For some time now I have been standing up for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, despite the fact that the environmental community (and apparently most of our community) is against it. Therefore, severely outnumbered, I have to face the fact that I must be wrong and I apologize for the error of my ways. From here on out I am getting right with solar.
But words are not enough and some form of action is needed.
Right now, the Powerball is approaching $500 million. I plan to win it, and after keeping a few million dollars in spending money, I am going to dedicate the rest to building a photovoltaic solar array that will put the dreaded Diablo Canyon menace out of business once and for all.
Go solar! You guys can chip in if you want.
The first thing we have to do is determine the load we have to replace. In this case, the load would be the capacity of Diablo Canyon times 24 hours, since it operates around the clock. The capacity of Diablo Canyon is 2,240 megawatts or 2,240,000 kilowatts (kW). So the load that we have to replace is 2,240,000 kW multiplied by 24 hours or 53,760,000 kW hours (kWh) per day. Easy enough.
The next thing we have to do is determine the system size, which means dividing the load by the local insolation rate—the amount of solar irradiation per square meter per day. Naturally, this depends on the time of year. Since Diablo Canyon operates year-round and, since we want to completely replace it with solar, we have to use the lowest annual insolation rate for this area, which occurs in December. According to NASA, the insolation rate for our area in December is 2.48.
So, our system size would be: 53,760,000 kWh divided by 2.48, which equals 21,677,419 kW. Wow!
Now we have to figure out how many solar panels we need. A decent solar panel these days has a capacity of about 250 watts or 0.250 kW. So the number of 250-watt solar panels we would need would be: 21,677,419 kW divided by 0.250 kW, which equals 86,709,677 solar panels. Holy Moley!
Now, we need to figure out how much this is going to cost and pray like hell for a serious quantity discount. A 2012 article from the Berkeley Lawrence Lab regarding the cost of solar arrays stated: “Utility-scale systems installed in 2012 registered even lower prices, with prices for systems larger than 10,000 kW generally ranging from $2.50/W to $4.00/W.”
Since the article is dated and indicated that prices were dropping like a rock we will use the lowest $2.50 per watt figure: 21,677,419 kilowatts equals 21,677,419,000 watts. Multiply that by $2.50, and we get a grand total of $55 billion dollars!!!
Say what? OMFG!!! That’s enough to build half a dozen nuclear plants, easy. We would need more than a hundred $500-million Powerballs to do that. Even if we used the average insolation rate for the year, we would still have a cost of more than $25 billion.
Who the hell said solar power is cheap? Solar capacity is cheap, but solar production is extremely expensive. Ask the Germans.
Worse yet, the $55 billion is only part of the cost. Because the sun only shines for part of the day, we would have to have storage for most of the production to make it through the rest of the day, and God knows how much that will cost because they have yet to come up with a practical design. It could easily be two or three times the cost of the panels. Then, we would need even more solar panels and storage to save up for days when the sun doesn’t shine. No effing way we can afford all that.
The moral of story is: The fantasy that intermittent sources of power can completely replace base sources of power is a good example of the eco group-think, shoot-yourself-in-the-foot logic that the fossil-fuel guys love, and they are laughing all the way to the bank. Go for it and toss Diablo Canyon into the briar patch: Nuclear bad. Solar good. Go ahead and do it. Dump nuclear and go solar. Germany fell for it, so why shouldn’t we. We are easily as stupid as they are—just look at who we elected as president. Get real people. Δ
Mark Henry spends his free time doing math in San Luis Obispo. Send comments through the editor at clanham@newtimesslo.com or counter with your own version of math at letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Aug 17-27, 2017.
Mark Henry has made an excellent case against the possibility of renewables (solar in his example) being capable of stopping global warming. More and more serious analysts are reaching the same conclusion – there is no possible way wind, solar and other so-called renewables can do the job.
Stanford trained Google engineers reached the same conclusion about renewables ability to furnish the electricity America needs to curb global warming: IMPOSSIBLE was the term they used.
Each of us needs to focus on the all important energy debate for the sake of our children, grandchildren and the planet. We must got off deadly, planet-killing fossil fuels as soon as possible. Focus on this most important of all issues.
Any organization trying to sell you on the idea wind and solar can stop global warming is highly likely to have ties to the fossil fuel industry that you can discover, or perhaps can’t see.
William Gloege
CGNP.org
I am not a nuclear advocate just for fun. As Mark mentioned above, environmentalists for nuclear are quite outnumbered.
I grew up with very little resources in a little mining town in Arizona. We conserved water (our well didn’t produce much). We didn’t have air conditioning (did I mention we were in Arizona?). My dad personally built and maintained our composting toilet. We used propane for cooking. This is not a comfortable or easy life, despite the fact that I had more than the almost 2 billion people on this planet who have no electricity at all.
If we are going to raise standards of living for humanity, we must collectively use MORE energy, not less. Guess what? I DOUBLED my electric bill a few months ago, and I’m proud of it. Why? I bought an electric car, and am doing my part to help electrify our transportation sector. But the range of the car barely gets me to work and back each day. So, that means I need to charge at night, when the sun isn’t shining. I’m thankful for emission-free nuclear energy each time I plug in my car, each time I open the refrigerator at night, each time I turn on lights when it is dark. Nuclear energy enables me to continue the life that I want to lead in this technological and energy-intense world in which we all live.
If you advocate for “going renewable” as opposed to the more accurate goal of reducing emissions, you better ask yourself how much you’re really willing to sacrifice. And recognize that a majority of humanity will NOT be willing to make those same sacrifices.