MY TURN: Green future will likely include renewable resources

In Brent Regan’s My Turn column (July 1) he accurately reports that it will take approximately 1,200 billion kWh per year to run passenger vehicles on electric motors by 2050. He acknowledges that because of climate change we don’t want to build more CO2 emitting power plants.

He immediately dismisses solar and wind sources, which I will return to, but he goes on to discuss the nuclear power option. Mr. Regan says that to satisfy the energy demand of electric vehicles and meet the CO2 emission reduction goals by 2050 we have to build more nuclear plants: “We need to build a new nuclear power plant every month for the next 28 years or face severe energy shortages.”

Since it has taken 13 years to build just two new nuclear plants in Georgia, I don’t know how he thinks this is possible. Even if the construction only took the originally planned six years, it’s a pretty slow rate. It is more likely he is trying to scare everyone about nuclear plant proliferation, as a way to dis electric cars. Nonetheless, I am in agreement we should build more nuclear fission plants now and in the near future; it’s just not clear to me how many we can actually get built with the public concern and regulatory issues.

Let’s go back to solar and wind energy sources, and see if they can help us to get our goal.

Mr. Regan stated: “While solar and wind can provide some electricity, they cannot supply all the needs because sunshine and wind are intermittent. Plus they are very expensive. Solar and wind produce "about the same revenue as they cost to build and are only economically viable with tax subsidies.” Let me review these claims.

While wind and solar power sources are intermittent, if we capture excess peak capacity from them, along with other green energy sources, we can store that energy. We don’t need or even want lithium batteries (used for vehicles) for large-scale storage. We can use other battery technology which doesn’t use precious metals. While they don’t have the same energy density as lithium batteries, since the need is not mobile, the footprint can be larger. And even better, we don’t have to use batteries for large-scale energy storage.

For example, the Swiss have built a 900MW storage hydro plant using two water reservoirs at different elevations. Energy efficiency is said to be 80%. In Finland two young engineers have developed an energy storage facility by heating 100 tons of common sand to 500C (932F). The sand is very efficient at storing the heat, losing a small amount over time. They use the sand to directly heat water for a small city (including the community pool). Thus, with other technologies we can reduce the impact in the variability. Using nuclear power as part of the energy sources makes good sense because it is steady base power.

Next, we need to look at the costs. Because the costs of solar and wind power installation have come down, and because their operating costs are lower than nuclear power, new renewable plants do pay for themselves over their lifetime.

Government subsidies and tax credits are frequently in play with large construction projects. They were required to keep the construction of the nuclear plants in Georgia moving forward because of cost overruns. And yet they are not always needed: the Mammoth Solar Project in Indiana, with a goal of 1,650 MW, will be one of the biggest solar farms in the country and is being build without subsidies or tax credits.

Having found that Mr. Regan’s dismissal of solar and wind power might be a bit premature, let’s investigate what has actually been happening in this country.

During the peak of nuclear plant construction in the USA, from 1977 to 1987, 204 billion (204G) kWh of new electricity generation was added. That’s 20G kWh of new electricity generation per year. In the last five years, in the USA, there has been 153G kWh of new wind and 78G kWh of solar electricity generation added. That corresponds to 45G kWh/year; over two times the rate of past nuclear plant construction. The economics must be working out since so many facilities are getting built. And guess what, 1,200 billion kWh at 45 billion kWh/year takes 26.6 years, which from 2022 puts us at 2049.

Now realistically, we should double the rate of new renewable energy construction because we have to replace aging power plants, especially coal-fired. Doubling the rate of new clean power production is possible with high dedication; but it will not be easy. Because of NIMBY concerns, it’s hard to build new power plants. And yes, solar and especially wind power plants also have environmental issues. But there is a lot of concern about nuclear power. The additional security for nuclear fuel adds to the cost, and there is still the disposal issue, which is not getting resolved.

As a side note, don’t believe the false accusation that the carbon footprint of a windmill exceeds what it will save in energy production. Wind energy produces around 11 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated over its lifetime according to Garvin A. Heath, a senior scientist at NREL, and colleagues. That’s compared with about 980 g CO2/kWh for coal and roughly 465 g CO2/kWh for natural gas, Heath found.

Scientists and engineers are developing appropriate new technologies every day. Not only increasing the efficiency of solar photovoltaic cells and electric batteries, but new ways of storing energy. This country (and the world) has a responsibility to convert to renewable energy sources and improve our electrical grid. We have faced such challenges in the past and working together we can succeed.

• • •

James Fillmore is a Coeur d’Alene resident.