So much for 'emissions-free' nuclear power
The proponents of nuclear power often make the argument that nuclear plants are environmentally friendly because they don't emit greenhouse gas pollution. Consider for example this statement from the Web site of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a policy group that represents the nuclear power industry:
Last month, PSEG's Hope Creek nuclear power plant in New Jersey filed a special report with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission after its auxiliary boiler failed an air emissions test. Nuclear power plants typically use such fossil-fuel-powered boilers to generate power when the reactors are shut down.
A test of the one of the plant's boilers in May revealed that its nitrous oxide or NOx emissions exceeded the permit limit for pounds per hours, according to the report, a copy of which was obtained by Facing South. NOx is among the greenhouse gas pollutants recognized as a factor contributing to global warming.
After follow-up tuning and testing, the boiler eventually met its NOx emission requirements. But to prevent such problems in the future (and to eliminate its NOx emissions entirely), the nuclear industry might want to try a little something cleaner for backup power. Wind or solar, perhaps?
Nuclear power plants produce no controlled air pollutants, such as sulfur and particulates, or greenhouse gases.As it turns out, that's not completely true.
Last month, PSEG's Hope Creek nuclear power plant in New Jersey filed a special report with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission after its auxiliary boiler failed an air emissions test. Nuclear power plants typically use such fossil-fuel-powered boilers to generate power when the reactors are shut down.
A test of the one of the plant's boilers in May revealed that its nitrous oxide or NOx emissions exceeded the permit limit for pounds per hours, according to the report, a copy of which was obtained by Facing South. NOx is among the greenhouse gas pollutants recognized as a factor contributing to global warming.
After follow-up tuning and testing, the boiler eventually met its NOx emission requirements. But to prevent such problems in the future (and to eliminate its NOx emissions entirely), the nuclear industry might want to try a little something cleaner for backup power. Wind or solar, perhaps?
Labels: energy policy, nuclear power
1 Comments:
The statement NEI made is true and remains so. Nuclear energy does not release any greenhouse gases.
As to the question of the backup generator, every single source of electricity generation must have backup power to use in case of emergencies. Of course, what you fail to mention is that nuclear energy, with an industry-wide capacity factor of above 90%, rarely needs to rely on those sources of backup power.
Conversely, the capacity factors of solar and wind are generally pegged at 33% and 25% respectively -- which means they need to be spelled by backup capacity far more often than nuclear energy. And when that happens, what kind of energy replaces them? If you guessed fossil fuel generation like coal and natural gas, you're right.
So, in this case, the weakness you believed you identified in nuclear energy is actually far more common when it comes to sporadic sources of energy like solar and wind.
In turn, because of their intermittent nature, neither solar nor wind can serve as backup generation for any other source.
Post a Comment
Return to Facing South's main page