Even in good economic times the lure of high paying jobs can be almost as powerful as the gravity of a black hole. As today's Salt Lake Tribune story makes clear, the promise of decent, stable employment is apparently enough to get most residents of Emery County on board with a proposal for an expensive nuclear power plant requiring water the Green River can't spare.
Certainly no one can be opposed to job security and a decent wage. Too often debates such as the one now getting underway regarding the construction of a nuclear power plant on the Green River are framed as a choice between jobs and tree hugging liberals who care more about fish than they do people. Once the argument has been simplified to this point, those offering the promise of jobs have won in the court of public opinion no matter how stupid or expensive their scheme may be. The choice should not be framed in such easy either/or terms.
In other states and nations solar thermal power plants are not only being dreamed of, but actually being built. The southwest is poised for an explosion in the construction of these facilities, yet so far Utah's county and state governments have shown little sign of any interest in this emerging industry.
Nuclear power's appeal seems to derive in large part from the fact it is technologically complex. Drawing power from something as common as sunshine is relatively easy technologically speaking, and therefore quickly dismissed in a culture that has come to believe technical solutions are usually better than simple ones.
But let's assume just for the sake of argument the Green River could supply the water to generate 3000 megawatts of electricity, regardless of how that water was heated (a point the CEP is by no means willing to concede). According to the Salt Lake Tribune the proposed nuclear power plant will cost between $13 and $16 billion to construct and 12 years to complete, if it stays on schedule. We'll split the difference and say it will cost $14.5 billion. At 3000 megawatts of generating capacity the cost per megawatt will be a little over $4.8 million dollars.
The Nevada One solar plant built just outside of Las Vegas produces a lot less electricity to be sure (64 MW), but it took less than two years to become operational and cost $260 million to build. In other words, it cost just under $4.1 million per megawatt of generating capacity.
The Nevada One facility has some heat storage capacity that carries it well into the night. It superheats a special oil to over 700 degrees and uses this oil to convert water to steam. The oil retains enough heat to continue this conversion process for hours after the sun sets.
Therefore, theoretically at least a thermal solar facility like Solar One with similar generating capacity to the proposed nuclear plant and placing similar demands on the Green River could be built in at least half the time for somewhere between $1.5 to $2 billion less, and that is without taking into account the cost of storing nuclear waste for heaven knows how long into the future.
Obviously there would be considerable ongoing employment associated with such a facility as well. In addition, tourists, engineers and others could visit a facility of this nature without the security risks associated with allowing numerous frequent visitors into a nuclear power plant.
Other solar technologies using mirrors to heat a gas which drives pistons do not require any water at all. Using what is known as the "Stirling engine" (named for the Scottish minister who invented it in 1816), this technology will only work while the sun is shining. However, like the Solar One plant in Nevada this technology is already in operation with plans for plants with up to 500 MW of generating capacity at their peak already in development.
The point here isn't that we should build a solar power plant instead of a nuclear one, though that would be preferable in CEP's view. The point is simply going nuclear is among the most expensive and time consuming alternatives we could consider, and that is before taking future nuclear waste storage or the impact on the Green River into consideration.
In a desert community where the sun rarely ceases to shine even on the coldest of winter days, solar is perhaps only the most obvious of possible alternative projects we could explore that could bring an economically struggling part of Utah high paying jobs with far less cost to electricity rate payers or the environment. Unfortunately, no one seems willing to put their imagination to work and explore ways we can create jobs, generate energy and protect the environment in spite of the fact other states and nations have already done much of the imagining for us.
No comments:
Post a Comment