Senator John McCain toured a nuclear power plant in Michigan on Tuesday to highlight his support for the construction of 45 new nuclear power generators by 2030, a position that he said distinguished him from his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama.
Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, portrayed his support of nuclear energy as part of an “all-of-the-above approach” to addressing the nation’s energy needs at a time of $4-a-gallon gasoline. He called it “safe, efficient, inexpensive and obviously a vital ingredient in the future of the economy of our nation and in our mission to eliminate over time our dependence on foreign oil."
It's important to point out that Obama agrees that nuclear power should be considered.
I've said before that I think talking about nuclear power as a solution to dependence on oil is simply an excuse to blame the left. The implication is that we wouldn't be in this mess if we could get rid of those darn environmentalists who prevent nuclear power plants.
I am not opposed to nuclear power, but it will not reduce oil prices. Oil is primarily used to make goods and fuels that would not be replaced by nuclear power. Yes, if everyone drove electric cars nuclear power may be part of the electricity supply to charge those cars. But the combination of off-peak charging and coal power could allow us to charge those cars without nuclear power.
I think a big reason for nuclear power's popularity is that many people don't understand off-peak electricity generation capacity. Electric companies must constantly be able to provide power to you so that when you flip the switch, the light comes on immediately. During the day, we use electricity to run our offices and factories. During the evening, while everyone has the lights on and is running the TV, DVD player, cable box, dishwasher, clothes dryer, computer, etc., the power companies have to be able to meet the demand during those peak hours. The problem is you can't store electricity during off-peak hours to meet peak demand. The companies have to buy enough electricity generation capacity to meet maximum energy usage, but during the night this electricity generation capacity is essentially wasted while we sleep. The fact that plug-in electric cars would normally be charging at night allows us to finally use this off-peak capacity. We could replace most gas-powered cars with electric cars without increasing our electricity infrastructure at all. And while nuclear power is better than other power plants in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, our current electricity grid is better than the internal combustion engine on that front. Replacing the internal combustion engine with a battery charged by electricity currently reduces grenhouse gas emissions by 40%.
In the article, McCain describes his energy policy as "all of the above." But offshore oil drilling shouldn't even be considered part of a multi-pronged effort to deal with the energy crisis because it is actually counterproductive for several reasons: (1) billions of dollars invested in offshore drilling is money that could be invested in alternative energy; (2) by increasing the profit margins of oil, we encourage continued investment in oil by energy companies; and (3) to the extent that it reduces prices, and I don't think that it will, it disincentivizes the use of alternative energy. Remember, the purported benefits of offshore drilling won't be seen for a decade. This isn't a temporary solution to ease the burden on consumers. It is a long-term commitment to oil.
UPDATE:
2 comments:
How is burning coal to produce electricity going to reduce the carbon we put into the atmosphere?
I have updated the post with a chart produced by the NRDC that may fully answer your question. Click on the image to go to the PDF.
As I stated, the electricity to power our cars could be produced using the existing infrastructure, which only partially uses coal. Here in Georgia, we already get quite a bit of electricity from nuclear and will be adding more nuclear capacity.
But to answer your question, even if all of the electricity to power vehicles came from burning additional coal, the production of electricity is a more efficient use of fossil fuels to power our cars. The internal combustion engine is extraordinarily inefficient. Only about 10% of the energy created by a gasoline engine moves the car. The rest is lost between the engine and the wheels. Therefore, replacing the internal combustion engine with a more efficient battery engine that is charged by coal would require the emission of less greenhouse gases.
That's kind of beside the point, however, because I'm guessing the people that are so gung ho about nuclear aren't really concerned about global warming.
Post a Comment