This page was last updated on March 28, 2011.
Pulling the plug; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 27, 2011.
As I’ve noted in my critiques for awhile now, a review of Times editorials shows it doesn’t like nuclear power plants. Now, however, the Times explicitly states its opposition to “atom-based energy.”
Before I proceed, let’s put the current Japanese disaster in local context. According to an article in the Times, “The strongest recorded earthquake in Pennsylvania, according to the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, measured 5.2 on the Richter scale. It was centered near Pymatuning Reservoir in Crawford County, Pa., and Ashtabula County, Ohio, and struck in September 1998.” At 9.0 on the Richter scale, the Japan earthquake was over 500,000 times {[10(9.0-5.2)]1.5} more powerful than the reported 1998 PA quake. Yes, you read that right; more than 500,000 times more powerful. According to the aforementioned article, “A statement from First Energy said the Beaver Valley site - which includes two nuclear reactors – ‘is capable of withstanding at least a 5.8 Richter scale magnitude of earthquake.’” A 5.8 quake is about eight times more powerful than a 5.2 quake. Also, unlike the subject Japanese plant situated right next to the ocean, I think it’s safe to assume tsunamis aren’t a problem for us. As for floods, the plant is about 40’ above the 100-year flood elevation.
The editorial said, “Even before the earthquake and tsunami devastated Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plants, The Associated Press reported Germany was phasing out nuclear energy because of its inherent risks.” What the editorial didn’t mention is the policy was initiated when the Social Democrats and Alliance ‘90/The Greens controlled the German government. Both are leftist groups.
The editorial goes on to say, “But after the disaster, the conservative government of Chancellor Angela Merkel accelerated the process.” This is a bit of deception. To a large degree, being “conservative” in German politics simply means not being as far left as the rest. It’s probably not a perfect analogy, but think of “blue dog” Democrats in the U.S.; they claim to be fiscally “conservative,” but they are not conservatives. Would you call U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA4) a conservative? No, unless you’re a leftist.
Let’s say we want to replace Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS) with wind turbines. BVPS capacity is 1,890 MW. The largest GE wind turbine is currently 2.5 MW. Matching BVPS output would require 756 of these wind turbines [hubs about 328’ high (over 32 stories) with rotor diameters of about 328’] and this assumes they were operating in winds constantly above about 12 mph, 24 hours per day, seven days a week. (Throw in another 984 wind turbines to replace the coal-fired Bruce Mansfield Plant across the street from BVPS.) You’d actually need more to account for times of lower wind speeds because there’s no way to store surplus generated energy. Let’s also remember the amount of land required for this number of turbines. I’ll go out on a limb and guess the Times and just about everyone else would complain about the area of land required (probably not in hidden valleys) and the noise generated. I’ll also predict the Times would claim the solution is a modern grid that could take power generated from wind farms in the west or offshore and deliver it where needed. That’s the purpose of the Felix Matthes quote. This is the classic NIMBY approach, not in my backyard. Of course, that begets the problem of high-voltage transmission lines no one wants. It also introduces inefficiency because every mile of power line results in power loss, meaning even more wind turbines. Finally, what do we use when the wind isn’t blowing? We’d still need some amount of “nonrenewable” energy to provide coverage. As the old saying goes, “there ain’t no free lunch.”
Swap sunlight for wind and solar farms have problems similar to wind farms plus you’re guaranteed a minimum number of zero-generation hours per day depending on hours of daylight, and that depends on the day of the year and the solar farm’s latitude.
The editorial refers to “Felix Matthes of Germany’s renowned Institute for Applied Ecology.” Notice the adjective “renowned.” The editorial doesn’t tell us “renowned” by whom. There are more Institutes for Applied Ecology than you can shake a stick at. Wikipedia’s entry for Germany’s version appears to come from the Institute’s website and that entry asserts the organization emerged “in 1977 from the anti-nuclear movement.” Surprised the Times would cite an anti-nuclear power advocacy group in an anti-nuclear power country to support an anti-nuclear power position? Not if your familiar with the Times editorial body of work. Read the organization’s principles mission statement and it’s a bunch of feel-good language we usually get from lefties peddling something no one wants.
While the editorial told us all about Germany, it failed to mention France. Nuclear power produces over 75% of France’s electricity, produces enough electricity to export, and France has no plans to phase it out. I’m sure the only reason the editorial omitted France is the authors ran out of space. <g>
As I’ve noted before, you can identify leftist-approved energy sources because they are not currently technically and/or economically viable enough to provide large amounts of energy. As soon as a “green energy”/renewable source gets close to commercial viability, it’s no longer deemed “green.” We’ve seen this with some hydro, wind, and solar projects.
Finally, I’ve written before I have no problem with “renewable” energy and I encourage its use when it makes economic sense. This is the same position I take with all forms of energy production. What I take issue with is pinning our present and future solely on “energy conservation and development of renewable energy” while tying our hands behind our back regarding domestic production of coal, natural gas, nuclear, and oil-based energy. Instead, we need to let the marketplace do its job without government interference beyond that deemed necessary by limited-government principles.
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.