The nuclear option
Colorado stands to gain from renewed interest in atomic power
Rocky Mountain News
Published June 10, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Surging oil prices, a shift away from traditional energy sources like coal and a desire to ease our dependence on all fossil fuels have led policy-makers here and around the world to take a fresh look at nuclear power.
Colorado's only nuclear plant, the Fort St. Vrain facility in Weld County, may have closed nearly 20 years ago. But the state stands to benefit from renewed interest in atomic energy - both as a major source of uranium to fuel plants and as a possible site for a new power reactor.
We're encouraged by both developments. Colorado ranks third nationally in uranium reserves. And with ore prices surging, from less than $10 a pound earlier this decade to roughly $65 a pound now, thousands of mining claims were filed on federal lands within the state last year. New technologies such as the in-situ process promise lower environmental impacts than surface mining; these new extraction methods may allow safer removal of uranium and with less disruption to the landscape.
We're much less confident that Colorado will become home to a new nuclear reactor, however. It's been a dozen years since the last U.S. nuclear plant went on line. And until recently, Xcel Energy has shown no interest in adding nuclear to its portfolio.
That may be changing, and if so, Xcel's involvement would be essential. An Xcel spokesman told the Rocky that the utility is "certainly" considering nuclear in its long-term planning.
That could boost the prospects for nuclear power locally. The Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association power wholesaler is looking into a nuclear plant on land it owns near Holly.
Tri-State doesn't have access to the capital needed for a new nuclear facility - a proposed plant in Georgia of the scale Tri-State is considering could cost $13 billion. Xcel can go to capital markets and raise that money, however - which would make a partnership between Xcel and Tri-State eminently sensible at that location.
Tri-State had originally considered building a coal-fired plant at Holly. So why consider nuclear? It may be difficult to fathom, but concerns about climate change may actually make "dirty," coal-fired power plants more radioactive (as it were) than nuclear energy to regulators. Nuclear power produces no greenhouse gas emissions, making it an increasingly attractive alternative to coal, plentiful as that source of fuel may be.
Several prominent Colorado officials with strong environmental credentials may give nuclear power another chance. Gov. Bill Ritter's Climate Action Plan announced last year envisioned a nuclear component in the state's long-term energy mix. Rep. Mark Udall, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, is inclined to agree - so long as safety concerns surrounding the disposal of radioactive waste are met.
To be sure, advances in waste disposal technology might not move fast enough to convince these longtime skeptics to give nuclear power a much larger role in domestic energy production.
But rising crude prices have prodded Saudi Arabia to launch a civilian nuclear program. If oil barons atop some of the world's largest petroleum reserves consider nuclear power a competitive energy source, U.S. opponents of a safe, clean form of power that now provides 20 percent of domestic electricity supplies look increasingly out of touch.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Holiday Lights
Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.
-
Holiday Gift Guide
Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's midweek rant on the Chiefs.
-
Broncos Video
Get the latest from Dove Valley as the Broncos prepare for Sunday's matchup.
-
Calendar wallpaper
Download this month's desktop wallpaper calendar
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Stirrin' the Soup with Matt Iseman
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
Read the Rocky's coverage of Colorado's cannibal, Alfred Packer, in 1886.
June 10, 2008
6:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
I remember 3 Mile Island and almost within weeks of that happening the movie "The China Syndrome" was released. On top of that came the anti-nuclear rock concerts and the rallies and protests out at Rocky Flats (aimed at weapons - but still the 'fallout' hit peaceful nuclear uses too). All that pretty much killed the use of nuclear power in the USA, though we do get about 20% of our power from nuclear. The French get about 80% I believe and many countries are up in the high percentile area too. Not that I want to emulate the French on too many things but on this issue they got it right way ahead of the curve - because they have no domestic oil supplies. I think we need to revisit nuclear too. I hope that we can overcome the hysteria from those that would have us ignore this power source as well.
June 10, 2008
6:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
The French don`t drive electric cars do they? Nuclear makes electricity.
June 10, 2008
7:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
irisman writes:
Michael took the words out of my mouth. Time to get with the program!
June 10, 2008
9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
FlyfishDude52 writes:
Thanks for the pro-nuclear talk! I agree, let's get several new nuc plants going NOW! The Three Mile island melt-down was decades ago & the only one in the US. Why shy away from it? The longer we wait the more fossil fuel power plants belch forth their carbon into the atmosphere. There is no reason not to use nuclear reactors for electricity generation. It can't stop the pollution from automobiles but is a huge step in the right direction for electrical needs, which, by the way, are still increasing.
June 10, 2008
9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
ofcourse writes:
I lived in Houston when oil went to $12 a barrel in the 80's. The drillers and wildcatters went bust. They never recovered. I watched riggs being cut up for scrap. Americans in their infinite wisdom just don't get it. Now that we're feeling the pain, there getting it. Guess what, it will take two years to get legislation passed and five years for a refinery to come on line, Nuclear ten years. Special interests and the shear lack of leadership and guts
have taken us to the fork in the road. Ladies and gentleman, please...once a month write your congressman and express your opinion. It's easier than you think.
