The Exelon nuclear power plant will be 3,000 megawatts.  The plant will use about 75,000 acre feet of water per year, about 25,000 per reactor.  The question has been raised about the demand and supply of water.  The water required will be about 104 cubic feet per second (cfs).  Currently the Guadalupe is flowing over 500 cfs.  Will there be enough water?  That’s what is being studied by Exelon.  It appears they are going to establish a reservoir to store water.  This reservoir will probably hold about 50,000 acre feet of water.  That would allow the plant to run through a dry spell.  Evaporation losses would be more than balanced by the average annual rainfall.  I doubt if Exelon would invest 10 billion dollars in a nuclear power plant if they thought there would not be enough water.  Everyone knows that corporations are corrupt, evil and greedy, but they are not stupid.  You can’t stay in business if you are stupid. No, the only way to do that is with the help of Congress.

Exelon is going to build this power plant because Texas needs the power.  There are other alternatives to nuclear such as coal, wind, solar.

A 3000 megawatt coal plant would burn a staggering three train loads of coal every day.  It would be the largest disappearing act ever.  Every day three train loads would vanish into thin air...cough!  The value of this coal at $60 per ton would be about $2,250,000 per day.  The coal plant would require less water about 60,000 acre feet per year.  The nuclear plant would consume about 385 pounds of reactor fuel, equivalent to 3,850 pounds of yellow cake worth about $231,000 at $60 per pound.  The spent reactor fuel would have lost only about 2 percent of its potential.  However to fully use it a new type of reactor would be required.  If we used this type of reactor there is enough uranium to supply our needs for a million years, assuming we last that long. 

To produce 3,000 megawatts using wind would require installing wind turbines that generate about 9,000 megawatts.  This is because wind is erratic and the capacity utilization is only about 33 percent.  According to cost data from the EIA these wind turbines would cost about 14 billion dollars and this does not include the cost of the transmissions lines to handle the extra 6,000 megawatts.  And finally there is one more issue that has not really been addressed.  Nuclear power plants have a life of about 40 to 50 years.  I seriously doubt that wind turbines have that long a life, I doubt they last ten years...but that’s my guess.

Solar energy is a good laugh.  According to the EIA solar energy in the USA as of 2007 is actually decreasing not increasing as the media seems to indicate.  Solar energy produces about 1.88 watts per square foot.  To produce 3,000 megawatts would require about 36,600 acres of solar panels or about 57 square miles.  The solar panels are expensive and they have a short life and like the wind turbines they require a lot of maintenance.  And like wind turbines they require extra transmission lines because of their low capacity utilization.  Another problem, it was assumed that the panels were always perpendicular to the Sun’s rays...in other words they automatically tilt and followed the sun. I’m still laughing.

T. Boone Pickens is not stupid; I mean we should be so smart.  So when he says he wants to replace all the natural gas (NG) used to produce electricity with wind energy, there must be money to be made, in both wind and NG.  But before we all go running out to build wind turbines we should first take a look at the facts and ask a few questions, with Mr. T. Bone’s permission of course.

First let’s look at the size and extent of what is being proposed.  The table shows the installed capacity for generating electricity and the amount of that capacity that is actually utilized; this information is from the Department of Energy.

2006 U.S. Electrical Generation Capacity, Market Share and Utilization

Three things stand out, the low capacity utilization for NG and wind, and the high utilization for nuclear energy.  This high utilization is for all our domestic nuclear reactors (104 of them), this belies the myth they require a lot of maintenance.  The low utilization for NG is intentional.  NG is expensive; these generators can rapidly come on line and provide surge capacity when there are power failures or sudden load increases.  This capacity is therefore intentionally held in reserve.  The low utilization for wind generation is not intentional, Mother Nature did that and there’s not much to be done about it, although they are trying.

The average NG electrical generating capacity that Mr. T. Bone wants to displace is about 94,450 megawatts (MW).  To replace this generating capacity with wind will require about 144,000 wind turbines, each rated at two MW.  This is about the biggest turbine they use on land.  Bigger turbines are installed off shore because it is easier to get large construction equipment in place.  To replace NG with nuclear energy would require about 110 reactors each rated at 1000 MW.

Some questions: 

First of all we should be trying to get rid of coal as soon as possible.  The NG used for electrical generation would only be enough to displace about 40% of the current gasoline consumption. We are already importing NG.  So either we will have to find a lot more NG or there will be a shortage and rising prices just like we have for gasoline or there will be see-saw price swings between NG and gasoline.  Having two fuel sources will make buying a car interesting.

Also there is no infrastructure for supplying NG to automobiles.  This would require a considerable investment.  In addition I have this mental image of parking my leaking NG car at night in the garage and waking up later about a quarter mile away in someone’s yard.  This will be an issue.  Using NG for cars would compete with using “plug in hybrid” cars, that require little if any new infrastructure.  But they may require further development in battery technology.

The proposed wind turbines will cover an area of 22,500 square miles. Actually they will be clustered in many wind farms from North Dakota to the panhandle.  How will all these wind turbines be maintained?  Probably with a small army, because each turbine requires routine maintenance in addition they will be located in “tornado alley” where extreme weather often occurs – see video. 

Then there is the problem with “penetration” by wind energy.  Penetration is the percent of the total generating load attributable to wind energy.  The maximum penetration is about 10 percent.  Denmark claims they are about 20 percent but they are really tied in with Norway’s grid, so overall they are really only about 10 percent.  The energy produced by a wind turbine is proportional to the wind speed to the third power.  So given that wind is erratic, the energy produced is an order of magnitude more erratic.  This is reflected in their low capacity factors. 

At higher penetrations the supply of power to the grid cannot be controlled.  In fact to get to 10 percent penetration NG backup generation is required to help steady the system.  Mr. T. Bone is removing this NG backup.  He is gambling that spreading all the wind turbines out over the country will steady the generation.  If one area has low wind speed then another area will have high, etc.  But for this to be possible there will have to be a huge investment in new transmission lines.  The transmission lines will have to be about three times bigger than they would ordinarily need to be.

The overall investment required for Mr. T. Bone’s idea will take trillions of dollars.  He would like to get most of this money from the government and the consumer.  I am not against wind energy, if someone wants to invest their money in them, that’s fine.  But I don’t…and I object to using my tax dollars for this foolishness.  This is a prime example why we don’t want politicians, lobbyists and goofy activists deciding our energy future.  Wasting time and money on wind energy will insure the continued and expanded use of coal. 

An easier and more direct approach would be to remove all subsidies, tax breaks and loan guarantees…tax carbon directly at the mine, well and terminal and let the free market figure it out.  Allowing politicians to get more involved in this business will make a difficult situation almost impossible to resolve.  They will do to energy what they are now doing to our currency, financial institutions, home mortgages, social security, medical care, public education, deficit spending, domestic energy supply, and almost everything else they touch…it should give us pause.