reduced, to maintain the generation/load balance generation will have to come from somewhere for reliable net operations.

Scot Rutledge wrote on February 07, 2008 11:02 PM: Mr. Evans,

Why I certainly appreciate the wonderful discourse over the past week I must take exception w/ the idea that nuclear might be a solution to our interim energy needs. For starters, it is the MOST EXPENSIVE form of electrical generation, with or without subsidies from the taxpayers footing the bill. From the mining of uranium (a finite resource), the electrical generation, and finally the waste disposal issue, there is nothing cheap nor environmentally sound about nuclear energy production. The Price Anderson act, which makes the clean up of ANY nuclear reactor accident a tax payer expense, is reason enough to not go with nuclear.

Wall Street hasn't backed nuclear for decades.

Also, if we were to attempt a nuclear renaissance, it would take decades to meet our energy demands based on the seven year standard for construction alone.

In terms of the waste issue, we still haven't come up with an appropriate solution. Hardened On Site Storage, or HOSS, is the most reasonable solution for now, but you are still dealing with stockpiles of waste all over the country that are not only hazardous for the environment, but are a serious threat to our national security. Considering the tens of thousands of tons of highly radioactive waste we currently must contend with, how can we consciously continue to produce more?

As we in Nevada are all to familiar with, a centralized storage facility for this waste presents tremendous challenges, from the ability to transport the waste safely across the country to building a suitable dump to store this 100,000 year responsibility.

I offer up these thoughts because I believe we have a moral imperative to move forward with safe and economically sound energy policies in this great country of ours.

Don Evans wrote on February 07, 2008 07:13 PM: Mr. Henderson,

"Coal is abundantly available". Perhaps, but it is still a FINITE resource; as in, it will run out. Not now, not next year, but one day. The fact that it IS a finite resource, moreover, means that its cost, and the associated costs of generating power with it, will fluctuate; with the general price levels increasing steadily as we reach the point where the lights go out. This is by definition. One need only look at gas pump prices to see my point.

We need stopgap technologies between fossil (FINITE) fuels and alternative, granted, but we should focus more heavily on alternative technology R & D, and we should carefully choose which technologies will be used in the interim. The balance between cost, efficiency, and environmental impact I outlined previously would be a good, general start for such an evaluation, I believe.

To use the nuclear example again; unused nuclear power outputs are distributed DEEP underground and away from aquifers. Oddly, this is where they originate from and, most importantly, is an environment none of us inhabits or utilizes for survival. The fuel, more importantly, is also abundantly available in this country. The air we breathe would be the distribution point for so called "clean coal" plants. The technology for nuclear, moreover, is available now; whereas the "clean coal" technology is not.

All of the other points you outlined, Sir, would similarly be met by the commissioning of virtually any other type of power generation plant. Again, why coal, necessarily?

I'm not trying to be difficult. I simply need more convincing that a few radio commercials with some lame promises that imply that using the fuel source of the industrial age is some energy panacea. Numbers, please.

Scot Rutledge wrote on February 07, 2008 07:08 PM: S Henderson:

3. The technology while it doesn’t satisfy the extreme environmentalists is clean compared to older coal plants. Uses pulverized coal technologies with 750 MW supercritical steam turbine units. It will produce 90% less emissions than older coal power plants.

These new coal plants will still emits millions of pounds of CO2 (EEC = 1.2 million ADDITIONAL cars on the road in terms of emissions) making these new plants hardly clean.

4. It will allow for the decommissioning of older plants, thus reducing exposure to potential carbon caps or taxes that might be placed on those plants.

Older plants would be decommissioned anyways due to the standard operating life of these plants. If we replace older plants with increased DSM programs and renewables then we won't need new coal plants.

5. By allowing the decommissioning of older plants less pollutants will enter the environment. If the new plants aren’t built the older plants will continue to operate and pollute the environment something the environmentalists kind of ignore.

See the above response to 4 & 5. In addition, advocates for a clean energy future do not ignore this point, we just have a different solution.

6. It will provide the necessary reliable energy to allow our economy to continue to flourish.

The new economies created through efficiency and renewable energy industries will not only keep our economy moving forward, they will provide new jobs and increased economic stability for communities.

7. It will help the economy of Ely, and White Pine county. The folk there really need it.

There are more jobs created through the construction and operation of renewable power generating facilities than coal plants, especially in White Pine County. They deserve to keep their air quality excellent and their children healthy while improving their economic situation.

Scot Rutledge wrote on February 07, 2008 06:52 PM: S Henderson wrote:

1. To provide a diverse fuel supply. Relying too much on one source like natural gas leaves the utility and ultimately the customers at the mercy of the natural gas market. Natural gas prices can fluctuate especially in the summer during hot weather during high demand.

Both Archer Coal and Peabody are touting coal as a "growth market" -- claiming a 63% increase coal price in the next 3 years. This after seeing coal prices go up 30% in the past 5 years. As for "hot weather" price increase-- solar thermal is a great way to address that cost during peak.

2. Coal is abundantly available.

Again, the "abundance" is based on 50 years of easily accessible fuel. The remainder is going to cost much more to mine based on the geology of the seams and the increasing cost of fuel to mine the coal. This is not a stable fuel source.

Read All Comments