June 10, 2008
11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
Try Coal
Coal is best choice for electricty and the best potenial for Coal to Liquids transportation fuels. We just need to kill the climate change boogeyman.
www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/NatGasPowerIndWhitepaper.pdf
June 10, 2008
12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
TryThinking,
I'm glad you are back. I've been meaning to ask you a question for a while. You introduced me to concentrated solar some time ago and indicated that it had great promise. How great? Could you see it at least working "alongside" coal plants as part of the grid? What about wind pumped and water pumped storage?
June 10, 2008
1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
Coal, isnt it mined using diesel powered machinery, then transported to diesel powered locomotives aboard diesel powered tractors (trucks) then burned? How about a nice geothermal plant, or hydroelectric, or yes, nuclear, or better yet, all of the above and wind turbines and solar, anything we do at this point would be a step in the right direction. But then, we might upset a snail darter, so nevermind.
June 10, 2008
2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
Anarchist,
You are right; a diverse energy supply is the best. A sane combination of non-renewable, renewable and conservation will provide the best system. Coal can and should be burned near were it is mined. It is much easier and cleaner to ship electrons (BTW I know they don't actually move) than to ship millions of tons of coal. Diesel can be made from coal. The Germans did it during World War 2 and the South Africans did it in response to sanctions.
Greenleaf,
If the thermal storage can be worked out, concentrated solar thermal energy has huge promise. According to one source a 93 square mile site in the desert southwest could provide enough power for the entire USA. The storage technologies for wind and hydropower are available today. The biggest problem is investment payback. A wind turbine only operates 33% of the time, so a 1.5 MW wind turbine can provide 3,944 MWhrs per year (8760 hours per year x 33% x 1.5 MW). If you need power 24 x 7, you would need to install 3 1.5 MW turbines. That triples the cost. If you add in storage that further increase the cost. So in effect you have 4 x the investment without an increase in the revenue side, to pay for it. That is why a wind only system is impractical. Diversity is the key. A mix of clean coal, nuke, wind, gas, hydro solar and storage, all doing what they do best provide the cleanest cheapest most sustainable total grid. Combine that with conservation and you have a winner. What the policy makers try to do is to favor one technology over another for reasons that they only know. I keep going back to corn-based ethanol. It is a winner if and only if you happen to farm corn or need an early primary victory in Iowa. Other than that it is a total bust. Let the technologies stand or fall on their own merits.
June 10, 2008
2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
Greenleaf,
I'll anticipate a question. Why not build this 93 square mile solar thermal site? I know from previous posts that you are a businessman. The development process for such a project would be incredible. First you need to do find a suitable location that you can afford to lease or purchase, then an environmental impact study would need to be conduced to make sure the site didn't impact migratory patterns and that some previously unknown ant lived in the area. Then you would need to conduct a antiquities survey to make sure no early American or Native American site were disturbed. Then you would need to secure rights of way for transmission lines, access roads etc. The you would need to convince a bank that the project could make (EBITA) at least 2 times the annual debt service prior to getting a loan. The bank would require insurance (how do you insure 93 square mile of mirrors?). After that is done you need to determine capital and O&M cost and negotiate for someone (credit worthy) to buy the power for 30 years. All this time hoping that the environmental community doesn't change its mind on what is acceptable. For example what if it is found that a protected bird can’t fly across 93 miles of mirrors? What effect would a dust storm have on the mirrors? How do you wash 93 square miles of mirrors in an arid climate?
June 10, 2008
2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
Sorry I was wrong on the size of the solar field. It is 93 miles per side or 8649 square miles.
June 10, 2008
3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
windbourne writes:
Time to combine techs. Nuclear will take a while to build (5-7 years if fast tracked). But a relatively clean coal or gas plant can be up in a year or two. A nuclear is better choice for long term power. So combine these 2.
Have a plant start with coal/gas (boiler powering generators), followed by nuke reactors to built. This has the advantage of allowing reactors to be taken down while using gas/coal to power boilers. In fact, if Xcell did not want the investment of gas boilers to be sitting around, once the nukes are up, they could tear down the boilers and use them for another plant elsewhere (esp. if they were going to repeat this over again).
This approach would allow Xcell/tri-state to make money on cleaner power while building the nuke option.
June 10, 2008
3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
bxwatso writes:
93 miles on a side is the size of some states. AFAIK, there has never been a structure or system of this size ever built. The cost would be incalculable.
Also, just in case anyone got the wrong idea from the prior posts, electricity does not transport well over long distances. It is more cost effective to transport the fuel to the plant rather than the electrons from the mine location.
I've mentioned this before, but I'll do it again: There is no good place to build a hydro dam in Colorado that I know of. There is no geothermal source capable of making steam in Colorado. There is no currently feasible energy storage method to store wind or solar power for later use (needed for when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine).
The ONLY source of electricity that is currently operating at a meaningful industrial scale that produces essentially no air pollution is nuclear.
June 10, 2008
4:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
bxwatso,
I disagree with you statement "electricity does not transport well over long distances. It is more cost effective to transport the fuel to the plant rather than the electrons from the mine location." Losses associated with Arizona Public Service TransWest Express Project put losses for shipping 3,000 MW of capacity from Wyoming to Phoenix at less than 10% or 300 MW. This is much more energy effieicnt that the very best train, especially considering the return to the mines empty. LA and most of California get power from a series of AC and DC lines streching into the northwest and Utah.
The two best methods for energy storage are 1) hydro pumps storage (Cabin Creek in Georgetown and Mt Elbert Plant in Twin Lakes) and 2) compressed air energy storage (CAES). CAES reqries a really big hole in the ground or a depleted natural gas field. Hydro Pump storage can be place any where that you have a great elevation change in a short distance (like the Rocky Mountains). The greater the elevation change the less water is required.
There is one good site for hydro in Colorado, namely damming the mouth of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison River, but you may have a hard time permitting that one.
June 10, 2008
6:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
TryThinking,
I agree, that's way to big! I'm sure though that smaller applications could be employed along with coal, along with wind, along with geothermal, nuclear and the rest. You have also made me very happy, fiscal conservative botanist businessman that I am. You mentioned conservation, prominently! You are indeed a kindred spirit more than you realize.
I have another question: how do you feel about the efficacy of drilling to geothermal fields, if not in Colorado? I have heard they are doing a lot in Iceland, which is practically one giant volcano. How would it compare to coal fired cost/benefit. What sort of scale is possible? How about the minerals and salts that would be brought to the surface?
June 10, 2008
8:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
romboweb writes:
Nuclear energy is clean, safe, and efficient. No member of the public has been harmed by nuclear electricity in the last 40 years. Compare that statistic with hundreds of thousands of premature deaths from the air pollution caused by coal burning. The only "problem" nuclear energy faced was a well-organized anti-nuclear campaign based on irrational fear and they succeeded because the nuclear industry was timid in its response. Perhaps saner minds will prevail this time.
June 10, 2008
11:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Carlgh writes:
I remember the marvel of the Ft St Vrain nuclear power plant. Unfortunately Colorado's first nuclear power plant was a 1st of a kind and only gas cooled plant that succumbed early to combined operator and design error. Here in Washington State we too had a false start that lead to a financial collapse. But the completed 1300 megawatt Columbia Generating Station now runs at over 90% efficiency and is a jewel of clean production of electricity for the Northwest. I am confident to live 10 miles downwind and would support another build. In Colorado, I lived downwind of a coal plant - yuk; and, Pikes Peak almost disappeared from view.
Forecasts for electricity demand require dramatic increases in base load generation. Moving toward plug-in vehicles is wonderful but requires much new generation. Rail should be electric, too.
Politics is the only show-stopper for the proper disposal of nuclear waste. R&D has again started to recycle discharged nuclear fuel thus making a minimum of waste to be buried. Having delayed these waste management options is not so bad. Now we can re-learn recycling from those that copied us and burn waste while generating electricity in sodium fast reactors – U.S. technology at it's best! There will soon be nuclear power plants that generate electricity without water usage and manufacture hydrogen, too.
June 11, 2008
12:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ryan writes:
Wow! I am impressed by the amount of agreement on this issue. Everyone seems to acknowledge the benefits and the safety behind nuclear power. This gives me confidence that nuclear power may be finally thought of as an alternative to our energy needs after having been overlooked for so many years. It seemed the only problem that was ever brought up was the time it would take to get a new nuclear reactor online, and even that person was only stating it to make the point that the project should be started immediately.
It should be stated that nuclear reactors are safer then ever. Many of the new designs have passive safety features that do not require human intervention incase of an emergency. These are the so called 3rd generation reactors. They are more efficient and produce much less waste. There are also the 3 plus generation reactors, though still a ways from construction, they are even more amazing in their safety and efficiency.
For those that like pod-casts try listening to Brian Dunning’s episode on “The Terror of Nuclear Power” (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4092). He lays out the different reactor generation types in terms of safety and efficiency very well in about 10 min.
June 11, 2008
9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
Greenleaf,
Geothermal has alot of value (Geysers area of California), but you need high temperatures. That means drilling very deep here in Colorado. The temperature differential provides the power not the heat itself. If you take 1000 BTUs you can raise the temperature of 1000 pounds of water by 1 deg. You may have a hard time sensing the difference in 1 deg temperature change. 1000 BTUs can raise the temperature of 5 pounds of water by 200 deg. Now the water in boiling, but just barely. That same 1000 BTUs of energy could raise the temperature of 1 pound of water by 1000 degs. Now you have steam under very high pressure and you can do real work with it. Geothermal resources under 200 degs F provide little value for generating power. They are great for direct heating (Warm Springs Avenue in Boise) and wonderful for hot springs (Ouray, Strawberry Springs etc.). The cost of drilling a deep geothermal well is in the millions. The chance of drilling a "dry-hole" is very high.
June 11, 2008
12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Woogford writes:
I'm all for building nuclear power plants. It's just a shame that we haven't been building them all along. The hardest part will be getting all the environmental approvals and NIMBY litigation.